A Former CIA Analyst says it is very much possible that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will ask Israel to help him out of the mess he is in. In an interview with Press TV's U.S. Desk on Sunday, Ray McGovern said "I would not exclude the possibility that Mubarak enlist Israeli help to assist him to hang on to power."
McGovern says Israel could help Mubarak with the newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman's takeover and "repress the protests in the country."
Egypt's Hosni Mubarak appointed Omar Suleiman, the country's spy chief as the next vice-president on Saturday.
The former CIA analyst called Suleiman "poison to the people who are demanding their rights." McGovern stressed that Suleiman's reputation is "incredibly harsh" as head of the Egyptian spy agency.
McGovern says Israel is threatened "as never before" by the Egyptian people's call for change. He says Tel Aviv is worried that the movement in Egypt could be "contagious enough to spread to Israel's neighboring countries," like Jordan where people are being repressed.
McGovern concluded by adding that he "would not put it past Mubarak to appeal for help from other repressive leaders in the region."
With good justification, Establishment conservatives sounded the alarm after the Giffords shooting that the Left was out to censor them by falsely tying them to the shooter, Jared Loughner.
But when the DHS and the Main Stream Media falsely reported that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance newsletter was tied to Loughner, Establishment conservatives stayed silent—because they were afraid of being called “racist”.
After a few days of hysteria, Politico ran a piece exposing the lie. However, only a handful of outlets who published the original claim ran a retraction. Fox News, the Associated Press, and NY Times all refused. The original false claim is still on Greta Van Susteren's blog on Fox. Even the Politico reneged on running a piece by Taylor on the craziness and the Fox News, perhaps the worst offender, would not allow him as a guest.
Even after it was safely refuted, with a few exceptions such as Accuracy in Media, no conservatives or libertarians even reported this outrage, much less defended American Renaissance on civil libertarian grounds alone.
Now, Democratic politicians are blatantly blocking American Renaissance’s biannual conference, long set for Charlotte, NC on February 4-6. But the Conservative Establishment stays silent, as it prepares for the Conservative Political Action Conference (February 10-12), its annual rape of the trusting grassroots.
The US State Department has been working feverishly behind the scenes to influence the transition to another US-friendly client. Mubarak has already appointed two vice presidents who have been approved by Washington. Both have good relations with Israel.
This appeared on the Angry Arab website (although there's no way to verify the information):
"A source from within the Presidential Guard has claimed to my friends in Cairo that the army intends to end the protests on Sunday, by any means necessary even if it meant violence and bloodshed. Junta goons are causing chaos in Cairo to claim an unstable situation which will extend until Saturday. Then under the guise of bringing back order, they will "crush them with any amount of force needed!". The sources are unsure of the American role but believe the Americans will go with it."
The Netanyahu administration is clearly concerned about the deteriorating situation and has instructed government officials to avoid talking to the press. So far, there are no reports of troop movements on Israel's southern border.
The revolt in Egypt is an organically driven people-power movement to oust a dictator, restore universal freedoms, and wrestle the country free from the clutches of the US military-industrial complex, but the man now being positioned to form a new government is a pied piper working for the very same globalists and NGO’s that autocrat leader Hosni Mubarak has dutifully served for nearly 30 years.
Make no mistake about it, under the current regime Egypt is a vassal state for the new world order. Under Mubarak, the country receives some $2 billion in aid every year from the United States, second only to Israel. In addition, Egypt pays out $1.1 million annually to the Podesta Group, an organization closely tied with the Obama administration, to act as “foreign agents” for Mubarak’s regime.
This is a grass roots movement being carried out by impoverished young Egyptians finally standing up in unison to a regime that toadies to the west yet allows its people none of the freedoms associated with living in a modern and prosperous nation. But that doesn’t mean the revolution we currently see unfolding on the streets of Alexandria, Cairo, Suez and cannot be co-opted by the very same globalist forces who have been pulling Mubarak’s strings for the past three decades.
Even more ironic is the fact that another powerful globalist who sits on the board of International Crisis Group, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warned last year that the international hierarchyof which he is a key component was under threat from a “global awakening” that would be led by young radicals in third world countries. Having accurately predicted the wave of revolt now spreading like wildfire across the globe, Brzezinski and his fellow globalists are preparing to pick up the pieces in order to continue business as usual, while the people who risked their lives for real change will be the victims of a monumental deception. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Ah but alas, the American empire is crumbling, it is rotting from within, like every single empire before it. And how poetic that its accelerated demise was ignited by the rage and desperation of one Mohamed Bouazizi, one of the countless victims meant to be just another statistic; no no, this statistic just kicked off a global revolution.
Think about it, if a street vendor can do that, imagine the power of the people united, intelligent, fearless and indomitable.
And the people of the world are beginning to realize that all the bribe money, all the weapons, all the sleazy tyrants and their minions are nothing, they are spineless fleeing cowards, running away as cowards do. Let them run to the grotesquely corrupt hosts who will receive them, their day is coming soon as well. Soon there will be nowhere to hide, no gold for them to steal, no court to shield them and no stolen land to live on.
Moving forward with this revolution I am sure many such scoundrels will come home to America, the most corrupt land of them all, by virtue of the seeds of corruption it has sowed across the globe… America, possessor of the most disgusting, servile, traitorous government of them all, will soon play host to all its servile tin pot dictators.
America… the land of illusions, with the veneer of civility and prosperity, in truth the essence of destitution and lunacy. I know this land; it is my birth nation, I was indoctrinated in this nation and made insane, like the vast majority of its population. And yet I am blessed for my insanity because I have survived it, and more importantly I remember it, thus I can look at all my lost brothers and sisters and see myself.
When Egypt had parliamentary elections only two months ago, they were completely rigged. The party of President Hosni Mubarak left the opposition with only 3 percent of the seats. Imagine that. And the American government said that it was “dismayed.” Well, frankly, I was dismayed that all it could say is that it was dismayed. The word was hardly adequate to express the way the Egyptian people felt.
Then, as protests built in the streets of Egypt following the overthrow of Tunisia’s dictator, I heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assessment that the government in Egypt is “stable” and “looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people”. I was flabbergasted—and I was puzzled. What did she mean by stable, and at what price? Is it the stability of 29 years of “emergency” laws, a president with imperial power for 30 years, a parliament that is almost a mockery, a judiciary that is not independent? Is that what you call stability? I am sure not. And I am positive that it is not the standard you apply to other countries. What we see in Egypt is pseudo-stability, because real stability only comes with a democratically elected government.
If you would like to know why the United States does not have credibility in the Middle East, that is precisely the answer. People were absolutely disappointed in the way you reacted to Egypt’s last election. You reaffirmed their belief that you are applying a double standard for your friends, and siding with an authoritarian regime just because you think it represents your interests. We are staring at social disintegration, economic stagnation, political repression, and we do not hear anything from you, the Americans, or for that matter from the Europeans.
So when you say the Egyptian government is looking for ways to respond to the needs of the Egyptian people, I feel like saying, “Well, it’s too late!” This isn’t even good realpolitik. We have seen what happened in Tunisia, and before that in Iran. That should teach people there is no stability except when you have government freely chosen by its own people.
Is the federal government laying the groundwork for total control of the Internet, the greatest invention for advancing the free, unfiltered flow of information since Gutenberg’s printing press?
Could acts of sabotage, such as an “Internet nuclear bomb,” be deliberately implemented or allowed to happen in order to cripple global computerized systems like the ones found on Wall Street and in the military in order to convince the world that the Internet must be more tightly controlled?
In a Jan. 10 interview with Russia Today, noted forecaster of business, socioeconomic and political trends Gerald Celente says cyber-warfare by private criminal groups and governments could be used to “bring down entire financial systems. You can blow apart, without ever having to light a fuse, a whole stock exchange. . . . [E]very computer-connected industry or service is a potential target.”
As a result, Washington bureaucrats stepped into action and the Cyber Security Act was introduced. According to the online technology news outlet, CNET News, this legislation “allows the president to declare a cyber-security emergency relating to non-governmental computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond.”
Unfortunately, all such proactive and “protective” measures involve limiting or even eliminating legal access and communication by the masses. Controversial websites maintained by this newspaper, THE BARNES REVIEW—or any group that does not fall in line with the government—could be taken over by federal authorities and shut down.
It seems as if the world is entering the beginnings of a new revolutionary era: the era of the ‘Global Political Awakening.’ While this ‘awakening’ is materializing in different regions, different nations and under different circumstances, it is being largely influenced by global conditions. The global domination by the major Western powers, principally the United States, over the past 65 years, and more broadly, centuries, is reaching a turning point. The people of the world are restless, resentful, and enraged. Change, it seems, is in the air. As the above quotes from Brzezinski indicate, this development on the world scene is the most radical and potentially dangerous threat to global power structures and empire. It is not a threat simply to the nations in which the protests arise or seek change, but perhaps to a greater degree, it is a threat to the imperial Western powers, international institutions, multinational corporations and banks that prop up, arm, support and profit from these oppressive regimes around the world. Thus, America and the West are faced with a monumental strategic challenge: what can be done to stem the Global Political Awakening? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the chief architects of American foreign policy, and arguably one of the intellectual pioneers of the system of globalization. Thus, his warnings about the 'Global Political Awakening' are directly in reference to its nature as a threat to the prevailing global hierarchy. As such, we must view the 'Awakening' as the greatest hope for humanity. Certainly, there will be mainy failures, problems, and regressions; but the 'Awakening' has begun, it is underway, and it cannot be so easily co-opted or controlled as many might assume.
The reflex action of the imperial powers is to further arm and support the oppressive regimes, as well as the potential to organize a destabilization through covert operations or open warfare (as is being done in Yemen). The alterantive is to undertake a strategy of "democratization" in which Western NGOs, aid agencies and civil society organizations establish strong contacts and relationships with the domestic civil society in these regions and nations. The objective of this strategy is to organize, fund and help direct the domestic civil society to produce a democratic system made in the image of the West, and thus maintain continuity in the international hierarchy. Essentially, the project of "democratization" implies creating the outward visible constructs of a democratic state (multi-party elections, active civil society, "independent" media, etc) and yet maintain continuity in subservience to the World Bank, IMF, multinational corporations and Western powers.
It appears that both of these strategies are being simultaneously imposed in the Arab world: enforcing and supporting state oppression and building ties with civil society organizations. The problem for the West, however, is that they have not had the ability to yet establish strong and dependent ties with civil society groups in much of the region, as ironically, the oppressive regimes they propped up were and are unsurprisingly resistant to such measures. In this sense, we must not cast aside these protests and uprisings as being instigated by the West, but rather that they emerged organically, and the West is subsequently attempting to co-opt and control the emerging movements.
It started, of all places, in Tunisia, a land of sunny beaches and sleepy walled cities – the first stirrings of a revolutionary wave that, before it’s crested, may reach American shores.
The spark flared first in the small town of Sidi Bouzid, in central Tunisia, where Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old graduate student, was accosted by the authorities for selling produce in the souk – the equivalent of a farmer’s market – without a license. Bouazizi, like many in emerging economies, could not find a job in his field – or any other field – and so was forced to resort to hawking olives and oranges to support his family of eight. The officials reportedly humiliated him, and when he went to city hall to try to go "legal," they wouldn’t even let him in the door. These are the circumstances that led to his now famous act of self immolation: in protest, and in full view of passersby, he stood in front of city hall, poured lighter fluid on himself – and struck a match.
This spark set off a prairie fire still burning its way across the Middle East, a conflagration born of boiling resentment and red-hot anger directed at the authorities that has already spread to Egypt and Yemen, and shows every sign of flaring up well beyond the region. As a global economic downturn punctures the delusions of economic planners and technocrats worldwide, the bursting of the bubble brought on by unrestrained bank credit expansion is generating a political tsunami that promises to topple governments from North Africa to North America.
Egypt is the perfect candidate for what we might call the Bouazizian revolution – a US-supported kleptocracy ruled by a coalition of the military, the technocrats, and Washington, with the overarching figure of Hosni Mubarak – now 82 – presiding over it all. As in Tunisia, one of the key issues is the succession: rumors that the Egyptian dictator was planning to pass power on to his son, Gamal, fueled popular fury against this latter-day Pharoah. In both cases, the state is controlled by a single party – in Egypt, it is the National Democratic Party — still resting on the long-ago laurels of an anti-colonialist uprising, and since reified into a bureaucratic incrustation on the body politic.
With the rise of a Hezbollah-backed government in Lebanon, hand-wringing seems to be the order of the day in the American and Israeli governments. Hezbollah is a Shi’ite Islamist group that is the only Arab entity to have defeated Israel in armed conflict—the latest installment being a war in 2006. Yet as much as the U.S. and Israeli governments despise Hezbollah, their prior actions had much to do with its creation and rise to being the most potent force in Lebanese politics.
There’s no question that Hezbollah exhibits a militant form of Shi’ite Islam and sometimes uses terror tactics—for example, targeting civilian areas in Israel with rockets. In addition, a United Nations tribunal will probably indict some of its followers for allegedly committing the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister. And in effect rewarding Hezbollah—which withdrew from the prior Lebanese government to protest its cooperation with the tribunal—by allowing it to be a powerbroker in picking a new prime minister is probably bad for Lebanon.
Yet the U.S. and Israel need not become hysterical over the implications of such developments. The choosing of Najib Miqati, Hezbollah’s pick for Lebanese prime minister, merely makes official the reality since 2008 of the primacy of the downtrodden Shi’ite Muslim community vis-à-vis the traditionally dominant Christians and Sunni Muslims. Furthermore, Miqati is a Sunni moderate who has been prime minister before, knows how to balance competing Saudi and Syrian interests in Lebanon, ran under the banner of a “consensus candidate,” and was not Hezbollah’s first choice. Miqati’s cabinet may even resemble the last one.
Even Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, has pledged to respect Lebanese state institutions and to work toward a “partnership government.” In fact, Hezbollah usually likes to work behind the scenes and only seemingly triggered the crisis leading to the new government in order to stop Lebanese cooperation with a U.N. panel that will likely pursue its members for the assassination.
The uprising in Egypt on Tuesday is of infinitely greater importance than the goon show staged by the corporate-lackey-in-chief and the great mooing herd of cud-chewers in Congress the same night. For decades, the remarkably brutal -- and rottenly stagnant -- dictatorship in Egypt has been one of linchpins of Washington's never-ending effort to "project dominance" over the Middle East. If the Cairo regime falls to a popular revolution, it will send shock waves all through the world-spanning tentacles of the American Empire.
The dictatorship has received tens of billions of dollars in American military "aid" -- most of which, of course, circulates back to the coffers of war profiteers in the States -- along with other bribes for Egypt's ruling clique to buy their obedience to Washington's wishes. Cairo responded by making itself a quiet partner in the great game of murderous deceit that America and Israel have played for years in the so-called "peace process" with the Palestinians -- a deadly sham now being exposed in great detail through the leak of diplomatic cables by al-Jazeera and the Guardian, going back several years.
(Here, in one particularly hair-raising release, Secretary of State Condi Rice suggests shipping Palestinian refugees off to South America -- a macabre echo of the Nazi's early plan to resettle Europe's Jews in Madagascar. This is how our high and mighty really think. This is the moral abyss in which they operate, behind the soaring rhetoric of their goon shows.)
A truly free Egypt would pose a serious challenge for America's Dominationists. It would also without doubt be a target for the long-established bipartisan American policy option which George W. Bush called "the path of action." This could be overt intervention, some hot proxy action from Israel, or, more likely, various covert measures (terrorism, subversion, economic warfare, etc.) aimed at destabilizing an independent Egypt. That this would plunge the region into even more instability -- and empower violent religious extremists -- is of no moment whatsoever to our illustrious goons. War, fear, chaos and terror are meat and drink to the thoroughly militarized American power structure; it thrives on them, it can't exist without them.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) stepped onto the national stage on Tuesday night and delivered the GOP’s response to President Obama’s State of the Union address.
Earlier in the evening, Obama, in his State of the Union speech, argued that for America to “win the future,” the government would need to engage in more deficit spending and run up its proverbial credit card on various programs such as “green” energy investments that are dear to the hearts of liberals.
In a somber tone that seemed to befit an accountant who was staring at the cold hard facts associated with the budget and America’s debt, Ryan’s message to Obama seemed to be “not so fast, Mr. President.”
Stating that “it’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high,” Ryan said that “we believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper.”
A case can be built that Davos offers significant sectors of the so-called "globocrats" the opportunity to buy intellectual seriousness. Essentially these globocrats are politicians, chief executive officers, bankers, hedge fund managers, diplomats and academics, plus U2's Bono, not all of them meritocracy darlings.
Davos though offers an added bonus. A stint does not entail listening to "the rest", that annoying, amorphous entity also known as "the people" - as in drought-afflicted subsistence farmers, desperate refugees from failed or failing states, flesh-and-blood victims of "structural unemployment", and those millions of foreclosed-upon, riches-to-rags middle classes and lower middle classes barely surviving in the developed North. They are unlikely to crash the Davos talkfest anyway.
The WEF is a prestige brand (some would say "scam") - promoted with ruthless efficiency. As it duly congregates mostly the super-wealthy (some would say plutocracy) of what Zygmunt Bauman has defined liquid modernity, it costs a ton of money; from basic membership at about US$52,000 (plus an entrance ticket at $19,000) to an annual "strategic partner" membership at a whopping $527,000 (plus five allowed invitations at $19,000 each).
WEF is not accepting any more "strategic partners" for 2011 unless it's a Chinese or Indian company placed among the 250 largest in the world. Probably eyeing them as well, and not leaving anything to chance, Google with throw a $250,000-plus party at Davos on Friday night.
Mark Potok, the Southern Poverty Law Center's underpaid hitman, has posted a HuffPo column [Nativist Laws Wreak Havoc Across Nation, January 24, 2010] puffing the SPLC's just-issued report attacking the desperate efforts of American to protect themselves from illegal aliens at the local level, a result of Washington's paralysis. The ultimate target (“Behind all of this stands one man”) seems to be Kris Kobach, chief counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, whose election as Kansas Secretary of State last November was part of the immigration patriot movement's glacial but inexorable advance into politics, something the $PLC and its backers want to stop at all costs.
Kobach for President!
Probably because MSM coverage of the $PLC is so uncritical, Potok unguardedly makes two telling admissions. First, he writes:
"Kobach's affiliation with FAIR is important. For most of the last three decades, FAIR has been working, as its founder John Tanton once wrote, to preserve "a European-American majority, and a clear one at that." Although the organization is typically less than candid about its motives, its president Dan Stein has sounded similar notes."
In other words, the Treason Lobby is threatening to spend enough money to litigate patriot legislation to death (with a little help from friendly liberal judges). This is nothing less than an open expression of contempt for democracy—and remember, these are illegal immigrants the $PLC is insisting on imposing on Americans.
Of course, it raises the question of the $PLC's lavish funding—and why it hasn't returned the Madoff-tainted money it got from the Picower Foundation.
In November 2009, the world was stunned to learn of a shockingly popular book in Israel, The King’s Torah. It advocates murder of non-Jews and even their babies, claiming such infants would only grow up to become enemies of Israel. Ha’aretz says the book received “wide dissemination and the enthusiastic endorsement of prominent rabbis.” Some rabbinic authorities have condemned it, but many influential Orthodox leaders have chosen to remain noncommittal. (Ha’aretz, March 23, 2010, “The King’s Torah: A Rabbinic Text or a Call to Terror?”) They recognize that anti-Arab sentiment and sympathy, even with violent militancy against Palestinians, continues its dramatic upswing in Israel.
The book’s primary author, Yitzhak Shapira, was arrested in February 2010 for violating Israel’s law against incitement to religious hatred. However, he is reported not to fear imprisonment because of his influence and stature as a prominent head of the ultra-Orthodox settler movement. That confidence has been vindicated by lack of significant prosecution of Shapira for nearly a year.
Recently, a poll in Israel found a majority of Israelis approve the racist rights of Jewish property owners who refuse to sell or rent to Arabs. (See, Most Israelis Approve Racist Rabbis) Just as significantly, the government of Israel itself seems outwardly divided between bland expressions of tolerance by Prime Minister Netanyahu versus “inflammatory statements” and “unbridled incitement” of the ultra-Orthodox by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Ha’aretz, January 12, 2011, “The Extreme Right’s Incitement Will End in Murder”).
As Israel descends into ultra-Orthodoxy, increasingly violent solutions to the “Arab problem” are proposed. A recent Ha’aretz editorial describes an ultra-Orthodox video that recommends killing authorities and police who aid Palestinians attacked by settlers. Factions in the highest levels of Israel’s government, including the cabinet and Knesset, are sympathetic to the militant far right. Ha’aretz: “Scarcely a day goes by… without the coalition joining hands with the extreme right in order to depict non-Jews as hostile elements – and Israeli Human Rights groups protecting Arab rights, as enemies of the state.”
We began calling Keith Olbermann, Obamamann during the 08 (s)election, due to his ceaseless boot licking, and obsequious propaganda repeated nightly in support of Barack Obama, and all things Democrat. Even progressives and “liberals” became sick of this act, which created an unprecedented ratings slide at MSNBC.
MSNBC-GE-Comcast has some work to do to save this so called new network.
Here are a few suggestions for them:
1) FIRE Ed Shultz, Larry O Donnell, and Rachel Maddow asap before they drag you down with them!
2) Give Dylan Ratigan a Raise!
3) Publicly apologize for what you did to Mr Phil Donahue just after 911.
4) Admit that you are nothing but a war propagandist, and that you GE, have profited from the Bush / Obama wars, and the commentary supporting them. IE: Add a disclaimer reminding viewers of your bias, and connection to the Military Industrial Complex. Warn people of this conflict of interest.
5) Hire news presenters that are not smug, condescending, and cheap.
The exposure by al-Jazeera and London’s Guardian newspaper of a huge cache of documents detailing Palestinian accounts of a decade of peace negotiations with Israel could deal a lethal blow to U.S. efforts to get a credible process back on track, according to experts.
By demonstrating how much the Palestine Authority (PA) was willing to give up in exchange for an independent state, the 1,600-some documents, whose disclosure began Sunday and will reportedly continue through Wednesday, are likely to further undermine in its people’s eyes the already badly weakened regime headed by its president, Mahmoud Abbas.
“It is likely to deal a death blow to an American-led peace process already on life support, and hasten the end of the Palestinian Authority created by the 1993 Oslo accords,” wrote Nadia Hijab, a senior fellow at the Washington office of the Institute for Palestinian Studies, in the Financial Times Monday.
Indeed, two Jewish-American peace groups Monday greeted the release of the papers as new evidence that, contrary to Israel’s long-standing claim, the Palestinians have been ready to make pace.
On Friday, the highly partisan Democrat Keith Olbermann announced his departure from MSNBC (see video below). Naturally, the corporate media made a big deal out of what is in fact merely a game of musical chairs – Olbermann will find another nest where he can read his Pentagon generated teleprompter scripts to the camera and rebuke and make adolescent jokes about establishment Republicans and issue dire warnings about the supposed danger of people who insist the government follow the Constitution.
In November, Olbermann was suspended indefinitely without pay after it was reported that he unwisely made three campaign contributions to two Arizona Democrat members of Congress – including shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords – and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of the mid-term elections.
Olbermann’s vacated slot will be covered by an equally scurrilous Democrat partisan hack – Lawrence O’Donnell. Harvard graduate O’Donnell’s career is a textbook example of a Democrat operative. He worked as a key legislative aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He parlayed political connections with other Democrat operatives, most notably Chris Matthews, into an MSNBC gig. In October, O’Donnell revealed his true colors when he went back on an agreement with Ron Paul not to discuss other political candidates during an interview.
Democrat state-worshipper Ed Schultz will follow up O’Donnell.
Not that it matters. Corporate media news programs – including those on Fox – continue to slip as people discover that MSNBC, Fox, CNN and the rest of the establishment alphabet soup media are little more than propaganda venues for the government and the elite. In December, it was reported that Chris Matthews drew a scant 228,000 viewers while Olbermann corralled 245,000. Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell draw even less.
Jeffrey Goldberg, national correspondent for The Atlantic, was born and bred in America. Yet, having enlisted in the Israeli Defense Force, he seems to have picked up some of the Jewish state’s characteristic frankness. So, while much of the rest of the MainStream Media was flailing about trying to concoct new rationalizations for their furious attempt to pin that Arizona psycho’s rampage on mass-market Republican spokespeople like Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, and Glenn Beck, Goldberg cut to the chase. In Glenn Beck’s Jewish Problem (January 18, 2011), Goldberg simply accused Beck, the autodidactic Fox News talker, of anti-Semitism.
Now, Beck might strike a neutral observer as wildly pro-Semitic. But, you see, Goldberg has a list. He wrote:
"This is a post about Beck's recent naming of nine people—eight of them Jews—as enemies of America and humanity. … "
According to Goldberg, Beck denounced billionaire George Soros, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, 1920s’ PR man Edward Bernays, 1920s pundit Walter Lippmann, Obama Administration official Cass Sunstein, National Welfare Rights Organization co-founder Frances Fox Piven, former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell, former SEIU labor boss Andy Stern, along with one unnamed gentile, as "enemies of America and humanity."
In recent years I have become more and more concerned with the interactions between three important and alarming trends in recent American history. The first is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, even obsession, to involve itself in needless and pernicious wars. The second, closely related, is the progressive shrinking of public politics and the rule of law as they are subordinated, even domestically, to the requirements of covert U.S. operations abroad.
The third, also closely related, is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history and the global extension of American power, of what I have called deep events. These events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in media and internal government records.
One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all three deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1980s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially as “the Doomsday Project.” The implementation of COG plans on 9/11, or what I call Doomsday Power, was the culmination of three decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.
What I mean by “doomsday power” is the package of repressive mechanisms (which I have discussed elsewhere under their official name of “continuity of government” or COG plans), that was prepared over two decades by the elite COG planning group, and then implemented beginning on 9/11. The package includes 1) warrantless surveillance, 2) warrantless detention, (including unprecedented abridgments of the right to habeas corpus), and 3) unprecedented steps towards the militarization of domestic security enforcement and shrinking of the posse comitatus acts.
One recent development of Doomsday power, for example, has been the deployment since 2008 of a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team to be stationed permanently in the United States. A major part of its dedicated assignment is to be "called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”16 Many people seem to be unaware that Americans, together with this Brigade, have lived since 2002 under a U.S. Army Command called NORTHCOM.17 Yet if nothing is done to change the present course of events, historians may come some day to compare the stationing of this brigade in 2008 CE to the date, in 49 BCE, when Caesar, along with his legion, crossed the Rubicon.
The constitutional hurdles are very high, says this New York Times piece. And the topic is so sensitive that no one will dare put it in writing on the Hill. But it may very well come down to bailing out some states with federal money or allowing them to declare some kind of bankruptcy:
Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.
Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign. But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government's aid.
Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie suggested in an interview published today that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.
Abercrombie told the Honolulu Star Advertiser he was searching within the Hawaii Department of Health to find definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii, because the continuing eligibility controversy could hurt the president's chances of re-election in 2012.
Donalyn Dela Cruz, Abercrombie's spokeswoman in Honolulu, ignored again today another in a series of repeated requests made by WND for an interview with the governor.
Toward the end of the interview, the newspaper asked Abercrombie: "You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plan to release more information regarding President Barack Obama's birth certificate. How is that coming?"
China's President Hu Jintao's four-day state visit to the United States that ended on Friday has unleashed an avalanche of empty verbiage, courtesy of the two governments, their media enablers, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere.
The trip, a victory lap for Hu prior to his retirement next year, appears essentially devoid of significant accomplishments or developments, unless you are a stockholder in Boeing (and can celebrate a US$19 billion payday occasioned partially, if not completely, by China's desire to facilitate the visit with some feel-good tangibles for President Barack Obama and China's friends in American big business).
During the joint press conference, Hu was heckled by demonstrators across the street but nobody arose from the press gaggle to scream at him. (Nevertheless, China cautiously blacked out the CNN live feed of the press conference, leading to a predictable spate of "Commies Can't Handle the Truth" news reports and blog posts).
Tough talk on Chinese currency and human rights issues and Beijing's irritating habit of supporting North Korea and Iran was carefully modulated, with both leaders performing a predictable and rather tedious tango for the benefit of the media.
Therefore, in the area of visuals, China got what it wanted: acknowledgment, not necessarily of its status as a burgeoning regional power, but of its role as an important US interlocutor.
“The Patriot Act was similar to legislation carried out by the Nazis because essentially it was using terrorism in both cases as an excuse to strip civil liberties that were enjoyed in both countries; in the United States and Germany,” Phillip Giraldi said in an interview with Press TV.
“Governments have been willing to use fear, such as fear of terrorism, and fear of the enemy, as a way to get the people lined up in support of government policies. Very often these policies are essentially bad for the people because they take away many of their rights,” the former CIA officer said.
He went on to say that the relationship between the American citizens and the US government has changed for the worse since the introduction of the Patriot Act, adding that Americans had not become any safer by their rights being stripped away.
The US Patriot Act and desecration of the constitution has brought a dictatorship surveillance society of phone tapping, hidden cameras and policy brutality in the United States, Giraldi said.
The act, which was hastily adopted six weeks after the 2001 terrorist attacks, allows the US government to spy on its citizens without the need for a court order.
In February 2010, the House of Representatives and the Senate approved the extension of the Bush-era bill and sent it to President Obama who thereby signed the legislation into law.
Exposed by Anthony Lawson. Utterly destroyed by Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff. Slammed by Dr. Alan Sabrosky. Blasted by Jeff Gates. Shredded by Susan Abulhawa. Beat up by the Empire Strikes Black blog. Demolished by American Everyman owner Scott Creighton. Pierced by Lila Rajiva. And picked apart piece by piece in a thorough, exhaustive debunking by this author, still, Wikileaks just won’t go away.
The cat was out of the bag from the very beginning, with it being touted by one of the Zionist media’s top assets, TIME Magazine. In an even more flagrant display from the Zionist criminal network, Wikileaks received top billing from puppet president Obama’s information Czar, the originator of cyber COINTELPRO, Cass Sunstein.
This wasn’t enough however; the PSYOP hadn’t penetrated deep enough into global consciousness. It hadn’t resonated strongly enough with the ‘truth movement.’ Enter Julian Assange, the rockstar whistleblower traveling all around the world with billionaire friends, corporate Zionist lawyers, high-priced photo shoots, thousand dollar suits and of course, his omnipresent media partners. Under the wing of the mass media, Julian Assange became a head of the Wikileaks hydra loved and cherished by the world.
While Zionist asset Julian Assange’s Wiki-Hydra generates more heads as we speak, the real alternative media is aware it is time to drive the stake through the heart and put it away once and for all. Israel’s favorite PSYOP may not want to die at the moment, but you better believe that we will push it to the brink until it decides to do so.
The utter hypocrisy, economic ignorance, and general all around cluelessness of America’s political class – never very far from the surface — was on full display during Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Washington this week.
There was Nancy Pelosi, a longtime Sinophobe, hectoring the Chinese leader over his country’s human rights record – when her own country openly practices torture, spies on its own citizens, and has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in a series of wars of "liberation."
There was Paul Krugman, economist-in-chief of Bizarro World, explaining to us that Chinese subsidies which keep their exports affordable for US consumers are supposedly hurting us – when actually the opposite is the case.
And there were the neocons over the Weekly Standard, pointing to the "boundless" military ambitions of the People’s Liberation Army and the alleged threat from Beijing – this from a magazine whose editor has proclaimed that the goal of US foreign policy ought to be "global hegemony"!
Everyone with any intelligence in the US and around the world knows that there is no way for Washington to manage the tens of trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities short of ultimate repudiation or hyperinflation. Thanks to Wall Street bankers and the Anglo-American financial elite, our ruinous debt-financing Ponzi scheme has also been exported to most Western nations. These politicians have made a compact with the devil in delivering vote-buying programs and postponing the interest and debt reduction to future generations. Watch the cuts and subsequent riots in Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and you'll see just a little of the future for the United States with its faltering world reserve currency status.
The question is, should the citizens and the formerly sovereign states of the United States wait for Washington's foreign creditors to seize the remaining government and private assets left after our politicians have finished with us?
Our politicians are in the process of totally bankrupting the country, individual states and municipalities and in less than a decade will have confiscated most private wealth and placed tens of trillions of more debt on future generations. Should we act now before Congress and our politicians loot our personal, retirement and real estate wealth, destroy our Treasury obligations and kill the dollar and democratically take matters into our own hands before the looming dollar and debt crisis?
One alternative is for Americans in the individual states to organize and work toward a "Washington National Debt Constitutional Amendment" and repudiate much of the Washington government debt before it bankrupts every private American citizen. Otherwise, the massive increase in the level of indebtedness due to the meltdown and depression may first bring down the Treasury market followed by the US dollar and this will destroy the American economy for decades to come.
Not satisfied with a hemorrhaging trade deficit with China that continues to bleed American jobs at a rate of millions, a crumbling manufacturing base being replaced by the endless import of cheap slave goods from the Communist state, and a stunted economy being rapidly outpaced by the Red Dragon, the Obama administration wanted to further drill it in to Americans who the new boss is yesterday, by placing Chinese flags throughout Washington DC before Obama’s fawning meeting with unelected President Hu Jintao.
Everyone is painfully aware of the fact that China now owns the United States economically, with the Chinese central bank being the largest debt holder at approaching $1 trillion dollars. The average American family with two children collectively owes around $12,000 dollars to China. The Communist state’s ownership of long term U.S. Treasury Securities means the United States pays upwards of $100 million dollars a day to China in terms of interest alone.
China’s huge accumulation of US dollars gives it the sway to lead the United States by the nose like a sheep to slaughter, holding in its hands the power to decide the economic destiny of the now collapsing American empire. The culmination of this process moved a step closer this week when Hu Jintao made it clear that China was preparing to sharpen the knife for the bloodletting to begin, by deriding the dollar as a “product of the past” and signaling its replacement with a new global monetary system based around the Chinese yuan.
The sickening worship and fealty displayed towards Jintao and China this week is all about training Americans to recognize who their new slavemasters are – the globalists who have exalted the Communist state as a model country for the new world order – a world in which antiquated ideas about freedom of the individual, prosperity, self-determination, family and happiness will be abolished.
Our international financial system, based on the US dollar as the dominant reserve currency, faces an unprecedented bout of flu. Following the outbreak of the financial crisis in 2007, the drawbacks of the dollar-based system have become ever more glaring, prompting a number of world leaders and central bankers to voice their concerns, with Chinese President Hu Jintao, at present on a state visit to the United States, and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France becoming its most vocal and influential critics.
The recent decision of the US Federal Reserve to inject US$600 billion into the economy, on top of the prevailing abundance of dollar liquidity, and to maintain near-zero interest rates, has created more tensions around the globe, inciting fears of a currency war.
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Fed has been expanding liquidity at a merciless rate. This planned money creation by the Fed on top of what was done in the aftermath of the financial crisis would lead to a total increase exceeding $2.3 trillion; meanwhile, the US can be expected to lift its debt ceiling above the $15 trillion mark. There is no letting up of liquidity expansion.
As a result of record-low US interest rates and massive dollar injections, there are pressures for dollar outflows to attractive emerging markets in pursuit of higher interest rates. Central banks around the world that want to avoid the depreciation of the dollar (that is the same thing as an appreciation of their own currencies and thus the loss of international competitiveness for their exports) are forced to use their own currency to buy up dollars. This results in a forced expansion of their own money supply, which in turn exerts inflationary pressures in their own markets.
The Obama administration has yet to come up with a plan to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which are draining our economy, prevent the continuing mortgage meltdown, get more Americans back to work, or do away with pork-barrel spending and government corruption, to name just a few of the overriding concerns plaguing our nation today. Instead, purportedly motivated by a desire to make our lives easier, the president wants to implement a universal Internet ID that would eliminate the need for multiple usernames and passwords.
For those inclined to view government as a benevolent institution, this can be viewed as a considerate gesture in a time of economic and social unrest. However, for those who would take seriously John Adams’ warning “to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty,” this latest move is nothing short of a Trojan Horse attempt to sidestep privacy concerns and institute a national ID, all the while giving the government even greater access to our most personal information.
Under the stated goal of achieving Internet security and consumer convenience, the Identity Ecosystem, as the program has been dubbed, would supposedly streamline the process of doing business online by replacing the various login names and passwords currently used to access personal accounts and information on various websites with a universal Internet ID. However, as Curt Hopkins points out in the New York Times, “a user would have one, ‘verified’ ID, which would be known by the government, and a set of large corporations. Given the periodic outbreak of governmental and corporate shenanigans, we fail to see the benefit of such a system.”
And who has the president entrusted with being the gatekeeper of our most sensitive online transactions? Not the Department of Homeland Security, which spent a year masterminding the strategy, nor the National Security Agency, which carries out the government’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Rather, the Identity Ecosystem will supposedly be overseen by the Commerce Department -- a move clearly intended to assuage fears that the government would improperly make use of such highly personal information. Yet in the wake of 9/11, information sharing between government agencies has become so commonplace that it would be naïve to think that the DHS and NSA, both of which have been jockeying for control of the nation’s cybersecurity, won’t have easy access to the information.
None other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, eminent United States foreign policy guru and the man who gave the former Soviet Union "its Vietnam", thundered via the New York Times that the current summit between presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao is "the most important top-level United States-Chinese encounter since Deng Xiaoping's historic trip more than 30 years ago".
Dr Zbig could have extended his hyperbole to the cosmic geopolitical shifts operating these past 30 years, not to mention 40 years, if one considers the historic meeting between Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon and the Great Helmsman Mao Zedong in 1972 in Beijing.
And that brings us to the current Google-GM summit. Yes, for the toiling global masses, this is what it's all about. China is like Google. You just can't live without it. If you're searching for something, anything, you hit Google. The US is like General Motors. With so much to offer on show, from the practical (Hyundai) to the glamorous (Aston Martin), who in his right mind wants to buy a car from GM? (OK, successful entrepreneurs in Chengdu do buy made-in-China Buicks, but that's another story.)
Nothing paints the overall picture so starkly as the mad scrambling that has been going on for weeks by every single Wall Street CEO to assure a seat at the - imperial - White House state dinner in homage to Hu. It's already one of the defining marks of the young century - sturdy Anglo Saxon advocates of laissez faire transformed into ardent defenders of Chinese-style authoritarian capitalism. What else? After all, China saved Western turbo-capitalism - fulfilling the Little Helmsman's plans to the letter. Not to mention China controls 21% - and counting - of all US Treasury debt, and the Chinese central bank is swimming in 25% of the world's reserves.
Although with the new treaty reducing deployed long-range strategic missiles (New START), an agreement on nuclear cooperation, and an arrangement to transport supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan through Russia, U.S.-Russian relations are on the upswing, there is much more to be done. And Russian proposals should be taken seriously, because they might also serve U.S. interests.
The Russians are testing U.S. rhetoric about creating a shared missile-defense system. In the past, the United States has claimed that any Europe-based missile-defense system was aimed foiling a missile attack from Iran, not Russia, and that Russia had too many warheads for its nuclear deterrent to be threatened by such a modest missile defense. Nonetheless, as the number of strategic missiles comes down under New START and a missile-defense system is erected near Russia’s borders, Russia is becoming justifiably more nervous about the system.
Of course, a Europe-based missile defense is hardly needed for U.S. security. Even if the Iranians, whose alleged nuclear program apparently has been recently set back by U.S. and/or Israeli sabotage, ever produce a nuclear warhead that could be placed on a long-range missile, the vast and capable U.S. nuclear force would likely deter any nuclear attack from Iran – even if missile defenses were never deployed.
In fact, missile defense is an expensive relic of the Cold War, which the U.S. can no longer afford given its huge budget deficits and high debt levels. Keeping the program alive are Republicans who want to preserve this white elephant to realize the grandiose “Star Wars” dream of their hero, Ronald Reagan. Besides, if the rich Europeans want missile defense against Iran – apparently not as much as the United States wants it for them – they should research, build, and pay for their own system.
Fifty years after Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Jan. 17, 1961, speech on the “military-industrial complex,” that threat has morphed into a far more powerful and sinister force than Eisenhower could have imagined. It has become a “permanent war state,” with the power to keep the United States at war continuously for the indefinite future.
But despite their seeming invulnerability, the vested interests behind U.S. militarism have been seriously shaken twice in the past four decades by some combination of public revulsion against a major war, opposition to high military spending, serious concern about the budget deficit, and a change in perception of the external threat. Today, the permanent war state faces the first three of those dangers to its power simultaneously – and in a larger context of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The percentage of Americans who believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting has now reached 60 percent for the first time. And as the crisis over the federal debt reaches it climax, the swollen defense budget should bear the brunt of deep budget cuts. As early as 2005, a Pew Research Center survey found that, when respondents were given the opportunity to express a preference for budget cuts by major accounts, they opted to reduce military spending by 31 percent. In another survey by the Pew Center a year ago, 76 percent of respondents, frustrated by the continued failure of the U.S. economy, wanted the United States to put top priority in its domestic problems.
The only thing missing from this picture is a grassroots political movement organized specifically to demand an end to the permanent war state. Such a movement could establish firm legal restraints on the institutions that threaten American democracy through a massive educational and lobbying effort. This is the right historical moment to harness the latent anti-militarist sentiment in the country to a conscious strategy for political change.
Mossad is reportedly recruiting agents from the hundreds of southern Sudanese in Israel who have migrated to Israel for employment opportunities. Many of these southern Sudanese refugees, mostly found in Tel Aviv, are expected to return to their new nation.
However, it is the ambitions of Israel that may pose the greater problem for the land of the Nile headwaters. Israel’ expansionist government is fond of using the collection of ancient folk lore and myths known as the “Old Testament” to drive claims to land in the West Bank [which are referred to by the arcane biblical names of Judea and Samaria] but also, increasingly to lands in northern Iraq. On January 28, 2008, WMR reported: “Israeli expansionists, their intentions to take full control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and permanently keep the Golan Heights of Syria and expand into southern Lebanon already well known, also have their eyes on parts of Iraq considered part of a biblical ‘Greater Israel.’ Israel reportedly has plans to re-locate thousands of Kurdish Jews from Israel, including expatriates from Kurdish Iran, to the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Nineveh under the guise of religious pilgrimages to ancient Jewish religious shrines. According to Kurdish sources, the Israelis are secretly working with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to carry out the integration of Kurdish and other Jews into areas of Iraq under control of the KRG. Kurdish, Iraqi Sunni Muslim, and Turkmen have noted that Kurdish Israelis began to buy land in Iraqi Kurdistan after the U.S. invasion in 2003 that is considered historical Jewish ‘property.’ The Israelis are particularly interested in the shrine of the Jewish prophet Nahum in al Qush, the prophet Jonah in Mosul, and the tomb of the prophet Daniel in Kirkuk. Israelis are also trying to claim Jewish ‘properties’ outside of the Kurdish region, including the shrine of Ezekiel in the village of al-Kifl in Babel Province near Najaf and the tomb of Ezra in al-Uzayr in Misan Province, near Basra, both in southern Iraq’s Shi’a-dominated territory. Israeli expansionists consider these shrines and tombs as much a part of “Greater Israel” as Jerusalem and the West Bank, which they call ‘Judea and Samaria.’”
Some Africa policy habitués of the Council on Foreign Relations and other fronts for the global banking elites are already floating the idea that the Sudan solution may be applied to Africa’s other north-south and Islamic-Christian flash points like Nigeria and Ivory Coast. They reason that if majority Christian south Sudan can separate from largely Muslim north Sudan, why not majority Muslim north Ivory Coast from largely Christian south Ivory Coast and Muslim north Nigeria from Christian south Nigeria? And the Democratic Republic of the Congo has long been seen as a prime candidate for “Balkanization” by the Corporate Council on Africa and its affiliates at the Kissingerian Center for Strategic and International Studies.
AIPAC is embroiled in a court battle with its former director of foreign-policy issues, Steven Rosen, who claims the committee first unfairly fired then slandered and libeled him for not exhibiting “the conduct that AIPAC expects from its employees.” He is seeking damages totaling $20 million.
AIPAC has successfully limited the case to the defamation charge, but attempts to have the suit dismissed outright have failed. Defeat for AIPAC could have serious consequences beyond a sudden shortage of donors—including increasing demands that the group register as a foreign lobby. Even criminal charges related to passing classified information to Israel, an offense under the Espionage Act, could be in the offing. There is some prospect that the trial could spin out of control, with proliferating charges and counter-charges leading to the effective dismantling of AIPAC.
The betting is that Rosen might accept an out-of-court settlement for most of the money he is seeking. But there are also reports that relations between Rosen and his former employer have become so poisonous that reconciliation is impossible. AIPAC is trying to discredit Rosen completely and is gathering a defense fund of between $5 and $10 million in an attempt to salvage its reputation among the well-heeled donors who have until recently provided the group’s $70 million annual budget.
Rosen and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman were charged under the Espionage Act in 2003 after the FBI made the case that they had obtained classified information from Pentagon employee Larry Franklin and passed it on to Israeli diplomats and to journalist Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. In 2005, the two men were fired by AIPAC in spite of the group’s initial pledges of support. The espionage trial dragged on until May 1, 2009, when it was finally dismissed after the government could not make its case in the face of adverse decisions by presiding judge T.S. Ellis, possibly acting under pressure from the White House to end the proceedings.
1. The IRS is NOT a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. Diversified Metal Products v IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.I. Public Law 94-564 Senate Report 94-1148, pg 5967 Reor ganization Plan #26 Public Law 102-391
2. The IMF is an Agency of the U.N. Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg 816
3. The United States has NOT had a Treasury since 1921. 41 Stat. Ch. 214 page 654
4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. Presi dential Documents Volume 29 No. 4 page 113 22 U.S.C. 285-288
5. The U.S. does not have any employees because there is no longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After 200 years of bankruptcy it is finally over. Executive Order 12803
6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NSA and all of the other Alphabet Gangs were never part of the U.S. Government, even though the 'U.S. Government held stock in said 'Agencies. &n bsp; U.S. v. Strang, 254 U.S. 491 Lewis v. U.S., 680 F.2d, 1239
7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF.
The application for an SSN is the SS5 form. The Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5, not the 'Social Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who publishes them while the old form states they are Department of Treasury. 20 CFR Chap. 111 Subpart B 422.103 (b)
8. There are NO Judicial Courts in America and have not been since 1789.
'Judges do NOT enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178
9. There have NOT been any 'Ju dges in America since 1789. There have only been Administrators. FRC v. GE, 281 U.S. 464 Keller v. Potomac Elec. Co., 261 U.S. 428 1 Stat. 138-178
10. According to GATT you MUST have a Social Security Number. House Report 103-826
The 50 states and 90,000 other non-Federal government entities of the United States are now unable to maintain any pretense of functioning and paying up on financial claims, and are experiencing, instead, a process of disintegration of horrific proportions. While many pundits are presenting these situations as financial crises, the reality is that they represent a physical-economic collapse which is the lawful result of more than 40 years of a post-industrial paradigm, and the looting of living standards by the imperial monetarist system.
The only solution to these individual crises lies in the Constitutional powers of the Federal government, which must immediately do two things. First, it must cancel trillions of dollars of phony toxic debt, which is clogging up and oppressing our financial system; the way to do this is through re-implementation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1933 Glass-Steagall law (repealed in 1999), which imposed a ruthless separation between commercial banking and investment (speculative) banking—leaving the latter to hang out to dry. This law was firmly rooted in the U.S. Constitution.
The bonded indebtedness of states and municipalities is estimated at $2.8 trillions; this does not include other obligations, especially pension fund payments due.
Some $500 billion, within the $2.8 trillion, is related to "interest rate management" collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and other such looting "products," foisted on states and localities. So far, $4 billion has been paid up in recent years by municipalities, to exit their contracts with JP Morgan, Bank of Canada, Goldmas Sachs, and other vulture operations, which marketed the interest-rate deals.
The level of unfunded pension obligations is in the range of $3-3.5 trillion, for both states and local entities.
The CIA is "out of control" and often refuses to cooperate with other parts of the national security community, even undermining their efforts, said former National Security Agency head William Odom, according to a recently released record of a 9/11 Commission interview.
"The CIA currently doesn't work for anyone. It thinks it works for the president, but it doesn't and it's out of control," says a report summarizing remarks made by Odom, a retired three-star general who served as director of the NSA from 1985 to 1988.
Odom, who also served on the National Security Council staff during the Carter administration, was known as an outspoken advocate for intelligence reform. He died in 2008.
"The director of the CIA has as much reason to brief the president as the man on the moon," Odom told the staff of the commission investigating the failure to prevent the terror attacks.
Odom also believed that intelligence officials weren't held sufficiently accountable for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He said he believed that the heads of the NSA and the CIA should both have been fired by the president after 9/11 for "symbolic purposes."
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) has introduced a little-noticed bill that intends to once again renew controversial provisions of the Bush administration's USA Patriot Act that are due to expire this year.
When the act was first signed into law, Congress put in some "sunset" provisions to quiet the concerns of civil libertarians, but they were ignored by successive extensions. Unfortunately, those concerns proved to be well founded, and a 2008 Justice Department report confirmed that the FBI regularly abused their ability to obtain personal records of Americans without a warrant.
The only real sign of strong opposition to the act was in 2005, when a Democratic threat to filibuster its first renewal was overcome by Senate Republicans.
Since the bill introduced by Rogers on Jan. 5 was virtually identical to the extension passed last year, its passage was seen as likely.
"Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current deadline, and the fact that the bill’s Republican sponsor is only seeking another year, I think it’s safe to read this as signaling an agreement across the aisle to put the issue off yet again," the libertarian Cato Institute's Julian Sanchez wrote.
Although the politically correct thing to say is that neither the religion of the terrorist nor that of Mrs. Giffords is relevant, you can bet your last dollar if the terrorist had been a Muslim, his religion would have been a non-stop 24/7 topic in media discussion.
It is interesting that so many are talking about how excessive name-calling and heavy-handed rhetoric may have somehow influenced the killer. Even Mrs. Giffords recently expressed concerns about the angry tone of political discussion today.
Yet, going back to her earliest years in politics in the Arizona state Legislature, Mrs. Giffords publicly associated herself with a group that has, for decades, engaged in the most incendiary form of political grandstanding, name-calling, throwing brickbats, organizing boycotts, and—perhaps most disturbingly—engaging in illicit spying on law-abiding American citizens.
Although it pains us to report Mrs. Giffords’ association with such a group, the fact is she served on the Arizona regional board of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a nasty outfit that has stirred up public unrest—and racial and religious strife—for nearly a century.
No Place for Violence
After the Tucson shootings of a Congresswoman and a federal judge, President Obama argues that there’s no place for violence in American society. Then we went off to discuss one of his wars.
There is another dynamic to this complicated relationship that must be addressed, that of the internal dynamics between the political, economic and military elite of the dominant nations. For the sake of time, I will focus on the two principle nations: America and China. America’s national security apparatus, namely the Pentagon and intelligence services, have long worked in the service of the economic elite and in close cooperation with the political elite. There is a network that exists, which President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” where the interests of these three sectors overlap and thus America is given its imperial impetus.
It is within the major think tanks of the nation, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where cohesion between these sectors is encouraged and managed. The think tanks, and the CFR most especially, are the policy-makers of the American Empire. Think tanks bring together elites from most power sectors of society – the military, political, corporate, banking, intelligence, academia, media, etc. – and they discuss, debate and ultimately produce strategy blueprints and recommendations for American foreign policy. Individuals from these think tanks move in and out of the policy-making circles, creating a revolving door between the policy-planners and those that implement them. The think tanks, in this context, are essentially the intellectual engines of the American Empire.
Still, we must not assume that because they are grouped together, work together, and strategize together, that they are identical in views or methods; there is significant debate, disagreement and conflict within and between the think tanks and policy-making circles. However, dissent within these institutions is of a particular nature: it focuses on disagreement over methods rather than aims and objectives. To elaborate, the members (at least the powerful members) of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations do not disagree on the cause of empire and supporting American hegemony, that is a given, and is not often even discussed. That is the environment in which the elite operate.
What is up for debate and discussion is the methods used to achieve this, and it is here where significant conflicts arise between elites. Bankers and corporations seek to protect their financial and economic interests around the world. Military officials are concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and are largely focused on potential rivals to American military power, and tend to favour military options of foreign policy over diplomatic ones. Political representatives must be concerned with the total influence and projection of American power – economically, militarily, politically, etc. – and so they must weigh and balance these multiple interests and translate it into a cohesive policy. Often, they lean towards the use of military might, however, there have been many incidents and issues for which political leaders have had to reign in the military and pursue diplomatic objectives. There have also been instances where the military has attempted to reign in rabidly militaristic political leaders, such as during the Bush administration with the neo-conservatives pushing for direct confrontation with Iran, prompting direct and often public protests and rebuttals from the military establishment, as well as several resignations of top-ranking generals.
Hosting service removes BATR.NET Forum
SiteGround hosting service is unable or unwilling to block the hacking attack on the BATR Forum. Therefore, we regret that BATR.NET is offline until a new service can be secured. Appreciate your support of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Visit http://batr.org/ which is safely up and running online.
"Unfortunately, your website CPU usage is not suitable for a shared hosting server and that is why we will no longer be able to host it on a shared hosting server.
We would be able to keep your account with the limitation active on its current location for the next 7 days. After this period, if the account is not upgraded, we will be forced to suspend it in order to ensure the stability of the shared server".
The failure of the U.S. war strategy in Afghanistan to contain the anti-government insurgency has led the Obama administration to expand the undeclared war in Pakistan. According to the Long War Journal, the number of U.S. attacks in Pakistan, using unmanned Predator drones, has gone from five in 2007 to 117 in 2010.
Government officials here in Washington say privately that they expect the covert war to expand even further this year. Yet Congress and the public have undertaken no significant examination of this new war's consequences.
Members of Congress have almost daily reminders of the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the form of the dead and wounded U.S. soldiers that return to this country. Lawmakers travel regularly to attend funerals of the fallen.
The U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan produce many casualties, but none of those killed are citizens of our country. The pilots operating the remote-controlled drones used to launch missile attacks in Pakistan usually sit behind computer screens far from the battlefield. For policymakers in Washington, this is a war without cost or hometown casualties.
The English language press in Pakistan often relays reports of civilians killed in these attacks. But those reports rarely make headlines in the United States. The only ongoing reminder of this war is the occasional headline that suggests the United States has successfully killed another al-Qaeda militant. For most Americans, that's justification enough for this new war by assassination.
The only reason the ethnicity of Jared’s family came up was that Jared had claimed Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books (not to mention the Communist Manifesto). Tierney explained to Mother Jones that Jared liked to push people’s buttons and had likely listed Mein Kampf to annoy his Jewish mother.
Normally, you’d think that the word of a long-time friend would be pretty solid evidence. Surely Bryce visited his friend Jared around Christmas (or Hanukkah) and remembers which holidays his friend’s family celebrated or didn’t celebrate.
An individual at the Jewish Telegraph Agency however appears determined to contradict Mother Jones. Does he accuse Bryce Tierny of being a horrible anti-Semite, making up a false accusation of Jewishness? Strangely, No. In fact, the JTA individual suggested that Jared Loughner himself may have been lying to Bryce Tierny.
The most important point is the statement by Jared’s friend, Bryce Tierny that Jared’s mother is Jewish, followed by the fact that all the names in Jared Loughner’s lineage turn up in Jewish surname databases
Now, Dupnik seems to be very troubled by inflammatory rhetoric; except, he only seems to thus define words when they inflame him. I wonder, did Dupnik notice when militant atheist Christopher Hitchens said after Rev. Jerry Falwell’s death, “I think it’s a pity there isn’t a hell for him to go to” or when another of his leftist friends, Julianne Malveaux, hoped that Clarence Thomas’ wife would feed the justice a high-fat diet so he’d die of a heart attack? Does Dupnik stay up at night worrying about Barack Obama’s statement, “If they [the Republicans] bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” or about how the president referred to American political opponents as “enemies”? Probably not. After all, he seems to be of one mind and tongue with Obama, having opposed AZ’s original immigration law, calling it “racist,” “disgusting” and “stupid.” And imagine, Dupnik’s Pima County abuts Maricopa County, home of “America’s Toughest Sheriff.” Just cross a border and you go from Joe Arpaio to a jawing pie hole.
Although it’s clear that the left wins the inflammatory-rhetoric title hands down (although my last sentence just helped my side narrow the gap), it’s obvious that we all can be acid-tongued. Having said this, guess what? Dupnik is right.
Words do have consequences.
And we should watch what we say.
The problem is that Dupnik & Co. have no idea on what basis we should self-censor. It’s not a matter of avoiding inflammatory rhetoric because, as with certain topical medications, what inflames some may soothe others. Besides, is it really always wrong to inflame passions? Let’s examine the matter.
My young friend Richard Spencer has observed that whenever neocon employees take “conservative” positions on social issues, they find irreproachably leftwing reasons to do so. Thus when they object to abortion, it is because its advocates and practitioners refuse to extend the egalitarian principle far enough—to the unborn. Or when minicons grumble feebly about quotas for Black, Hispanics and women, it is typically because such programs have the putative effect of making their recipients feel “inferior,” because they were given benefits that they might not have earned. Although one could find legion examples of such attempts by “social conservatives” to seem more liberal than Obama, a case that has popped up recently and stands out in my mind is a commentary by Rich Lowry on why “Huck’s censors miss all the points.”
Rich’s column begins by going after the obnoxious censors who have removed all of the 219 uses of the word “nigger” from the new edition of Twain’s classic being put out by NewSouth Books. Along the way, Rich also makes fun of the immoderate PC, which extends even to purging “the use of the word ‘injun’ for good measure.” But he then pushes his commentary away from the obvious reasons for objecting to the censorship, which are not the most fashionable reasons, at least in Rich’s presumed social circles. One, once we start bowdlerizing classics to fit current political hysteria, there is no end to this process. Every time a new obsession comes along or some designated victim group starts griping, we’ll have to rewrite what authors wrote in the past.
Such a course will soon result in the kind of reconstruction of culture that we see previewed in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four. The Western “heritage” will be refashioned, including the language used in the past, to fit current ideological needs. Even the Communists and Nazis didn’t go quite as far as our present PC gatekeepers. The old totalitarians allowed old classics to be reprinted as they had been rewritten, but then appended their updated introductions.
Although one might criticize Rich for sucking up to the social Left while going through the motions of disagreeing with it, there is one thing he does very well. He has picked the target of his rant perfectly. If movement conservatives are looking for targets of abuse that won’t talk back, then go after Southern Whites. They’ll vote Republican even if the Republican candidate insults their ancestors as redneck scum, and even as in the case of presidential contender John McCain, Republicans attack the display of the Confederate flag anywhere, not only on public buildings. Southern Whites don’t seem to mind being collectively belittled; and particularly from “patriotic” Americans who are in favor of wars in which Southerners will be given a chance to fight. There are of course other groups that are less likely to vote Republican or to subscribe to Rich’s magazine. Here I am thinking of such prideful groups as Jews and Blacks, neither of which Rich would ever dare to take on.
The most important outcome of the atrocity so far has been to illustrate once again how near to the surface is the lust amongst the leaders of the American Left for totalitarian repression. As Peter Brimelow has remarked, once one of these events gives them a shred of plausible justification, we are all going to get shut down. In the meantime, their servants in the MSM continue to try to use the event to intimidate cowardly Republicans out of arguing their political cases effectively. Much more productive than letting the House Republicans keep the initiative.
One thing that has faded, however, is the smear on American Renaissance, no doubt because of its extreme absurdity.Our favorite expert on the Law enforcement bureaucracy, the Federale blog, has produced an incisive analysis on how this near-lynching came to be set in motion:
Many are suggesting that the whole memorandum obtained by Fox is a fabrication, but I think that the originating memorandum is real. Real despite the glowing factual errors that many have pointed out…
Rather than a memorandum or formal intelligence bulletin…this is more likely an email alert going out from what Jared Taylor of American Renaissance identified as the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, AcTIC, one of the hundreds of fusion centers…funded by DHS and run under FBI auspices and direction.
Whenever someone commits a particularly shocking crime with firearms—especially a horrific mass murder—there are calls for gun control. The reasoning seems to be that a law prohibiting the ownership or carrying of certain weapons will prevent or reduce the number of such atrocities. Although most other laws targeting ownership of contraband—such as drug laws—do not really work in keeping the barred items out of determined people’s hands; and although people bent on committing mass murder do not tend to be the more law-abiding members of society; we are supposed to believe that the way to stop violent crimes is simply to make it illegal to be armed.
On the other hand, government commits violence against the innocent on a daily basis. In foreign lands, hundreds of thousands have died in the last decade, in a killing spree unleashed by the U.S. government in response to 9/11. On the local level, police frequently brutalize the accused and taze, beat and shoot innocent people. The TSA has become an agency of routine sexual molestation. In detention centers at home and abroad, the criminal justice system has become an accessory to mass rape and gang violence. The feds commit torture.
Yet rarely do people suggest that gun control is the answer to these atrocities. And of course, what would that even entail? Disarming the police? That would be part of it, yet even that would not suffice, for so long as there is political power at all, we can say that Mao was right that it flows from the barrel of a gun. Government is institutionalized violence.
The state will necessarily abuse the coercive tools we allow it to have. The overwhelming majority of private individuals, however, will use guns responsibly, and in many cases defensively. Violent private criminals can never be stopped with gun control, which only empowers the state and predators, both private and governmental, while disarming the victims. Despite all these truths, a truly terrible crime as the one that occurred in Arizona is used to bolster the case for tipping the scales of power further toward those who do not feel bound by the law. This, also despite the fact that the government did not fulfill one of its purported functions here in preempting or rapidly stopping a massacre. Trillions of dollars of government. Millions of prisoners. Thousands not returning from war. But safety as the government promises it is an illusion, and its inevitable failures to secure total safety will always be twisted into reasons for giving it more power.
Jared Lee Loughner's mother Amy Loughner is a member of the SAME Reform synagogue as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords! That means that Amy's son, who lives with his Jewish parents, Amy and Randy Loughner, is ALSO a member of the same synagogue as his shooting victim, Rep. Giffords.
Why didn't we hear about this from our super-sleuth national media?
Instead we hear that a White man is the shooter. We hear that anti-Semitism is his motive.
His best friend, Bryce Tierney, who got a "farewell" voice message the night before the shootings tells us that his friend is Jewish. He tells us that Jared Loughner put Mein Kampf down as "favorite reading" to irritate his Jewish mother, Amy.
The story and the coverup of the story gets wilder. The Loughners and the Giffords were members of the same Congregation Chaverim. On the Congregation Chaverim website we learn that this Reform synagogue that was founded in 1973 has 140 families. That's a very small group. The Rabbi Stephanie Aaron surely knows every single family member of her congregation on a first name basis! That includes 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.
“(Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.)” A throwaway line in a long article in Mother Jones: Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords, by Nick Bauman, Jan. 10, 2010.
It will be interesting to see how quickly this meme travels. One of the Columbine shooters, Dylan Klebold, apparently had Jewish heritage, but most people only remember the early allegations of neo-Nazism.
The Obama administration's $78 billion cut to US defense spending is a mere "pin-prick" to a behemoth military-industrial complex that must drastically shrink for the good of the republic, a former Reagan administration budget director recently told Raw Story.
"It amounts to a failed opportunity to recognize that we are now at a historical inflection point at which the time has arrived for a classic post-war demobilization of the entire military establishment," David Stockman said in an exclusive interview.
"The Cold War is long over," he continued. "The wars of occupation are almost over and were complete failures -- Afghanistan and Iraq. The American empire is done. There are no real seriously armed enemies left in the world that can possibly justify an $800 billion national defense and security establishment, including Homeland Security."
Short of that, he suggested, the United States has "reached the point of no return" with its artificial creation of wealth, and will eventually face a sharp economic decline.
"We've reached a point of no return. The size of the government. The massive size of the deficits and the national debt that has been created. The precedents that have been established for bailouts and intervention in every sector of the economy. The K Street lobbying system which totally dominates the Congress. All of these are very unhealthy developments.