I don’t trust establishment politicians. I don’t trust the establishment media. I don’t trust that the two groups don’t have unwritten agreements to scratch each others backs. I don’t trust the establishment, period. The establishment is not out to look after my best interests, your best interests, or the best interests of the common folk on the street. The establishment is out to look after the best interests of the establishment, and unscrupulous people inside the establishment will stop at nothing to make sure they maintain their power and keep their wealth stream flowing. There isn’t a principle they won’t forsake nor a law they won’t break in order to protect their interests, including trashing any system that may help protect the interests of the less powerful individuals within society.
One of the basic principles of a democratic republic is the right of the people to be able to fairly and honestly select a representative that a majority of the populous can agree on. While the merits of this system are debatable, the reality of its effects is not. The vast majority of people will see this system as legitimate and go along with its dictates so long as the laws passed and requests made of the populous remain reasonable. In order for this type of system to maintain its perception of legitimacy, it also must remain transparent. Both these requisites have become extremely compromised over the past decade and more and more people are adopting the perception that our system is no longer legitimate.
Consider this, polls say that the approval rating for Congress is only 11%. I can believe that. That seems right. But when polled, often more than 11% of the people are planning on voting for their incumbent congress critters. That just doesn’t seem to make much sense. Why would so many disapprove of the job their “representatives” are doing, but then go ahead and re-elect them? Where’s the disconnect? Is it apathy? Could it be because they see both major parties as bought and paid for so they don’t think there’s any difference between the two candidates? Is it the “devil you know versus the devil you don’t” meme? Perhaps it’s the “lesser of two evils” saying at work. Whatever the case, it seems to me that a decent third party or independent candidate (with the exception of one Joe Lieberman) might help and a principled one reported on in a favorable light by the mainstream media outlets might have a chance.
So, go to the polls next Tuesday and vote. Vote the incumbents out of office. Vote for candidates that seem to you to be the most anti-establishment. Vote for those who claim to want to shrink government and give the common folk more power. Vote for whatever candidate you feel will best represent your interests. Just don’t expect too much. Don’t expect too much to change. Don’t expect the system to roll over. Don’t expect honesty. Don’t expect truth. Don’t expect any real investigative reporting from the media. These are things the common folk will likely have to do on their own. The system will not change until the common folk stop paying for and putting up with it. It will not change until we make it known in no uncertain terms that we’ve had enough.
Helen Keller’s pithy observation about American democracy being little more than a choice “between Tweedledum and Tweedledee” was never more true than in the upcoming midterm elections in the ninth congressional district of Illinois.
In a district which includes the affluent northern suburbs of Chicago along the shore of Lake Michigan, the central issue is not the two wars—or is it now three?—the country is fighting, nor is it the tanking economy, in great part caused by those debt-inducing wars. No, the burning issue here is . . . who cares more about Israel?
“A Jewish candidate has been trying to convince the mostly Jewish voters that his Jewish opponent has not done enough to protect the Jewish interest,” reports Ynetnews, the English language website of Israel’s most-read newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth. Although less than 25 percent of the ninth district’s constituents are Jewish, and there is little agreement about what constitutes “the Jewish interest,” it’s not a bad summary of Republican challenger Joel Pollak’s campaign to oust the Democratic incumbent, Rep. Jan Schakowsky.
Pollak, an Orthodox Jew born in South Africa, charges Rep. Schakowsky with being “soft on Israel’s security.”
Major corporations such as FedEx, Lowes, McDonalds, Wells Fargo, Verizon, the Wachovia Foundation and dozens of others have lined up to financially support a private organization dedicated to ensuring that Hispanics get to college ahead of white American kids.
The “Hispanic Scholarship Fund” (HSF) says that it “aims to put a degree in every Latino household by 2025” through its affirmative action program in college recruitment.
Funding for the HSF comes from a large number of corporations. According to the organization’s website, these include in addition to the above mentioned: the Mazda Foundation, KLASS Time, GMAC Financial Services, the McNamara Family Foundation, Inc., Goldman Sachs, Procter& Gamble, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Target, the Morgan Stanley Foundation, Nissan North America, the Sallie Mae Fund, the Draper Family Foundation, the Shell Oil Company and the UPS Foundation, among many others.
The HSF says specifically that it is only for “Latinos” and those of Hispanic descent. On the HSF’s website, under their “frequently asked questions” section, the policy is spelled out in no uncertain terms. “Do I have to be Hispanic/Latino to apply?” the website asks. The answer is equally frank: “Yes.”
Tuesday's election, too, will be no embrace of the GOP, but rather a repudiation of what Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have come to represent. All are seen as power-hungry politicians of an out-of-touch regime that is seizing control of private wealth and private lives as it fails in its duty to win our wars, balance our budgets and secure our borders.
Republicans will be the beneficiaries of this repudiation, as Republicans are, almost everywhere, the only alternative on the ballot, and because they are seen correctly as having opposed the Obama agenda with near drill-team solidarity.
Every Republican in the Senate but Arlen Specter and the ladies from Maine voted against Obama's stimulus bill. Every Republican in the House, save eight, voted no on cap-and-trade. Every Republican on Capitol Hill voted no on Obamacare. More GOP senators opposed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan than opposed any Supreme Court nominee in memory.
Tuesday, obstructionism reaps its reward.
On Tuesday, the nation, including millions of Obama voters, will come out to empower the Party of No, even as the nation voted in 2006 and 2008 to throw out that party. While many did respond positively to Obama's politics of hope and change in 2008, as they ousted the Republicans, the nation, after Tuesday, will have voted in three straight elections in four years to be rid of its ruling regime.
The United States is starting to look like the French Fourth Republic.
Just days away from crucial midterm elections, WikiLeaks, the whistle-blower website, unveiled the largest classified military leak in history. Almost 400,000 secret Pentagon documents relating to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq were made available online. The documents, in excruciating detail, portray the daily torrent of violence, murder, rape and torture to which Iraqis have been subjected since George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished.” The WikiLeaks release, dubbed “The Iraq War Logs,” has been topping the headlines in Europe. But in the U.S., it barely warranted a mention on the agenda-setting Sunday talk shows.
First, the documents themselves. I spoke with Julian Assange, the founder and editor in chief of WikiLeaks.org. He explained: “These documents cover the periods of 2004 to the beginning of 2010. It is the most accurate description of a war to have ever been released ... each casualty, where it happened, when it happened and who was involved, according to internal U.S. military reporting.”
David Leigh, investigations editor at the Guardian of London, told me the leak “represents the raw material of history ... what the unvarnished version does is confirm what many of us feared and what many journalists have attempted to report over the years, that Iraq became a bloodbath, a real bloodbath of unnecessary killings, of civilian slaughter, of torture and of people being beaten to death.”
The reports, in bland bureaucratic language and rife with military jargon, are grisly in detail. Go to the website and search the hundreds of thousands of records. Words like “rape,” “murder,” “execution,” “kidnapping” and “decapitation” return anywhere from hundreds to thousands of reports, documenting not only the scale and regularity of the violence, but, ultimately, a new total for civilian deaths in Iraq.
The subject at hand, the anti-interventionist trend in American politics, is of more than academic interest. As I speak, American troops are engaged in two wars, and Washington is threatening a third. On the left, the prostration of the former antiwar movement is near total: the speed and abjectness of the capitulation before the cult of Obama has been astonishing. Never has a movement evaporated so quickly, and with such alacrity, the long tradition of left-wing anti-interventionism betrayed and forgotten. Eugene Victor Debs is spinning in his grave.
On the right, the exact opposite is occurring: conservatives are rediscovering an anti-imperialist tradition that has long been reviled by the former leftists who now “police” their movement. Once forgotten, the slogan of “America First” has been making a comeback in recent years, ever since Patrick J. Buchanan revived it back in the early 1990s, making it the leitmotif of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, it was Buchanan who, in response to the first Gulf war, raised the banner of a movement that had the courage to ask: “Why should a single American die for the Emir of Kuwait?” A decade later, when Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, he was not alone among conservatives in predicting disaster.
Now, in response to President Obama’s escalation of our endless “war on terrorism,” many conservatives are moving into opposition. Cynics may say that this is due entirely to political opportunism, but may I remind you that opportunism in the cause of peace is no vice – and if, in search of a rationale for this turnabout, conservatives care to reclaim their historical legacy, it is there for the taking.
Yet it is on the left that the anti-imperialist tradition is so deeply imprinted that there’s less chance of forgetting it, and no excuse for betraying it. A left shorn of its opposition to America’s wars of aggression is no longer the left in any recognizable sense of the term: and yet that is what seems to have happened to the so-called progressive movement in America, which has been largely subsumed by the Obama cult. As a liberal Democratic President wages two wars and threatens a third – Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – the great historical traditions of the left-wing movement in America are being trod underfoot.
While hyperventilating over the Lauren Valle stomping incident, the corporate media has ignored a far bigger scandal swirling around the Kentucky Senate race – the fact that financial contributors to Jack Conway’s campaign and Conway himself tipped off Conway’s brother to the fact that he was being investigated for trafficking drugs in an admitted obstruction of justice.
The Kentucky Courier-Journal, which has favored Conway over Rand Paul in the course of the Senatorial race, hid the bombshell story behind a relatively tame headline this past weekend, presumably in a bid to protect Jack Conway from the blowback of the astounding revelations contained in the five page report written by R.G. Dunlop.
Jack Conway and his supporters are involved in a cover-up and an attempt to obstruct justice, but this does not seem to be on the corporate media’s radar screen. Instead, we are harangued with absurd stories about Rand Paul, Aqua Buddha, and a fraternity prank invented by an anonymous woman.
Jack Conway is involved in a brazen attempt to cover-up a police investigation of his brother. Supporters of his political campaign facilitated obscuration of justice. Is this the sort of man the people of Kentucky want representing them in Washington?
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials have revealed their proposal with Moscow regarding a vastly stepped up Russian involvement in the Afghan war is in the final stages of negotiation and they are hopeful of formal agreement being reached at the alliance's two-day summit in Lisbon from November 19.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has announced his acceptance of the NATO invitation to attend the Lisbon summit, where he also scheduled to have a two-hour meeting with United States President Barack Obama. Aside Afghanistan, Medvedev's agenda includes Iran, a Russian proposal on a European security architecture and NATO's offer to cooperate with Russia on its missile defense system (which it is linking up with the US's).
Afghanistan promises to be the biggest vector of Russia-NATO cooperation to date. It doesn't come as surprise. A sort of romance was in the air though Moscow kept coyly disputing. Like in the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield, we knew "Barkis is willing". Barkis fell for small things - Clara Peggotty making "apple parsties" or that she "does all the cooking" - but the smart Russian diplomats will drive a hard bargain with NATO before a nuptial knot is tied.
The Russian ingenuity aims at making cooperation with the NATO a lucrative business deal as much as a political embrace.
Some have expressed hopes that the tea partiers, many of whom grew out of the Ron Paul movement, will bring about a shift away from American imperialism through their demands for smaller, cheaper, less intrusive, and more accountable government. But it ain’t necessarily so. The tea partiers generally fail to understand that the indispensable element in the explosive growth of big government over the past ten years has been Washington’s failure to craft a foreign and security policy that is commensurate with the nation’s resources and proportional to the actual level of threat that exists in the world. This results in the tea partiers overwhelmingly supporting an aggressive security policy even though they must know that leaving the Pentagon budget untouched and untouchable guarantees deficit spending and continued growth of the parts of government that are allegedly committed to “keeping us free.”
Tea partiers must begin to understand that accepting the calls of leaders like Palin and Gingrich for smaller and more sensible government and a return to constitutionalism without also understanding that they stand for an incoherent foreign policy, perpetual war, and ballooning deficits is self defeating. They are both traditional Republicans who want nothing more than to return the GOP to power. Only when you begin to question the raison d’etre for the wars and put an end to the American empire can you stop writing a blank check every year for the Pentagon, stop borrowing money to fund the fighting, and take sensible steps to reduce the size of government, making it again answerable to the people. As the memory of the overhyped terrorist threat fades, you might even begin to restore some of those civil liberties that have been stripped away by the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act, and the increasingly frequent assertion of state secrets privilege.
Is it imaginable that the Tea Parties might turn in that direction? Perhaps not, though much depends on the extent to which the Republican Party and people like Palin, Gingrich, and Boehner are able to co-opt the movement. If they do, the revolt will fizzle out and turn into George W. Bush lite, or perhaps not so lite, with complete adherence to the consensus politics that created the current mess in the first place. Hard to imagine, but if the tea parties take a large share of the vote and align behind policies embraced by the likes of Gingrich and Palin, things could actually get worse.
Why States’ vs. State’s? In the founding concept of American liberty, the primary purpose of government is to guarantee the rights of the people, which are derived from God. To accomplish this primary function of government, the power to govern was divided between a person’s State and The (several) States as a group (or the central government). States’ is the plural possessive. It references The States as a group and is thus the same as saying Federal Rights. So you could argue that people today who speak of States’ Rights have lost part of the basic concept before they even get started.
Why Rights vs. Powers? The second word of the phrase is also misused. Rights are given to the people by God, not to their State, a group of States, or to a central government. States do not have rights; they have powers to govern that have been granted by the sovereign people. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the concept of American liberty. Government at every level is supposed to execute only those powers for which the people have granted the authority. Any debate that begins with the “Rights” of any government at any level has most likely been lost from the outset. Even if the effort seems to have initial success, in the end it only winds up chipping away at our God-given Rights.
American liberty is rapidly approaching the cliff. It's up to you the citizen to change that direction if it's going to be changed. You have only this recourse at your disposal. Demand that all levels of government keep their hands off your God-given Rights unless the people grant them a Power to do so. Elect only those officials who are willing to abide by this restriction. Retire any elected official who abuses or usurps that which God has given you.
Arguing about which level of government will do a better job abusing your God-given Rights makes for interesting partisan battles, but it's a formula for failure year after year, election after election, and decade after decade -- as we have seen. After all, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. In summary: what was State’s Rights isn’t what it is today. What is States’ Rights isn’t what it was. What your Rights will be is up to you.
On a cultural level, a profusion of nightmare imagery warns: paradigm shift or perish. Accordingly, the hack-scripted B-movie of the current political system could be titled: Duopoly Of The Dead: The Democratic/Republican Zombie Apocalypse. By their almost exclusive devotion to maintaining the status quo, these hulking, putrefying parties of the undead shamble through public life . . . risen from the mouldering grave to tear the flesh from the present and eat the brains of the living. Neither party questions the zombie values of empire. Hence, in a soul-defying attempt to reanimate, by imperial might, the decomposing corpse of US power and influence, both parties are culpable for the senseless deaths of multitudes worldwide.
This zombie empire and its planet-decimating, neo-liberal death cult are marching toward the boneyard of history. What an empire contributes to the world is equivalent to the carnage an army of zombies inflicts upon the scenery of B-movies. Zombies (neither living nor dead creatures that create exponentially larger numbers of themselves) are an apt metaphor for the entropy inherent to closed systems -- the exponentially destructive force of The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
That is why I’m not a member of either party extant in our current duopoly: I’m betting on the emergence of the Entropy Party. It is the only party with a plausible platform; the only party that will keep its promises.
The US Empire is dead meat. We should lose the imagery of a noble and lofty bald eagle: rotting road kill should be proclaimed our official national animal.
Empire inflicts a warped and hyper-attenuated state of being upon its citizens: all the distortions of national character present in privileged grotesques and ordinary monsters.
Let’s take a look at the strategy the US has developed to fight and win the war in Afghanistan: we have a new counterinsurgency strategy that can be summed up in three words: “Clear, hold, and build.” The idea is that the troops will live “among the people” – among the very people whose country they are occupying, and who hate them – and in this way we’ll win “hearts and minds.” Well, during the Revolutionary War – our Revolutionary War – the redcoats were indeed quartered in American homes: the Brits just came in and said: we’re bunking here. The colonists had no choice – just as the Afghans have no choice. This is hardly the way to win “hearts and minds.” It is, instead, a good way to inflict lots of casualties on your own troops.
What we are doing in Afghanistan is often described as “nation-building.” But that’s not quite accurate. I would call it colony-building. No “nation” can be built from the outside, by outsiders, funded and defended by allies: however, that is precisely how you establish a colony, or a protectorate. What we’re doing in the wilds of Central Asia is building an empire – or, rather, adding on to our empire, which already extends all over the world.
The transformation of the American left really is a sad and pathetic process to behold, and I’ve been watching it unfold for some time now. You know, during the 1960s, the New Left solidarized with the people of the Third World, whom they – rightly – saw as victims of US imperialism. Their slogan: “Bring the war home!” Today, the unspoken slogan of the left is: Bring the bacon home – and to hell with everybody else!
Conservatism, in short, had become unrecognizable: it had turned into its opposite. Conservatives still paid lip service to the ideas of the free market and individual liberty, but this was only for ceremonial purposes and to keep the contributions coming in. When they got into power, they promptly abandoned their program and their alleged principles, and got in on the Washington gravy train, just like their liberal counterparts.
In the first stage, what I proposed was legislation which was campaigned for throughout the states of the United States, for a resolution by state governments, to push through national Congressional legislation, to put the entire mortgage system of the United States into receivership under bankruptcy protection, in which the householders would remain in their homes, and we would, in due course, settle and resolve the mortgage debt.
At the same time, the other action was to put the banking system, the so-called commercial banking system of the United States under protection. We used to have a law called the Glass-Steagall Act, which provided for precisely that kind of action. But we had Larry Summers, who's not unknown to some people in Russia, known as a thief, I generally believe, who had succeeded in causing the Glass-Steagall Act to be cancelled. So the commercial banking system had been exposed, since that time, to all kinds of speculation, which allowed, earlier, only for investment banking. Which meant that the entire banking system of the United States was being corrupted, and in danger of general bankruptcy.
In the meantime, at the same time, there had been a long-term trend, since actually 1968-1971, of a decline in the U.S. economy, a physical decline in the U.S. economy, which had been ongoing, and had accelerated, especially since the 1987 period.
So now, we no longer had bankruptcy protection of our commercial banking system, and my legislation, which was supported largely through many of the states of the United States, and also through some of the governors of these states, who were leading governors, would have prevented this crisis from going out of control. It would have meant a financial reorganization of many accounts, but they would be done in an orderly fashion under law, not by chaos.
A call to arms, demanding Muslims in America and elsewhere begin a terror campaign, was spread around the world. The message, we are told, was found on a “secret website” by an Israeli company who put it in a press release.
There is no evidence any American Muslim has ever been on the website referred to, no American intelligence agency could find it, not the CIA or the FBI or Homeland Security. There was only one way the 300,000 Muslims of Detroit could hear call to terrorism, from an Israeli company that passes on such messages for profit.
Does it create them too? You be the judge.
Adam Gadahn, the “American Taliban,” the lisping, overweight bungler continually calling for the murder of Americans is really named Adam Perlman from a family highly influential in the Anti-Defamation League. The group distributing his threats, SITE Intelligence, contracted to the American government, is run by a former IDF member whose father was executed in Iraq as a Mossad terrorist. SITE Intelligence is the source of the Osama bin Laden tapes long proven to be, not only the wrong voice, but to resemble bin Laden so little as to have become a joke.
Gadahn came on the scene when tapes of Osama bin Laden claiming credit for 9/11 failed forensic examination. They were counterfeits. The CIA’s own version had bin Laden denying any involvement. (See APPENDIX below for official CIA transcript)
Jeff Rense's website and radio program represent an oasis of truth for countless people around the world who can still think for themselves.
That's why it was both puzzling and painful to witness a vituperative attack on Jeff by his erstwhile friend and ally Mark Glenn.
Among the thousands of articles Jeff has posted since last summer were two which Mark felt were anti Islam. Mark felt they played into the hands of Zionists who are trying to pit Christians against Muslims and asked Jeff to remove them. Jeff refused. He will not permit anyone to censor his news content or tell him how to run his site. Mark retaliated by launching a vitriolic attack on Jeff.
The attacks on Jeff simply ignore his extraordinary ability and record of service. He has provided us with the leading alternative to the mass media. Hundreds of thousands of people depend on him. He has worked 14 hours a day, seven days a week, year after year for 15 years. He has not taken a vacation in that time. Yet he has had no formal recognition or thanks.
My policy is to never criticize fellow patriots. I cooperate with people on the basis of what we have in common. I don't expect we'll agree on everything. If I can't say something nice, I won't say anything. I focus on what we have in common, and recognize the real good they are doing.
We all owe Jeff Rense a vote of thanks. He may have made mistakes but he doesn't deserve the treatment he received from Mark and his followers.
Each year, America accepts 1.3 million legal immigrants. On top of that, immigrants birth 900,000 babies within the United States annually. When you add the minimum of 800,000 illegal alien migrants that walk over our borders or visa overstays, the United States absorbs 3.1 million immigrants, give or take a few thousand—annually. Another 400,000 illegal migrant women cross over to give ‘anchor baby’ births, which I won’t account for here. (Source: www.cis.org with Dr. Steven Camarata)
But, fellow Americans, that’s not enough! Last week, President Barack Obama announced that he will invite an additional 80,000 immigrants –mostly from Islamic countries – to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011. Obama said, “…is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”
In other words, they will all utilize U.S. public assistance: food stamps, welfare, assisted housing, free breakfast and lunches for their children, education, free medical—all billed to the stretched-to-the-limit, good will of Americans ignored by Obama. What sense does that make? Total cost per year: $346 billion according to the Edwin Rubenstein Report.
The following “goals” for new immigrants have been set as follows:
AN IMPORTANT LETTER from former US Vice President Spiro Agnew (pictured) to German-American writer and activist Hans Schmidt, written on September 24, 1982, reveals the extent to which Agnew opposed Zionist power. The letter is photographically reproduced below and reads:
Dear Mr. Schmidt: Thank you for sending me your letter of August 26th and the enclosures. Having been for a long time in the vanguard of those who protest the domination of this country by Zionists, I am always encouraged to see that others share my outrage.
Even in the face of these horrible actions by the arrogant state of Israel, the broad spectrum of American opinion leaders seem to cling to the fallacy that Jews, because of the so-called Holocaust, can do no wrong. The 70 years of indoctrination that began with the years that immediately followed the Balfour Declaration have brainwashed the western world, and Zionist control of our news media has kept the fields green for Israel.
The vituperation of organized Jewry is zealous to say the least. As one who has endured 10 years of well-organized attacks in the media and in the courts, I can attest to that. One can assume only that Israel is more important to these people than their own country.
In an intellectually healthy world, of course, the study of “human biodiversity” wouldn’t be imperiled by the reign of Political Correctness. Instead, HBD would be recognized as a necessary complement to the study of human cultural diversity. To a student of the social world, human biodiversity and human cultural diversity ought to be complementary tools, like a straight right and a left jab are to a boxer, or like words and numbers are to a thinker.
In 21st Century America, however, noticing reality is often, by unfortunate necessity, a political act. As George Orwell pointed out, “To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle”.
So the answer to the title question “Can HBD Trump PC?” is: don’t get your hopes up. A more realistic political goal for HBD is mere survival as a field of study.
In conclusion, is Human Biodiversity a political movement or a field of study?
AAt present, it has to be both. It has to struggle politically to not be exterminated as a subject for intellectual inquiry.
HBD’s goal as a political movement is to someday not have to be a political movement—to help liberate the American mind enough that it will just be an ordinary way to help us understand how the world works.
Yet unlike most of the punditry out there, Mr. Williams gets no dispensation from me. That is not to say NPR's firing of him was remotely justified, nor do I think what he had to say could be remotely construed as bigoted. If American leftists wants to close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears and sing nah, nah, nah, in order to obscure the reality of radical Islam that is their choice, myopic as it may be.??
Nothing epitomized that particular mindset any better than intellectual "giants" Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar storming off the set of "The View" when Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly had the "indecency" to remind them that Muslims perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, and that the public was still 70% against building a mosque near Ground Zero. Behar and Goldberg are not the first, nor will they be the last, leftists to engage in childish behavior as a substitute for cogent rebuttal.??
The reason Mr. Williams gets no pass from me is because of what he wrote in the above excerpt. It is quite apparent that he was well aware of the ideological bias at NPR, and had been for years. It is not as if he suddenly discovered the management there "has no use for a diversity of opinion, ideas or a diversity of staff." Yet this is the first time Juan Williams has gone public with his feelings regarding his former employer. What does that mean???It means Juan Williams was, at the very least, an enabler.
It means he was willing to abide the bias at NPR, as long as that bias accrued to his best interest. And his best interest may have been little more than cashing a paycheck.??
At last somebody has said it in the most explicit way possible. The somebody also said: “The problem is Zionism and the solution is dismantling the Zionist framework and instituting a secular democracy that does not discriminate between Israelis and Palestinians.”
The somebody was Miko Peled, a Jewish peace activist who was born in Israel and lives in America.
He is the son of an Israeli war hero, Matti Peled, who was a young officer in the war of 1948 and a general in the war of 1967. After that war, General Peled signalled his own commitment to truth by rubbishing Zionism’s version of events. He did so with the statement that there was not a threat to Israel’s existence and that it was a war of Israeli choice (i.e. aggression not self-defense). General Peled was also one of a number of prominent Jews who called soon after the 1967 war for the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
In his latest article from which my headline for this piece was extracted, Miko says that the two-state solution was clearly viable 40 years ago, but today…? He writes (my emphasis added):
Muslim activist: Juan Williams' fear 'reasonable'
While a Muslim advocacy group, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), was instrumental in getting National Public Radio (NPR) to fire Juan Williams, some Muslims are speaking out against succumbing to the censorship of political correctness.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, told The Daily Caller that though Williams could have been more tactful, his ouster is symptomatic of the problems Americans continue to face when discussing Islam.
"As much as the way he said it was poorly chosen, the era we find ourselves — of political correctness — we are not able to address what this fear is," Jasser said. "Anybody that starts talking about this fear gets shut down."
The whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks today released a trove of classified reports that it said documented at least 109,000 deaths in the Iraq war, more than the United States previously has acknowledged, as well as what it described as cases of torture and other abuses by Iraqi and coalition forces.
"The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces)," WikiLeaks said in a statement regarding the documents' release. "The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60 percent) of these are civilian deaths. That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six-year period."
The new documents covered 2004 through 2009, WikiLeaks said, with the exception of May 2004 and March 2009.
A review of the documents by Iraq Body Count, an advocacy group that long has monitored civilian casualties in the war, found 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths, according to WikiLeaks -- a detail first reported in The Guardian newspaper, one of a handful of international news organizations that got an advance look at the documents.
Welcome Juan Williams. You are the latest citizen of Imusville. And by Imusville, I mean a place where people who make their living talking end up when their buddies on the left forget the First Amendment and sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness.
And yes, I submit the Williams-Imus comparison is valid because at the time of his firing, Don Imus was about five years into an exploration of his inner liberal.
As you might remember, Imus was canned for an impolitic bit on his show about Rutgers women basketball players being "nappy headed hos." Thus he was canned by MSNBC and the CBS Radio network, both of whom were carrying his show at the time. And in the prop wash of this event, Imus was defended only by those on the right -- while liberals either piled on or remained silent on the sidelines. We are still not sure if anyone in the Rutgers women's program had actually ever heard of Don Imus before the incident.
And we are witnessing the same thing in the Juan Williams NPR dust up, with liberal NPR doubling down on the move while conservative talkers are coming out of the woodwork to support Williams. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Hassling white Duke lacrosse players?
Let's face it, Juan Williams is utterly clueless when it comes to understanding business and the free market system. This does not distinguish him in any manner from most folks in his business. He is hopelessly encumbered in thought by the latest Washington Post Poll and he is still enamored with our first black President and its historicalness. Again, he has much company in those camps.
Protestors in France and other European countries are taking to the streets to demand change, however in the US there has not been a mass protests by its citizens. Even though most people in the United States believe that the government has to much control, according to a Gallup poll its as much as 59% of Americans who are dissatisfied with their government. Radio Host Alex Jones of Infowars.com believes that the United States citizens are beginning to wake up to the tyrannical government and are beginning to arm themeselves with guns and other means.
The attacks on Rand Paul’s Christianity because of an alleged college school prank are similar to those on Christine O’Donnell’s presumed “witchcraft” of decades ago. Rand Paul's wife, Kelley, a deacon at the family’s church, has described the onslaughts as a “desperate, shameful attack on our family.” The couple and their three children have attended the local Presbyterian church in Bowling Green, Kentucky, for 18 years.
These ad hominem attacks on Paul and O’Donnell reveal, as much as anything else, a profound ignorance of Christianity, leading to a serious question about whether these attackers and the candidates who presumably benefit from the attacks are, themselves, indifferent to the Christian faith.
The heart of Christian theology is repentance, amendment, and forgiveness. No serious Christian can doubt that we are all sinners or that, before trusting in Christ for salvation, our sinfulness has no sure check. Christine O’Donnell and Rand Paul, in their youth, could have embraced errors about faith and committed sins. St. Augustine admitted in his Confessions, one of the most important writings in the history of the Christian faith, that he engaged in a dissolute life prior to conversion, and that indeed he did not want (for some time, at least) to stop sinning and begin living a righteous life. C.S. Lewis, perhaps the most famous Christian apologist of the last century, likewise has described viewing Christianity with disdain before he became a Christian. John Newton, the former slave-trader who embraced the Christian faith during a terrible storm at sea, not only spent the rest of his life crusading against the slave trade but also penned the timeless hymn "Amazing Grace," whose salient lines for purposes of understanding the Christian doctrine of repentance are: “I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see.”
The world’s citizens now see why governments have allowed themselves and their taxpayers to be trapped by the lords of finance. The bankers were their paymasters and funded their elections to office, bribed their officials, manipulated their regulators and public opinion. Through advertising and financing of mass-media, financial moguls and media moguls converged with political moguls worldwide into concentrated conglomerates (matching those in finance and industry): News Corp., Disney, NBC (owned by GE), Viacom, Clear Channel, as well as Comcast, Verizon and ATT now seeking to dominate the internet. All this is textbook fascism.
To save sovereign governments from further co-option and corruption, these government “leaders” and their economic “wise men” must now rise to the occasion. Together, they must act to downsize and curb the rogue global casino. The G-20 Summit in Toronto, June 26-27, is their next opportunity to re-assert control on behalf of their citizens and the global public interest. Will leadership come from Europe, China, India, the USA or Brazil?
To foster the transition from the monopoly of fiat money circuits (now just as bad as gold-based money) to 21st century electronic and local currencies, the G-20 needs to downsize financial sectors. Wall Street and London’s bloated financial sectors have little social purpose and produce nothing. High-frequency trading by computer programs now account for about 70% of Wall Street’s daily trading. Proprietary trading and risk-taking must be separated from government-subsidized deposit-taking banks. The best way to accomplish this is for the G-20 to agree on a less than 1% financial transactions tax (FTT) across the board. There are no good arguments against the FTT (debated since its introduction by economist James Tobin in the 1970s and recommended by Larry Summers in his 1989 paper. FTT is easily collectible, using the computer program on all trading screens (Henderson and Kay, “A foreign exchange transaction reporting system (FXTRS) for Central Banks,” Futures 1999). Money-laundering and tax haven operations in, for example, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Caymen, the Bahamas, the US states of Delaware and Nevada, Guernsey, Jersey and London can continue to be “shamed” by black-listing in the Financial Authorities Task Force publications.
The story of Jesus commanding us to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s is commonly misrepresented as His commanding us to give to Caesar the denari which he asks for (i.e., to pay taxes to government), as—it is assumed—the denari are Caesar’s, being that they have Caesar’s image and name on them. But Jesus never said that this was so! What Jesus did say though was an ingenious case of rhetorical misdirection to avoid being immediately arrested, which would have interfered with Old Testament prophecy of His betrayal as well as His own previous predictions of betrayal.
When the Pharisees asked Jesus whether or not it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, they did so as a ruse in the hopes of being able to either have Him arrested as a rebel by the Roman authorities or to have Him discredited in the eyes of His followers. At this time in Israel’s history it was an occupied territory of the Roman Empire, and taxes—which were being used to support this occupation—were much-hated by the mass of the common Jews. Thus, this question was a clever Catch-22 posed to Jesus by the Pharisees: if Jesus answered that it is not lawful then the Pharisees would have Him put away, but if He answered that it is lawful then He would appear to be supporting the subjection of the Jewish people by a foreign power. Luke 20:20 makes the Pharisees’ intent in asking this question quite clear:
So they watched Him, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, that they might seize on His words, in order to deliver Him to the power and the authority of the governor.
Thus, Jesus was not free to answer in just any casual manner. Of the Scripture prophecies which would have gone unfulfilled had He answered that it was fine to decline paying taxes and been arrested because of it are the betrayal by Judas and Jesus’s betrayer replaced. Here is a quote from Peter on this matter from Acts 1:16:
Stupid is one thing but when combined with outright insanity and the inherent paranoia and lack of judgement that go with it and the utter lack of discernment that stupidity is famous for, an opening is created, more like a festering wound. The same forces that have used the media and entertainment industry to foment fear and hopelessness have been able to control, not only thousands of internet sites but have recruited “bloggers” by the thousands also. Using rewards like trips to Israel, access to politicians and, particularly, admission to tightly controlled and carefully orchestrated “media events” these automatons of the internet, the “robotic bloggers” accept “talking points” on a daily basis, working their own blogs along with comment sections of news sites and the personal networking groups as well.
This could be considered a type of harvest, one where the ripened fruit comes to you. There is a science to this. Let’s take a look at how it works. Some of the concepts used are called “layering.” This is “mind control 101.”
Network news organizations have established, through repetition, an addiction to “information,” a need to feed something inside, a feeling of drama based on anger not unlike the methods used by Joseph Goebbels to enrage the German people at the Jews. Where, at one time, the airwaves couldn’t be used for blatant political manipulation, the destruction of the “fairness” rule during the Reagan administration allowed financial entities to take control of, not so much just the media, but all perception, literally replacing the normal sensory inputs, you know, eating and sex, things like that.
This is where “stupid” becomes even more dangerous. When simple “dumb” can bring about, not just the elimination of the middle class, suppression of human rights, but cost America the lives and health of an entire generation of our young adults who have been pushed into military service, some by misguided patriotism, some to avoid poverty and homelessness, “dumb” is inexcusable. When “stupid” is more dangerous than any terrorist, any ‘false flag” attack or any extremist political movement, “stupid” is the real enemy.
In the middle of the night in early April of 2006 I went out to the tiny Venice Municipal Airport after learning that the St Petersburg FL company that owns the DC9 that was just busted in the Yucatan carrying 5.5 tons of cocaine was using, curiously enough, an address at the Venice Airport.
The address turned out to be located in the hangar next door to Huffman Aviation.
It looks like our ever-diligent friends at DARPA have been busy creating a contingency plan for the OathKeeper movement. Thanks to a newly-developed pain modulator and behavior modification helmet, any US troops who decide they will obey the Constitution rather than the commands of the global puppet masters will now be getting some remote-controlled motivational persuasion.
Reminiscent of the “Collar of Obedience” from Star Trek, this new helmet according to it’s creator William J Tyler at Arizona State University, will be able to non-invasively produce all the same effects that are now possible only through deep surgical implants. Employing a form of targeted ultrasound technology, the “Helmet of Obedience” will be able to manipulate pain and motivational centers in the brain at a finer scale than even current magnetic stimulation.
It’s no mystery what agencies would be interested in this sort of technology and Tyler makes it painfully clear who his handlers are. According to Tyler, “We look forward to developing a close working relationship with DARPA and other Department of Defense and U.S. Intelligence Communities to bring some of these applications to fruition over the coming years depending on the most pressing needs of our country’s defense industries.” [ref]
Certainly, everyone is well aware how the poor, under-equipped, under-funded largest military industrial complex in the world has such “pressing needs” for this new technology.
But wait there’s more. Tyler is obviously a man with lots of DARPA grant money and time on his hands. When he’s not busy developing the “Helmet of Obedience”, he’s hard at work on another much needed technology that will become a boon to mankind: MyBrainCloud.net.
The U.S. Federal Reserve is getting ready to conduct another gigantic bailout of the big banks, but this time virtually nobody in the mainstream media will use the term "bailout" and the American people are going to get a lot less upset about it. You see, one lesson that was learned during the last round of bank bailouts was that the American people really, really do not like it when the U.S. Congress votes to give money to the big banks. So this time, the financial "powers that be" have figured out a way around that. Instead of going through the massive headache of dealing with the U.S. Congress, the Federal Reserve is simply going to print money and give it directly to the banks. To be more precise, the Federal Reserve is going to use a procedure known as "quantitative easing" to print money out of thin air in order to purchase large quantities of "troubled assets" (such as mortgage-backed securities) from the biggest U.S. banks at well above market price. Some are already openly wondering if this next round of quantitative easing is going to be the biggest bank robbery in history. Most Americans won't understand these "backdoor bailouts" well enough to get upset about them, but that doesn't mean that they won't be just as bad (or even worse) than the last round of bailouts. In the end, all of the inflation that this new round of quantitative easing is going to cause is going to be a "hidden tax" on all of us.
These new backdoor bailouts are going to work something like this....
1) The big U.S. banks have massive quantities of junk mortgage-backed securities that are worth little to nothing that they desperately want to get rid of.
2) They convince the Federal Reserve (which the big banks are part-owners of) to buy up these "toxic assets" at way above market price.
3) The Federal Reserve creates massive amounts of money out of thin air to buy up all of these troubled assets. The public is told that all of this "quantitative easing" is necessary to stimulate the U.S. economy.
4) The big banks are re-capitalized and have gotten massive amounts of bad mortgage securities off their hands, the Federal Reserve has found a way to pump hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars into the economy, and most of the American people are none the wiser.
How will Americans react when the government begins to impose the same austerity measures that are causing riots, street battles, fuel blockades and other assorted chaos in France? Will we witness mass civil unrest or will the sleeping middle classes continue to scratch their butts and watch Dancing with the Stars?
With the Obama administration set to seize private 401(k) pensions and turn them over to the Social Security Administration, how long will it be before Americans stir from their slumber and realize that their economic future and also that of their children is in immediate peril?
When will Americans begin to understand that the onset of another government bailout in the form of QE2 represents the biggest bank robbery in history?
Just how distracted, dumbed-down, fat and lazy has the American middle class become to prevent them from realizing a threat when they see it?
British historian Simon Schama predicts not only widespread civil unrest in America, but even a potential revolution if the elite allow the situation to spiral out of their control. Schama notes that Obama will have to ditch “misplaced obligations of civility” and become an authoritarian enforcer in order to emerge successful against the rising tide of Constitutionalist rage that will be directed against the coming austerity fascism.
The Obama administration has finally met a labor union it doesn't like, and the feeling is mutual. In June, a union representing 7,600 employees in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) -- affiliated with both the American Federation of Government Employees and the AFL-CIO -- issued a unanimous vote of "no confidence" against the political appointees the White House chose to oversee immigration law enforcement.
The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council specifically named ICE director John Morton and assistant director Phyllis Coven, accusing them of having "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States Immigration Laws" and "campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty." The union leaders further charged the Obama administration with the "creation of a special detention system for foreign nationals that exceeds the care and services provided to most United States citizens similarly incarcerated."
Organizations representing border patrol agents had already slammed their upper management at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE. The AFL-CIO-affiliated National Border Patrol Council issued its no-confidence vote last year. The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) concurred. "The U.S. has reached a critical crossroads in dealing with the illegal alien problem," NAFBPO founder Buck Brandemuehl said in a statement. "This problem must be addressed now, as it is strangling our democracy and threatening our national security."
At the same time the Obama administration was requesting funding for 1,000 additional border patrol agents, the National Border Patrol Council complained that it was clandestinely reducing the number of agents along the U.S.-Mexico border by cutting the overtime hours they can work. "By lowering the statutory overtime cap nearly 15 percent through the current administrative restrictions, top-level managers in the Border Patrol are depriving Americans of desperately needed coverage along the border at a time of national crisis," Council head T. J. Bonner told the Washington Times.
Nearly a dozen major banks and hedge funds, anticipating quick profits from homeowners who fall behind on property taxes, are quietly plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into businesses that collect the debts, tack on escalating fees and threaten to foreclose on the homes of those who fail to pay.
The Wall Street investors, which include Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co., have purchased from local governments the right to collect delinquent taxes on several hundred thousand properties, many in distressed housing markets, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund has found.
In many cases, the banks and hedge funds created new companies to do their bidding. They gave the companies obscure, even whimsical names and used post office boxes as their addresses, masking Wall Street's dominant new role as a surrogate tax collector.
In exchange for paying overdue real estate taxes, the investors gain legal powers from local governments to collect the debt and levy fees. At first, property owners may owe little more than a few hundred dollars, only to find their bills soaring into the thousands. In some jurisdictions, the new Wall Street tax collectors also chase debtors over other small bills, such as for water, sewer and sidewalk repair.
Somebody eventually had to say it — and German chancellor Angela Merkel deserves credit for being the one who had the courage to say it out loud. Multiculturalism has "utterly failed."
Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about "diversity," without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.
The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased "perceptions" or "stereotypes," if not outright "racism." But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.
The absorption of millions of immigrants from Europe into American society may be cited as an example of the success of multiculturalism. But, in fact, they were absorbed in ways that were the direct opposite of what the multicultural cult is recommending today.
Oh, and keep in mind that more than two-thirds of the IC’s intelligence programs are controlled by the Pentagon, which also means control over a major chunk of the combined intelligence budget, announced at $75 billion (“2 1/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001,” according to Priest and Arkin), but undoubtedly far larger.
And when it comes to the Pentagon, that’s just a start. Massive expansion in all directions has been its m.o. since 9/11. Its soaring budget hit about $700 billion for fiscal year 2010 (when you include a war-fighting supplemental bill of $33 billion) -- an increase of only 4.7% in otherwise budget-slashing times -- and is now projected to hit $726 billion in fiscal year 2011. Some experts claim, however, that the real figure may come closer to the trillion-dollar mark when all aspects of national security are factored in. Not surprisingly, it has taken over a spectrum of State Department-controlled civilian activities, ranging from humanitarian relief and development (aka “nation-building”) to actual diplomacy. And don’t forget its growing roles as a domestic-disaster manager and a global arms dealer, or even as a Green Revolution energy innovator. You could certainly think of the Pentagon as the Blob on the American horizon, and yet, looking around, you might hardly be aware of the ways your country continues to be militarized.
With that in mind, let’s consider another warscape, one particularly appropriate to a moment when numerous commentators are pointing out that the U.S. seems to be morphing from a can-do into a can’t-do nation, when the headlines are filled with exploding gas lines and grim reports on the country’s aging infrastructure, when a major commuter tunnel from New Jersey to Manhattan, the sort of project that once would have been tattoo-ably American, has just been canceled by New Jersey’s governor.
During the past month I have been involved in research about the people involved in the Rothschild/Mossad network behind the criminal destruction of the steel from the World Trade Center. I have found that the network that arranged for the destruction of the steel - critical evidence from the crime scene - was organized by Israel's Mossad and their Zionist agents, the real culprits behind the false-flag terrorism that changed the world. This article will be the final and conclusive chapter of my book, Solving 9/11 - The Deception that Changed the World.
In September, when I began my research into the people behind the destrucion of the steel, I called the Hugo Neu company, which was one of the two New Jersey scrapyards that "recycled" the steel. Hugo Neu was a German Jewish immigrant (and Rothschild agent) who came to America and headed Associated Metals and Minerals Corporation (AMMC) in New York in the 1930s with his German Jewish fellows, Meno Lissauer and Walter M. Rothschild, the company's president. Lissauer's wife, Meta, was Walter Rothschild's sister. Hugo Neu is now run by his son and has very close ties to the state of Israel.
Since 2001, the two companies involved in the destruction of the steel, Sims Metal Management and Hugo Neu, have merged. I asked to speak with Alan Ratner, the former head of Metal Management in New Jersey, Daniel Dienst, or Robert Kelman, since these were the key executives involved in the 9/11 steel recycling. I got through to Ratner's secretary, who gave me his email, but instead of letting me speak to any of these men, I was connected to company's spokesman, Daniel Strechay.
Daniel Strechay, speaks for the men that destroyed the steel evidence from the World Trade Center. Strechay was completely unwilling to answer any questions. I told him that the destruction of the steel is a matter of great historic importance and that I wanted to ask questions from the people involved in the interest of fairness and accuracy, but he refused saying, "It's all a matter of public record. Read the Wall Street Journal."
over the last couple of decades, because of post 1965 federal immigration policy, there been a sizable amount of immigration into the Los Angeles area from this huge region once ruled by the Ottoman, Soviet, or Persian empires—a vast yet contiguous expanse for which we don’t have a name. You could call it the Caucasian East, because it’s centered around the Caucasus Mountains. The kind of people I see at stores near where these homicides took place look like a mix of the people I’ve seen on trips to Istanbul and Moscow. I’ll call it the Land of the Defunct Empires: Ottoman, Persian, and Soviet.
This influx has largely gone unremarked because the immigrants are technically Caucasian so they don’t show up in the main diversity statistics. Moreover, the newcomers are seldom terribly poor. And they are generally not illegal immigrants, most using the family reunification or refugee loopholes.
The Defunct Empires immigrants aren’t from any single religious background. Some are Muslim, but generally from the more secular sectors of Islamic cultures. (I’ve only seen one woman in full burka in LA.) This new class of immigrant is generally not sprung from peasant stock in the old country. Instead, they tend to hale from middleman minorities, differentiated from the masses by religion, ethnicity, or class.
The main cultural common denominator found among the immigrants from the Land of Defunct Empires: a pervasive cynicism about whom you can trust outside your own extended family. These are not cultures of strong civic engagement and broad volunteerism.
Section 4 of the 25th Amendment likely to be invoked; Obama being shipped out!
Washington has not witnessed so much top level White House intrigue since October 20, 1973, when a Saturday night saw President Nixon fire the Watergate independent counsel, the U.S. attorney general, and the deputy attorney general in the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Just ten days earlier, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned after being charged with accepting bribes while governor of Maryland.
In the case of President Obama, the senior firings are not happening during a single nght but the recent involuntary sudden departures of the White House chief of staff and national security adviser, along with what WMR can confirm from multiple sources is a president who is suffering from Nixonian levels of paranoia, depression, and schizophrenia, has some top-level administration officials considering the first-ever invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — the involuntary removal of the president from office. The White House meltdown has the Washington political circuit buzzing under the surface.
Unlike Watergate and the Iran-contra scandal, however, the corporate media is refusing to report on the breakdown of the Obama administration and the internecine political warfare within the Executive Office of the President.
With the US Government preparing to seize private and public pensions in order to bankrupt the American People and bring them down into poverty as part of their Full Spectrum Dominance plans, the risk of American society collapsing into anarchy and rioting is extremely high over the next few months. Plans have already been in place for the past twenty-six years with Rex 84 to bring the USA under Martial Law in such an eventuality. The Military have been training extensively over this time period specifically to take on the American people with the National Level Program of army exercises. National Level Exercises 2010 (NLE10) have had exercises in Chicago, Illinois, entitled "Operation Vigilant Guard", where foreign troops were training with the US Military to take out Patriots and confiscate legally held guns from the American people.
This is the final phase in the DDCN Doctrine of Demoralisation, Destabilisation, Crisis and Normalisation, ready for the Bancor to be brought in as the One World Currency, with a totalitarian One World Government regime.
In order for this hostile takeover to be successful, they have to first destabilise any potential resistance before the Crisis phase is fully enacted. This is why the Southern Property Law Center, under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security, are doing everything in their power to demonise Patriots and Constitutionalists, the Tea Parties and Veterans, Gun Owners and Libertarians - These people will be the first into the breach to resist tyranny. Meanwhile, the MIAC Reports and the Department of Justice are also trying to character assassinate large swathes of American society, as well as the Feds targeting disgruntled veterans.
As the Crisis phase swings into full economic melt down, the US Military will take over more and more of the infrastructure as cities can no longer afford to employ staff. The ability to do this has already been listed in several Presidential Executive Orders:
Jim Traficant’s 2010 congressional race is arguably the nation’s most important election, and that is why “they” totally ignore it—to make sure the American people, especially the good folks in Ohio’s 17th district in Youngstown, don’t even know “Big Jim” is running.
You may ask if doing the right thing is even a factor in American elections anymore.
When America was still America, choosing the right thing was understood to be the reason for any decision. But big money became the master of politics. Politicians, desperate to win, paid whatever their “expert advisors” demanded. The lobbyists clamored to cover those costs—in exchange for “access” (legalized bribery). To reach the voting public, you have to pay small fortunes to the corporate media that controls what we can and cannot see. In early 2010, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling stole our individual rights to freedom of speech and gave them to corporations, reducing us to helpless “zeroes.”
Materialism and cowardice rule Congress. Thus, Congress is easy prey for the predatory agents of super-profitable, imperialism that foster economic depression and no-win wars. To get and maintain power, they made examples of certain politicians, especially Traficant. The cowardly turnstiles in Congress were so timid that all it took was a threat to give their money to an opponent’s campaign—and these jellyfish dropped to their knees and apologized for dribbling saliva on their lobby-masters’ boots.
The "war on terror" is now in its tenth year. What is it really all about?
The bottom line answer is that the "war on terror" is about creating real terrorists. The US government desperately needs real terrorists in order to justify its expansion of its wars against Muslim countries and to keep the American people sufficiently fearful that they continue to accept the police state that provides "security from terrorists," but not from the government that has discarded civil liberties.
The US government creates terrorists by invading Muslim countries, wrecking infrastructure and killing vast numbers of civilians. The US also creates terrorists by installing puppet governments to rule over Muslims and by using the puppet governments to murder and persecute citizens as is occurring on a vast scale in Pakistan today.
Neoconservatives used 9/11 to launch their plan for US world hegemony. Their plan fit with the interests of America’s ruling oligarchies. Wars are good for the profits of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in vain a half century ago. American hegemony is good for the oil industry’s control over resources and resource flows. The transformation of the Middle East into a vast American puppet state serves well the Israel Lobby’s Zionist aspirations for Israeli territorial expansion.
Meanwhile, to silence the whistleblower website WikiLeaks and to prevent any more revelations of American war crimes, the "freedom and democracy" government in DC has closed down WikiLeaks’ donations by placing the company that collects its money on its "watch list" and by having the Australian puppet government blacklist WikiLeaks.
U.S. troops now being trained to boss communities and run local governments are being readied to oversee a post-collapse America in which riots and civil unrest similar to that now exploding in Europe over austerity measures and pension cuts ravage the United States and are met with the iron fist of a militarized police state.
Reaction to our earlier story about the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division being prepared for a situation where “in essence they will become the local government” by working with local officials has been strong, with some refusing to believe that the program is geared towards anything other than operations overseas.
However, as we outlined in our article, similar deployments by Northcom are admittedly focused around “homeland patrols” and training troops to deal with “civil unrest” and “crowd control”.
We have documented numerous incidents over the past several years where active duty troops or national guard have been used in domestic law enforcement operations.
The military are now being called upon to undertake roles normally designated to police as Americans are incrementally acclimated to accept the presence of troops on the streets as an everyday occurrence, in preparation for them
The founder of whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks says the US government is involved in a campaign of "financial warfare" against the group.
The Guardian has obtained correspondence between WikiLeaks and British-based online payment company Moneybookers, in which the company explains that it has "terminated the business relationship" with WikiLeaks because the Web site has been added to "blacklists in Australia and watchlists in the USA."
"This is likely to cause a huge backlash against Moneybookers," Assange told the Guardian. "Craven behavior in relation to the US government is unlikely to be seen sympathetically."
Assange has previously said that Wikileaks is facing a fierce onslaught from the Pentagon after releasing tens of thousands of classified US military documents on the Afghan war.
"I need to express the seriousness of the attack against this media organization," he told an audience in London.
A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans view the government as too powerful and obtrusive.
The poll found:
•59% of Americans now believe the federal government has too much power •46% believe "the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens". Only slightly more (51%) disagree with that statement *
* Gallup notes:
One can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points. That means that as much as half of Americans may actually agree the government poses a threat.
The military keeps saying that it only wants to defend its own networks — not yours, civilian. Only if the Department of Homeland Security, which safeguards the civilian internet, comes calling will they help out, the generals insist. Today, the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense started to lay the ground work for how to come calling. And to make the whole thing easier, DHS and the National Security Agency, the super-secret military-intelligence hybrid, will station officials at each other’s headquarters.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano today released a recently-inked joint accord trying to clarify each department’s roles in the event of a cyber attack. Neither department changed the rules for who protects the dot-com and dot-gov networks (Homeland Security) and who protects the dot-mil domain (Defense). But the document — our Doc of the Day, which you can read below — does establish that the military chocolate is in the civilian peanut butter when it comes to cybersecurity.
Basically, the memo orders a big bureaucratic exchange of personnel. The Department of Homeland Security is going to embed some of its people at the National Security Agency, which already runs telecom surveillance dragnets and works to keep hackers and spies out of government networks. It’ll send over a new Director for Cybersecurity Coordination and a bunch of privacy lawyers and civil-rights officials to ensure that neither NSA nor its military twin, the U.S. Cyber Command, cross any legal boundaries.
But other boundaries are more porous. The new director will send and receive requests for NSA and Cyber Command to collaborate on “joint planning” and “information sharing between the public and private sectors to aid in preventing, detecting, mitigating, and/or recovering from the effects of an attack.” For its part, the NSA will create a “Cryptologic Services Group” inside Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center.
Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are 10th cousins through a common ancestor, John Smith, a 17th century pastor, according to genealogists.
Ancestry.com found that the two politicians, who could face each other in the 2012 race for the White House, are both related to Mr Smith, a Protestant pastor who was an early settler in Massachusetts.
The website, based in Provo, Utah, also discovered that Mr Obama was a 10th cousin once removed from Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk radio host and one of the president's most virulent critics. Their common ancestor is Richmond Terrell, a Virginia settler who arrived in America in the mid-17th century.
An Englishman called John Lathrop, exiled to the United States for becoming a minister of an illegal independent church, was cited as the common link between Mrs Palin, Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Ann Coulter, a conservative author.
Mr Obama is apparently an 11th cousin of former president, George W. Bush, through common ancestor Samuel Hinckley.
The following is a Code-Orange Advisory to patriotic truth-tellers, sometimes called whistleblowers or leakers: It is anachronistically naïve to expect the New York Times or other organs of today’s Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to publish classified material like the Pentagon Papers without their first clearing it with the government.
What brings this issue to the fore is the powerful, Academy Award-finalist documentary, "The Most Dangerous Man in America," which paints a profile in courage by (1) Daniel Ellsberg, who risked serving life in prison by copying classified material exposing the lies behind the Vietnam War, and (2) the New York Times, which dared to publish reams of Ellsberg’s material in June 1971.
It’s a gripping, suspenseful story — even for those of us with some gray in our hair who remember the Times of those times as well as how the drama played out. It is also an unusual story for today, inasmuch as it depicts a victory of inspiring courage over disheartening treachery. We see a brave devotion to the Constitution and democratic values not only by Ellsberg and the Times but by the U.S. Supreme Court, too.
If there is a downside to the documentary’s appearance now, it would be the temptation that government insiders might feel to reach the naïve conclusion that the Times of today is the same Times that risked the wrath of a vindictive Richard Nixon to help end a bloody war while also winning a landmark Supreme Court decision that fortified the protections of the First Amendment.
Acclaimed novelist Gore Vidal was no friend of the Bush administration. After President George W. Bush gave his first inaugural address, Vidal told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that it was "the most un-American speech I’ve ever heard a chief executive give to the United States." He also claimed in 2008 that 9/11 was "a coup d’etat" to overthrow the government, allowing the Bush administration "[to] make legal each and every breach of the constitution that [they] had in mind."
Instead, America has “no intellectual class” and is “rotting away at a funereal pace. We’ll have a military dictatorship fairly soon, on the basis that nobody else can hold everything together. Obama would have been better off focusing on educating the American people. His problem is being over-educated. He doesn’t realise how dim-witted and ignorant his audience is. Benjamin Franklin said that the system would fail because of the corruption of the people and that happened under Bush.”
Now Vidal warns the world, "Anybody who tries to hang on to America's coat-tails is going to find himself up to his eyeballs in, well, deceit and corruption. This is the crookedest place on earth - and I never thought I would go that far, having been to many other countries at least south of our borders."
I should not in the least be surprised if there were a kind of dictatorship at the end of the road, which seems to be coming more and more quickly as we lose more and more wars.
The powers that be within Israel are showing their true bigoted racist colors. On Sunday, the Israeli Cabinet agreed to a new law obliging new non-Jewish immigrants to first swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The concept is certainly original when one of the building blocks of democracy is equal rights for all citizens irrespective of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. Instead, the oath should surely read “a Jewish and theocratic state.”
Moreover, the law is discriminatory in that it presupposes that all Jews are inherently loyal to Israel, which is far being the case. Members of the orthodox Naturei Karta sect believe Israel’s very existence is a sin, while a large proportion of the most influential pro-Palestinian activists are Jews.
Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish political scientist and author, was barred entry to Israel because of his views and the Jewish Israeli conductor-pianist Daniel Barenboim was awarded a Palestinian passport for his support. In recent weeks, an all “Jewish boat” has made an attempt to break the siege of Gaza.
Levy also warns that the loyalty oath for new non-Jewish citizens could be the tip of the iceberg. “At its next session, the Knesset is to debate close to 20 other anti-democratic bills,” he writes. These include a bill for the revocation of citizenship as well as a loyalty law for Knesset members and film producers.
Unfortunately, such outrage doesn’t extend to the majority of Israelis who are either too busy with their own lives to care or too apathetic to raise their voices against looming injustice. There are also those who would be delighted to replace their Arab neighbors with “nice” Jewish ones.
Even worse, is the silence of the international community which is determined to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil on the topic of Israel. That is a crime in itself!
To sum up – we Whites need to become more knowledgeable and better informed, and then we need to stop being so timid, fearful, or even bashful about these life-and-death White survival issues. We need to get in the habit of speaking up for our own people whenever we can – routinely and opportunistically, calmly and matter-of-factly, knowledgeably, unapologetically, proudly, consistently, and repetitively, over and over again, at every opportunity. Remember – by not doing these things we will face an outcome that is tantamount to genocide by default; extermination by neglect.
Some traits of European-Americans that under better (more “ideal”) circumstances (and if not taken advantage of in malicious ways) might have been counted as virtues: universal altruism; egalitarianism; polite acceptance of political-correctness; well-intentioned social/political liberalism; adherence to “rugged individualism” as opposed to group-behavior (“atomization”); for our own sake but more importantly for the sake of our families and others who depend on us, an overriding and completely understandable unwillingness to do anything that would jeopardize our jobs (incomes) and standing in the community; overwhelming tendency and motivation to be benevolent, good, and fair to other people, especially “disadvantaged” people (tendency toward being “Mr. Nice Guy” and habit of “rooting for the underdog”); and even the Christian attitude of “turning the other cheek.”
Some definite shortcomings and weaknesses of our people under any circumstances: our embracing (succumbing to) excessively affluent and “easy” lifestyles in recent years (overabundance of leisure, pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, unbridled frivolity, and “soft thinking”); social/political irresponsibility and laziness, along with a lack of analytical, critical, hard, tough and rational thinking; cowardice; greed; untruthfulness and dishonesty and the prevalent willingness to accept, or “live with” those things when we recognize them in others; all too frequent willingness to let “the other fellow” worry about bad things we see happening to our society and our people.
So, in view of all the above, you might ask – “What are we to do?” There are no easy answers, of course; there is no “magic elixir.” But with all due respect and modesty, and as a start, I would suggest the following:
trictly speaking, a rational voter must first estimate the overall effects of altering or abolishing specific public policies and programs. For each federal program or policy there are a range of reforms that might improve its functioning. A fully informed and rational voter would ascertain the best options for governmental reform. It is, however, very difficult to ascertain the effects of reforming even one policy or program. Changing one program or policy typically produces unintended consequences. Given the complexity of the United States — and the world for that matter — a significant change in public policy will cause a series of reactions from the people who feel the effects of these changes. No one person can predict these unintended consequences.
Another complication arises when you consider the sheer number of federal policies and programs that currently exist. The US government has dozens of agencies that implement thousands of policies. No one person can understand all of these programs and policies. The federal government is complex beyond anyone's comprehension. Of course, people who don't recognize the vice president do not understand what they would be voting for or against this November.
The problem with voting in modern America is that we have a politicized society, and modern society is extraordinarily complex. Stossel suggests that only people who follow politics should vote. However, even those who follow politics very closely do not understand the implications of changes in public policy. The lesson here is that efforts to incrementally reform government policies and programs through the democratic process are futile. To the extent that we vote at all, rational people should vote to depoliticize the economy.
What this means is that we need to reintroduce the price system as the primary method of economic communication, and the profit-and-loss sorting mechanism as the primary method of social reform.
On October 8, 2010, the government of Israel decided (22 for, 8 against) to fix the Law of Citizenship. According to the new version, people who are not Jews (a term that even the State of Israel failed defining properly) and want to become citizens of the state, would need a loyalty oath to a “Jewish and democratic state.” This amendment was one of the promises Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's party Yisrael Beitenu in the coalition agreements. Yisrael Beitenu has advanced a long list of discriminatory laws against Israel's non-Jewish citizens. This is a key point: around 20% of the Israeli citizens are not Jewish. Moreover, as described in The Cross of Bethlehem, many of the considered Jewish by the Ministry of Interior do not consider themselves Jews.
This amendment could be defined as yet another Israeli racist law and dismissed. This assessment would be accepted by many Israelis; moreover, several Israeli politicians – including Dan Meridor, the Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy – have defined this law as unnecessary. However, there is more to it than an attempt to further discriminate Palestinians and other non-Jewish citizens. It is deeply related to the roots of the Zionist state.
”Oath” make a very dramatic appearance in the Talmud. The Old Testament was considered dangerous by the Pharisees. Simply, many of the Mosaic Laws were uncomfortable – and inconvenient – to fulfill. Moreover, the prophecies regarding Jesus – their archenemy – in the Bible were difficult to ignore. Facing such a problem, these industrious men operated a two stages plan. First, an Oral Law was created. These were laws that defined how the Mosaic Laws in the Pentateuch should be interpreted. Using them, they could turn around any law to their convenience. They claim the Oral Law was given verbally by Moses to their ancestors. The Bible does not support this claim. At certain stage – before Jesus was born – the compilation of this Oral Law into books began. The result was the creation of a new layer of books – collectively known as the Talmud – that included all the formal interpretations of the Pentateuch – the Bible’s first five books. All the other books in the Bible were considered little more than fables by the Pharisees. Nowadays, the rabbis – the Pharisees spiritual descendants – consider the Talmud as the main book of law. Since then, the Pharisees and rabbis can manipulate the law interpretations to their personal benefit. The Talmud is divided into “Midrashim” – namely “sermons.” One of the most famous ones is called “Three Oaths.”