One is that the truth was exposed like never before only to those who have not been brainwashed by Zionist propaganda – only a minority of Americans, for example.
The other boils down to this. What Netanyahu does want, and only because of his concern about Israel’s growing isolation in the world, is peace on Zionism’s terms, which means the Palestinians giving up their struggle for an acceptable minimum of justice and accepting crumbs from Zionism’s table in the shape of three or four Bantustatans on about 40% of the West Bank, and which they could call a state if they wished. That’s what Netanyahu meant but did not say when, at his arrogant, insufferably self-righteous and devious best, he assured both houses of the U.S. Congress that “We’ll be generous about the size of the Palestinian state.” Put another way, what Netanyahu doesn’t want is peace on terms the vast majority of Palestinians and most other Arabs and Muslims could accept – a complete end to Israel’s 1967 occupation and a contiguous and viable Palestinian mini state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem an open city and the capital of two states.
The only question of interest about Netanyahu is this. Does he really believe the nonsense he speaks about the alleged threats to Israel’s security or is he a smooth-talking but diabolical salesman, selling what he knows to be Zionist propaganda lies as truth?
Some members of Congress who applauded Netanyahu in a scene that reminded me of the enthusiasm for Hitler at Nazi rallies accused Obama of betraying Israel. There has indeed been a betrayal, but what has been betrayed is democracy in America. The many members of Congress who read from Zionism’s script and dance to its tune in order to secure election campaign funds and organized Jewish votes in tight races are not merely stooges. Because they are putting the interests of a foreign power above those of their own country, it’s time to call them what they really are – traitors.
The former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said last week that there is an undercurrent of “dissent and dislike” for President Obama among the rank-and-file of the Central Intelligence Agency. This hostility, former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) told HUMAN EVENTS, is the result of the continuing investigations of CIA agents regarding enhanced interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists—investigations, he emphasized, “of which the President and [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder should say, ‘These proceedings are closed.’”
In a wide-ranging interview from his Western Michigan home at the start of the Memorial Day weekend, Hoekstra—who served as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2002-06--gave poor grades to the Obama Administration for its handling of U.S. intelligence operations
“And what’s really amazing is that all the things in the realm of intelligence that Obama badmouthed as a candidate in ’08, he has now embraced as President,” said Hoekstra, “He has been much more aggressive in the use of predator drones than the Bush Administration was. The Obama Administration has acknowledged that enhanced interrogation techniques helped get the information that led to the successful raid on bin Laden’s compound. And President Obama has never closed down the U.S. operation at Guantanamo, as Candidate Obama promised to do over and over again. Under Obama, the U.S. has continued the policy of unlimited detentions and the use of military tribunals.”
“Quite frankly, who would have thought Barack Obama would have sent an assassination team to get bin Laden?”
“The reason the Patriot Act has to be extended and done so in segments it has,” said the former congressman, “is that people such as Barack Obama [when he was senator from Illinois] kept warning that its enactment would lead to the curtailing of civil liberties and these were the compromises that had to be made in order to pass it.”
First, what is so vital to our security we must defend it at the risk of war? Second, what Cold War commitments can we relinquish now that the Soviet Empire no longer exists and Russia no longer represents a global threat?
Once the Afghan War is over, certainly, a U.S. withdrawal from South and Central Asia would seem in order, as this is about as far from the United States as one can get.
The same would hold true of Korea. From 1950 to 1953, the United States, with a 330,000-man army, fought both North Korea and China. At issue was not only the fate of the peninsula, but the orientation of Japan in the Cold War.
Today, Seoul has twice the people and 40 times the economy of the North. Pyongyang has no Stalinist Russia or Maoist China backing it up in a war with the South. Can we not now withdraw our remaining 28,000 troops and restrict our commitment in any new war to air and naval support?
China today not only claims Taiwan, but the Senkaku Islands that Japan claims, and all of the islands in the South China Sea, which are also claimed by Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Is it our obligation to validate all of these claims against China? What is our vital interest in any of these disputes when every president since Richard Nixon has agreed that Taiwan is part of China? Cannot these countries buy from us the weapons to defend themselves?
As Americans take to the roads for a long Memorial Day weekend, eager to get out of the cities and out of their routines — and more than ready for a little rest and relaxation — the origins and meaning of this holiday are lost – or, at least, hardly anyone thinks of them anymore. Formally, it is a day reserved for the remembrance of our war dead: historically, it was meant as a day of reconciliation in the wake of the Civil War. In reality, however, it is just another excuse for Americans to get out their barbecues, invite the neighbors over for a party, and forget about their troubles.
With three wars going simultaneously, and a few more in the hopper, Americans are sick and tired of war: they don’t want to remember it – and who can blame them? Indeed, Americans don’t care to remember much of anything, these days, least of all the disastrous wars that have plagued us in recent years. Inundated with problems that seem insoluble, convinced they can have no effect on the course of events in any case, most Americans have acquired a case of advanced historical Alzheimer’s out of sheer self-protection.
For example, how many recall their President’s recent statement that US participation in the NATO attacks on Libya would last for “days, not weeks”? I see that Matt Drudge is reminding us of this, with a headline near the top of his page – but, really, how much difference does that make?
How many recall those “weapons of mass destruction” that were supposed to be the reason we went to war with Iraq? Where are they? Where were they? Nobody seems very bothered that they never existed. Certainly there have been no investigations or hearings into the matter, and – naturally – not a single public official has been held accountable.
If you can believe it, even though the Fed has provided financial flows and assisting speculative flows so Wall Street, banking and hedge funds can glean mega-profits, it still has not provided enough liquidity for additional GDP growth. The small and medium sized businesses have been shut out. The latter participants do not play those games, it is the propriety trading desks, hedge funds and the remainder of the leveraged speculating community that takes advantage of the excess liquidity and the Bernanke put of keeping bonds and stocks up artificially. The Fed and the others are sustaining this process. There are negatives for the Fed and their friends, higher commodity and gold and silver prices. The Fed and banks temporarily took care of that and haven’t quite finished their latest short-term foray in that sector. There are still fears as well regarding Greek debt fears and their CDS, Credit Default Swaps, and those of other euro zone members. They could still blow up in everyone’s faces in a partial if not total default, which is very likely. Banks are on the wrong side of this trade as well as the bond trade, not only with Greece, but with five other nations as well.
In the final analysis papering over the problem never works. The problems also reemerge with new additional problems. The combination of excessive speculation and liquidity and too big to fail is going to end badly, as it always has. De-leveraging will eventually rear its ugly head.
We have seen the extensive damage, as we predicted, that has been caused by one interest rate fits all, which led to a major misallocation of funds and malinvestment. Due to such low interest rates massive debt was accumulated. The EU’s answer is to usurp sovereignty and turn the entire mess over to technocrats, who will most certainly make matters worse.
Political currencies like the euro do not work. It is an unnatural cultural instrument designed to bring people of differing cultures together as one. The order envisioned by European elitists is total amalgamation of all nations at every level. What the professionals not included with the elitists don’t understand is that these Illuminists want world government, at any cost.
The stage has been set for a nuclear false flag in America.
Many in the alternative media have wondered if a false flag nuke attack within America is a real possibility. Would they do it? Who would it be? What cities would be targeted?
Recently, The New York Times reported that the United States is running out of a rare gas that is used to detect smuggled nuclear materials.
The reason given is that one arm of the Energy Department is selling the gas much quicker than the other is able to accumulate it.
While this could possibly be a legitimate reason, it seems highly suspicious that a government that is installing a police state nationwide to supposedly save us from terrorists would be unable to obtain the gas needed to detect smuggled nuclear weapons.
Wouldn’t a nuclear attack on America be the MOST important threat to combat?
Unfortunately there is a long history of suspicious nuclear activity in the United States, with cover story after cover story being spread throughout the corporate controlled media.
At this junction in history it seems prudent to lay out some of the more ludicrous stories that have been planted into the minds of the American people.
The Great Minds assure us they are always hard at work trying to figure out ways to escape from the mess that is the American economy today.
The U.S. is currently running a deficit of $4 billion a day (Total: $14 trillion plus) as a tsunami of foreign manufacturers and products— even including food—pours into the American market via fleets of heavily laden freighters.
Accordingly, the national debt piles up and the Great Minds either wonder how America will handle approaching national bankruptcy or ignore altogether this extremely important event.
Meanwhile, banksters and greedy American corporations gleefully behold their empty and decaying factories and starving workers and their families after noting their huge profits from buying overseas cheaply and selling these products dearly to the American consumer.
However, these parasites do not forget to make a contribution—call it an investment—to various nonprofit institutions that promote the evil delusion of so-called free trade.
These institutions are peopled by a class that is in a position to reward themselves handsomely with huge salaries and expense allowances. An observer could even say that these gentry are involved in shameless fraud. They call themselves “libertarians” and profess a doctrine that unprejudiced observers see as a religion, for that is exactly what it is.
Libertarians see themselves as fighters against the undoubted evils of big government. They love freedom so much, they say, that they would eliminate all national boundaries and install their devilish doctrine of free trade universally. Thus, if a worker in one country—say, the U.S.A.—loses his job making widgets because of foreign imports, he could move to another country—say, China—and get a job there making the same widgets he made in America. Of course, he would be paid a tenth of what he was paid back home.
That, in a nuttyshell, is the libertarian doctrine of free trade
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, it seemed the world was moving toward unity. The post-Cold War era saw the expansion of the European Union, NAFTA and GATT, the creation of a World Trade Organization, the Rome Treaty for the prosecution of war crimes, the Kyoto Protocol, and the G-7 expand to the G-8 and then to the G-20.
Nations seemed to be coming together to solve global problems.
Today, nations seem everywhere to be coming apart.
Is the future more likely to bring deepening global integration, or continued disintegration, as we saw with the collapse and breakup of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia into 24 nations, separated along the lines of ethnicity, culture and faith?
What America has on offer to the world is democratic pluralism.
Unlike the Founding Fathers and every generation before 1960, all of which sought to keep us European and Christian, we declare to the world that diversity—religious, racial, ethnic, cultural, the more the better—is now the American ideal.
In the 21st century, the call of one's God and the claims of blood and soil seem more magnetic than the ideologies of the 19th and 20th century: Marxism, socialism or democracy. People do not seem to seek equality with other cultures, faiths and tribes, but a separate existence in nations that are of, by and for themselves alone.
As the purported assassination of Osama bin Laden has placed the focus on Pakistan, it is vital to assess the changing role of Pakistan in broad geostrategic terms, and in particular, of the changing American strategy toward Pakistan. The recently reported assassination was a propaganda ploy aimed at targeting Pakistan. To understand this, it is necessary to examine how America has, in recent years, altered its strategy in Pakistan in the direction of destabilization. In short, Pakistan is an American target. The reason: Pakistan’s growing military and strategic ties to China, America’s primary global strategic rival. In the ‘Great Game’ for global hegemony, any country that impedes America’s world primacy – even one as historically significant to America as Pakistan – may be sacrificed upon the altar of war.
Part 1 of ‘Pakistan in Pieces’ examines the changing views of the American strategic community – particularly the military and intelligence circles – towards Pakistan. In particular, there is a general acknowledgement that Pakistan will very likely continue to be destabilized and ultimately collapse. What is not mentioned in these assessments, however, is the role of the military and intelligence communities in making this a reality; a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. This part also examines the active on the ground changes in American strategy in Pakistan, with increasing military incursions into the country.
Historically and presently, Western empires have divided people against each other, blamed the resulting conflict on the people themselves, and thus justified their control over both the people, and the region they occupy. This was the strategy employed in major recent geopolitical conflicts such as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide. In both cases, Western imperial ambitions were met through exacerbating ethnic rivalries, providing financial, technical, and military aid and training to various factions; thus, spreading violent conflict, war, and genocide. In both cases, Western, and primarily American strategic interests were met through an increased presence militarily, pushing out other major imperial and powerful rivals, as well as increasing Western access to key economics resources.
This is the lens through which we must view the unfolding situation in Pakistan. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a far greater potential for conflict and devastation than either Yugoslavia or Rwanda. In short, the potential strategy of “Balkanization” and destabilization of Pakistan could dwarf any major global conflict in the past few decades. It’s sheer population of 187 million people, proximity to two major regional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its strategic location as neighbor to India, China, and Iran with access to the Indian Ocean, and its nuclear arsenal, combine to make Pakistan the potential trigger for a much wider regional and possibly global war. The destabilization of Pakistan has the potential to be the greatest geopolitical catastrophe since World War II.
The man who was instrumental in working with the federal government to sabotage a bill that would have made TSA grope downs a felony in the state of Texas was Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a former CIA agent and establishment insider considered to be the wealthiest man in Texas politics.
As we have documented, the anti-pat down bill was derailed in the Texas Senate having unanimously passed the House by 138-0 votes after the Department of Justice sent a letter threatening to impose a no fly zone over Texas and shut down Texas airports. The warning was nothing short of a federal blockade and an act of financial terrorism.
But the federal assault was aided by a traitor from within the state, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who only served to amplify the threats made by the DOJ in communicating them to members of the Senate, convincing them them to cave in and forcing the hand of Senator Dan Patrick to withdraw the bill before it could be shot down permanently.
Given the fact that Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is undoubtedly an establishment insider it’s unsurprising that he played the role of Judas in protecting the agenda of the Obama administration over and above the will of his own legislators and the people of Texas.
The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.
Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.
The vote on the amendment took place earlier this afternoon, and it failed on the House floor by a vote of 187-in favor to 234-opposed. Check the vote here.
The Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to begin its markup of the NDAA beginning on June 13. Watch for updates as we continue on this important issue.
The continued US-British planned crusade against Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan give alarming signals of the failure of the global institutions and diplomacy for peace and conflict management and the hope to end the scourge of war against the poor and helpless nations. As was the paper-based League of the Nations, the global institutions once again are redundant – a complete failure in contemporary history, from the working of the UN to the global adventurous organizations such as NATO, the UN Security Council, the EU and other security establishments. They exist to protect the self interest of the so called Five Superpowers (known gangsters occupying the UN Security Council), as has been the case throughout the human history. E.H Carr foresaw the teaching-learning role of the history but the modern so called superpowers appear devoid of making good out of the living history. NATO’s priorities were chartered in the collective defense of the member states against the hypothesis of communist led war in Europe, not the adventurous notion of collective security defying its own charter to fight in Afghanistan and possibly Iraq and Pakistan. This clearly is a self-expanded dictum of the NATO war mongers. After the WW2, the UN was the embodiment of collective security for the war torn apart world by the European adventures of national pride and ethnic identity. Like the failure of the League of the Nations, history tells how the UN has come to be a failed enterprise in global affairs. It affirms the principle of self-interest, that is the wars of European nationalism and superiority over others nations in areas irrelevant to the European-American foremost national interests. The European war mongers and the US Empire lost sense of intellect and strategic direction by invading Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of “war on terrorism.” Chris Floyd noted it in plain words (“Darkness Renewed: Terror as a Tool of Empire,” 04/2009)
The wars spread hatred, chaos and human degeneration as are the global institutions responsible for security, peace and conflict resolution. The UN, NATO and other security agencies are driven to failure by their own deviations of the original role-play and inaction in situation of real world challenges. They have been manipulated and misled by the contemporary superpowers as was the devastating fate of the League of Nations. When something loses its purpose and direction, it ends-up in self-defeat and piles of garbage. The US-British strategic policy makers do not have the right kind of weapons to fight against Islam and God. They appear to miss the historical conclusion that those who cross-over the limits of REASON and global responsibility, do end –up in failure and disasters. Both are trapped in self-generated illusions and are fighting against their own interest and survival. American and British policy makers appear more victims of their own failing mindset than the self-desired challenges posed by the Talibans and other Mujihdeens in Afghanistan and Iraq. America and its allies need a Navigational Change. President Obama got elected with the motivational promise: “Yes We Can” Would President Obama know how to make a navigational change when there is nothing left to navigate for Change?
After more than two years, President Obama’s national security policy looks all too familiar: like President Bush’s policy.
You remember the Bush doctrine? Its most prominent tenet was the policy of preventive war—using the U.S. military to eliminate potentially dangerous enemies, rather than using military force only when the United States is clearly threatened.
Generally speaking, the Bush administration argued that deposing unfriendly regimes and promoting democracy both militarily and diplomatically were in America’s long-term best interests. President Obama not only has embraced this approach, stressing it again in his May 19 speech on the Middle East, he’s gone further: increasing military spending, expanding the war in Afghanistan, handing off more of the mission to contractors and mercenaries, and bombing Libya without anything resembling a threat to the United States or even a nod from Congress—in violation of the War Powers Act.
Consider the budget. President Obama’s first defense budget, for fiscal year 2010, was $685.1 billion, if we include the “supplemental” funds for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (a budget gimmick he had promised not to use). This was 3 percent higher than in the previous year.
The Obama administration upped the ante again for FY 2011, requesting a base budget of $548.9 billion, plus $159.3 billion for Afghanistan and Iraq, for a total of $708.3 billion. That was before the bombing of Libya, which already has cost some $750 million, Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed on May 12 at Camp Lejeune, N.C.
Israel’s Likudnik Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached into his bag of Zionist tricks and pulled out a brand-new demand that had never surfaced before in the history of the Middle East Peace Process going all the way back to their beginning with the negotiation of the original Camp David Accords conducted under the personal auspices of U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1978: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as “the Jewish State.” Not surprisingly, the Zionist controlled and funded Obama administration publicly endorsed this latest roadblock to peace that was maliciously constructed by Israel.
Netanyahu deliberately shifted the goal-posts on the Palestinians. It would be as if the United States of America demanded that Iran recognize it as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) State as a condition for negotiating and then concluding any comprehensive peace settlement with it. Of course such demands are racist and premeditated non-starters to begin with.
Netanyahu’s racist ultimatum would lead to the denationalization of the 1.5 million Palestinians who are already less than third-class citizens of Israel and set the stage for their mass expulsion to the Palestinian Bantustan envisioned by Netanyahu as the “final solution” to Zionism’s “demographic problem” created by the very existence of the Palestinians. This racist and genocidal demand would also illegally terminate the well-recognized Right of Return for five million Palestinian refugees living around the world as required by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194(III) of 1948, by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 13(2) (1948), and by general principles of public international law, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. This would doom all prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians forever, and pave the way for the creation of “Greater Israel” dominating the entire former Mandate for Palestine, both of which objectives have been the intention of Netanyahu and Likud all along.
But if Netanyahu is really serious about Israel being recognized internationally as “the Jewish State” then there is a simple manner by which this universal diplomatic status can instantly be achieved unilaterally and without the consent of the Palestinians. Under basic principles of international law, every state is free to change its own name if it so desires: e.g., from Congo to Zaire then back to Congo. Therefore Israel is free to change its name to Jewistan -- the State of the Jews.
Criticism of Israel and Jewish control is increasingly vocalized among liberals, including Jewish ones. Many Europeans are angry because of Israel's mistreatment of the people of Gaza. Eastern Europeans particularly believe Jews have too much power, such as in Hungary (70% of the population) and Poland (50%). In Spain, 50% agree.
This is welcome news for lovers of freedom because, if Israel is mired under criticism in the Middle East, it means the Zionist agenda everywhere will be slowed. Once mankind begins to break free from the fatal propaganda vortex into which Israel has sucked us throughout the 20 th century, a new and freeing possibility emerges: openness to the fact that Zionism is not just cruel to Palestinians but also is part of a global Jewish supremacist cancer, inflicting media disinformation, immorality, anti-Christianity, loss of freedom through hate laws, monetary enslavement, and Mideast wars on behalf of Israel. (See, Jews Confirm Big Media is Jewish)
Why are evangelical Christians so out of touch with the winds of change?
Biblical history, as well the parables of Christ, often reveals that people who once received the most truth and light from God have a tendency to become jaded and self-satisfied, forcing God to send others to sound His warnings. So it is today. American Bible Belt pro-Zionism, now dispersed throughout the western world, has become so parasitized by Zionist influence that they not only fail to recognize a mighty deliverance but they demonize it. In contrast, God has allowed liberal, even Jewish anti-Zionist protestors to largely take the lead in sounding a vital, last days warning to the world.
The literary device of Pound’s ghost can only be Eustace Mullins, Pound’s longtime assistant and protegé, who has over the decades become every bit as notorious and revered as his mentor. While Pound created the reputation in letters as the most authentic American poet of the 20th century, Mullins — who started out as the imprisoned Pound’s devoted assistant — has done the same for himself in the area of revealing the secrets of the Federal Reserve scam and chronicling the hidden history of that certain tribe, to whose exploits we now return.
The narrative of the ghost in this story is directly lifted from Mullins’ New History of Jews, which he wrote in 1968.
It chronicles the destruction of a succession of nations down through the centuries, and the formula is shockingly similar. It paints a certain picture over and over again, and when you hear enough of these surprising and suppressed examples of history, you’ll get the message.
In this media blitz that today we call cyberspace, so much alternative information is presented by clever poseurs on all levels claiming that it’s not Jews, it’s Zionists; it’s not Jews, it’s Neocons; it’s not Jews, it’s Communists; it’s not Jews, it’s the Illuminati. Wise up, my friend. All of those labels are synonyms for Judaism, which is not really a religion, but a crime scheme. It gives one demonstrably insane group of people to rob and kill everyone else, and they’ve been so clever at it FOR FIVE THOUSAND YEARS, most people don’t even notice.
A PRIMER ON HOW WALL STREET PULLED OFF THE GREATEST MORTGAGE INVESTMENT SWINDLE IN HISTORY WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE US GOVERNMENT!
Starting in 2006, Wall Street operators got the ideas of taking debt obligations, and collecting them together to sell to other investors. The mortgage lenders would take their mortgages and "bundle" them, then sell the entire bundle for a flat fee. The advantage was that the mortgage lender recovered his money in a single large lump, while the investor buying the bundled mortgages would accept their return on investment over the lifetime of the mortgages. For long-term investors such as investment banks and pension funds, this was an ideal investment so long as all the mortgages were paid on time every month. The investment looked sound as long as real-estate prices kept soaring, and nobody was taking too close a look at the individual mortgages. Because the banks and mortgage companies were passing the mortgages onto outside parties, there was little incentive to look too closely at the borrowers, while financial incentives encouraged the mortgage writers to over-inflate earnings and home values on the applications to push the deals through.
The mortgage bundlers, drunk on the instant profits falling like manna from heaven, started taking some reckless steps. Mortgage analysis companies like Clayton Holdings were reporting to the clients at the big banks that many of the so-called sub prime mortgages did not meet basic underwriting requirements, either for the private banks or for the three "F"s, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA. But the mortgage bundlers blended the sub prime with prime mortgages and sold off the bundles as "Mortgage Backed Securities" or "Collateralized Debt Obligations". In other words, the mortgage bundlers knew many of the mortgages in those bundles were not going to perform well, but did not tell the investors who bought them, then invested in "derivatives", basically betting those MBS and CDOs would fail!
That the relentless looting of the public treasury to cover-up this disaster has harmed the nation is beyond doubt. Trillions that might have paid for new schools and roads and hospitals has vanished into the black hole of Wall Street, to buy up bad paper and feed it to the shredder before the public finds out that once again, as is typical of a fascist economy, the poor are made to pay for all! People without mortgages, people who have never bought a home, are all harmed by this disaster. We are all victims of the rampant and reckless greed that consumes the money addicts in the halls of power. 43 million Americans are on food Stamps, and according to Barron's Magazine(October 11, 2010), unemployment is at 22%, which is depression levels. Meanwhile, Wall Street executives will collect bonuses this year totaling 8% of all the US cash in circulation!
Jerome Corsi has told a Cincinnati radio station that he is preparing to file criminal charges against the White House for producing a fraudulent birth certificate, as the controversial author of Where’s the Birth Certificate? closes in on the people within Obama’s inner circle he claims were behind the hoax.
“We believe the birth records released by Barack Obama on April 27th, the so called long form birth certificate, is fraudulent,” Corsi told radio host Bill Cunningham.
“I’m working on filing criminal charges on the White House, I think there will be criminal charges filed very soon for having fraudulently produced a birth certificate,” said Corsi, adding that he would seek an FBI investigation.
Corsi re-affirmed the fact that he was close to identifying the individual who played a key role in forging the birth certificate, as well as the source document which the White House used to create the composite fake.
According to The Birther Report, the Clear Channel radio station on which Corsi appeared, 700 WLW later scrubbed the interview from their audio archives, a claim that was also carried by World Net Daily. The You Tube video above was made by a listener.
Clear Channel was also behind the removal of a billboard that was part of a World Net Daily campaign to bring attention to the birther issue in November 2009.
1. “We also know how difficult that search for security can be, especially for a small nation like Israel in a tough neighborhood.” Israel is not so much a small nation as a military giant. Obama knows that because it is the U.S. that has done the most to make Israel flagrantly oversized in this regard. In doing so Washington allowed Israel to become the bully that dominates the neighborhood. In other words, the president, as almost all of his modern predecessors before him, was reversing the facts for the sake of domestic political advantage.
2. “No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction.” This reference was, of course, to Hamas. To call Hamas a “terrorist organization” is considerably out of date. Actually, it would be more fitting to assign the epithet to the Israeli government. That purveyor of state terrorism has brought sudden death to much larger numbers of innocent people than Hamas. And, using Obama’s logic, one might argue that Hamas should not be expected to negotiate with Israel, because Israel adamantly refuses to recognize it as the legitimately elected government of Palestine (which it is) and is “sworn to its destruction.” Further, as Palestine’s legally elected government, Hamas too has a right to defend itself against predatory neighbors.
3. “America’s commitment to Israel also flows from a deeper place–and that is the values we share.” There is something really embarrassing, actually downright humiliating, about the first African American president of the United States saying this about a prima facie racist state like Israel. Our two countries do not share any important values. This can be seen clearly in the fact that, when it comes to societal goals, the two lands are moving in starkly opposite directions. At least since the end of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s the United States has moved in the direction of greater and greater inclusiveness. This movement has not always been smooth and consistent. However, today President Obama himself stands as living proof that inclusiveness is the direction American society has consciously set for itself. Not so Israel. Here it is the opposite–exclusiveness is the goal. If you are not Jewish, the goal of Israeli society is to render you a second class citizen and, eventually, expel you altogether. In terms of democracy, this makes Israel as democratic as, say, Alabama circa 1950. As a nation, the United States has left that era behind. So tell me, where are the shared values?
Weariness and boredom set in when you listen to people repeat themselves endlessly. Within the democratic political realm, that is the obsessive spell lobbies can cast on politicians. It is a design flaw, if you will, in the democratic system. The lobbies act like jealous gods who need to hear the prayers of their devotees said again and again. I am loyal, I am yours, forever, forever. Deviation means blasphemy and blasphemy means that the gods will bestow their cash blessings on someone else come the next election cycle.
What seems abundantly clear is that the Israeli intelligence community’s allies in the British and American governments are increasingly worried about the English-language division of Press TV/Iran, especially its U. S. Desk. Programs like my recent appearance with Alison Weir of If Americans Knew in Los Angeles on American 3rd parties, Dr. Paul Sheldon Foote of Cal State Fullerton on the relationship of the Empire’s wars to economic downturn, and Culture Wars editor Dr. E. Michael Jones’ televised expose on Barack Obama and The Lobby, are simply bringing too much unfiltered information and analysis to the previously uninitiated in both the United States and Europe.
It may not be a coincidence that the British Ofcom case against Press TV Iran pops up against the backdrop of Netanyahu’s state visit to the United States to press his own case for ongoing Talmudic Death and Destruction in the Middle East, courtesy of wholehearted American political support and economic subsidy. Israel’s purchased Democratic and Republican supporters in the Zionist Occupied Territory (ZOA) known as Capitol Hill are tripping over themselves to demonstrate which of the two major parties can demonstrate more obeisance to the Zionist State and its domestic Jewish lobby Stateside. After all, the Presidential primaries commence in 8 months; the general election only 18 months away, with all that this impending “choice” implies for the American public and the world. Early money is the most critical money in politics; corporate media advertising cash and primary endorsements will necessitate tap-dancing to Bibi’s tune on national television. Don’t bet on any of Philip Giraldi’s recent questions to Netanyahu being asked by any of the shills for the Corporate Media House that takes its own marching orders from the same folks who bankroll Red-White-and-Blue elections. The endgame is absolutely guaranteed. Take it to Chase Manhattan Bank.
It may also be more than a coincidence that the Ofcom case reappears in the UK during King Barack Obama’s state visit to the British royal family and subsequent address to Parliament. Our Nobel Prize-winning President’s bellicose foreign policy and budgetary allocations for the American National Security State make Dubya look like George McGovern. Here’s betting that El Presidente has already been briefed by Bibi that the former’s electoral success in the fall of 2012 will necessitate Mr. Obama’s signing off on an American-Israeli attack on Iran no later than January of 2013, along with accompanying territorial expansions of Eretz Yisrael. The 44th President’s present chat with the British Royal Family, the PM, and the most trusted sources in the British Parliament may well be conveying the substance of whatever Faustian bargain was made between the American and Israeli chief executives this past weekend.
In America, the power of the Israel lobby is much greater than at any time in the past, and certainly since the 1967 war. We are faced, here in this country, with the extraordinary spectacle of a US President confronting a foreign leader with a list of reasonable requests – negotiation in good faith, the abandonment of encroaching “settlements,” an end to the arbitrary humiliations endured by a people under occupation – and the leaders of the opposition are taking the side of the foreign leader. This from a party that revels in its alleged super-“patriotism”! Romney, Huckabee, and the whole Fox network team went into overdrive, following the President’s Mideast speech, flaying him for “betraying” Israel. Fox News even ran a story warning that “Jewish donors” would not back the President’s reelection campaign on account of his supposedly “new” stance.
In his “make up” speech to AIPAC, Obama once again reiterated this commitment and boasted about all the money we’re shoveling over there so Bibi can build “settlements” and keep the Palestinians in subjection. US “aid” built the wall that separates the Israeli green belt from the great prison-house of the occupied territories, and which makes permanent a land grab on a vast scale. Without that aid, both military and economic, Israel would sink like a stone beneath the demographic waves.
In short, we have the Israelis in a complete state of military and economic dependency – and yet they are calling the tune, and not Washington. What’s up with that?
The reason, in short, is the pro-Israel movement in the United States, a well-organized and inordinately wealthy political machine that operates as the Israeli government’s agent in America. Here is a lobby – in effect, a fifth column in league with a foreign government – so powerful that it has become the decisive factor in determining US policy in a region of the world vital to US national interests. It has succeeded in subordinating those interests to Israeli objectives, and it has done so by creating a political apparatus in the US that politicians defy at their peril. Apologists for the Israel lobby constantly maintain that they have done nothing wrong, that their activities are carried out in full public view and in accordance with the principles of American democracy – and in this they are absolutely correct.
The declassification of official secrets is often seen as either a challenge or a prerequisite for obtaining accurate data on the history of political and economic events. Yet at the same time high government intelligence officials have said that their policy is one of 'plausible deniability'. Official US government policy for example is never to acknowledge or deny the presence of nuclear weapons anywhere its forces are deployed, especially its naval forces. The British have their ‘Official Secrets’ Act. When the Wikileaks site was launched in 2007 and attained notoriety for publication of infamous actions by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, this platform was heralded and condemned for its disclosures and exposures.
Julian Assange is quoted as saying that when he receives documents classified under the UK Official Secrets Act he responds in accordance with the letter of the law – since it is forbidden to withhold or destroy, his only option is to publish. The question remains for historians, investigators, and educated citizens: what is the real value of disclosures or declassification? Given the practice of plausible deniablity, does disclosure or declassification constitute proof, and if so by what criteria? Both facts and non-facts can be concealed or disclosed.
Information is not self-defining Ultimately there remain two questions: does the secret document (now public) really constitute the 'secret'? What is the 'secret' for which we use the document to actually refer? Is secrecy the difference between the known and unknown, or the known and untold?
What bothers me about the Strauss-Kahn affair is that if the police have evidence that supports their insistence on his guilt, it is pointless for the police to set Strauss-Kahn up in the media. Generally, set-ups like this occur only when there is no evidence or when the evidence has to be fabricated and cannot withstand examination.
As a person who had a Washington career, I find other aspects of the case disturbing. Strauss-Kahn had emerged as a threat to the establishment. Polls showed that as the socialist candidate, he was the odds-on favorite to defeat the American candidate, Sarkozy, in the upcoming French presidential election. Perhaps it was only electoral posturing to help defeat Sarkozy, but Strauss-Kahn indicated that he intended to move the International Monetary Fund away from its past policy of making the poor pay for the mistakes of the rich. He spoke of strengthening collective bargaining, and of restructuring mortgages, tax and spending policies in order that the economy would serve ordinary people in addition to the banksters. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation needed to be restored to financial markets and implied that a more even distribution of income was required.
These remarks, together with a likely win over Sarkozy in the French election, made Strauss-Kahn a double-barreled challenge to the establishment. The third strike against him was the recent IMF report that said China would surpass the US as the world’s first economy within five years.
Many Americans are unable to comprehend that authorities would remove a threat with a frame-up. But far worst has occurred. Francesco Cossiga, a former President of Italy, revealed that many of the bombings in Europe during the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, which were blamed on communists, were in fact “false flag” operations carried out by the CIA and Italian intelligence in order to scare voters away from the communist party. Cossiga’s revelations resulted in a parliamentary investigation in which intelligence operative Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated: “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Congress, unfazed by their worst approval rating in history, has just reached a deal to extend the Patriot Act four more years.
Key provisions to this unconstitutional attack on America were set to expire on May 27th. The provisions that were set to expire included roving wiretaps and the surveillance of so called lone wolf terrorists.
“Sens. Reid and McConnell have introduced a clean, four-year extension of the Patriot Act, one of the critical tools the intelligence community has to keep America safe. The Senate will consider this legislation next week,” said Michael Brumas, a McConnell spokesman, Politico reported.
This extension has once again been rammed down the America peoples throats without so much as a committee debate.
The Patriot Act, a bill that was promised to never be used against the American people, has been used countless times against innocent civilians. One of the more prominent cases of the Patriot Act being used directly against American citizens was the case of former CIA asset Susan Lindauer.
In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.
“Between July 1 and Dec. 31 (2009), Google received 3,580 requests for user data from U.S. government agencies, slightly less than the 3,663 originating from Brazil,” reports PC World. “The United Kingdom and India sent more than 1,000 requests each, and smaller numbers originated from various other countries.”
With regard to search terms, one struggles to understand how a specific combination of words in a Google search can be considered a violation of any law. This is about government and Google working hand in hand to manipulate search results in order to censor inconvenient information, something which Google now freely admits to doing.
You Tube’s behavior is more despicable than the Communist Chinese, who are at least open about their censorship policies, whereas You Tube hides behind a blanket excuse and doesn’t even say what law has been broken.
President Obama’s speech to "reset" the U.S. stance in the Middle East will take place at the State Department, but the Pentagon is the true epicenter of American policy toward the Arab Reawakening. Briefly paralyzed early in the year by the specter of resurgent Arab nationalism in the planet’s most vital energy reservoirs, Washington quickly launched a massive military assault on Libya in collaboration with European mini-imperialists to show the Arab world who’s really the boss. In the Persian Gulf region, the Saudi Arabian monarchy gathered up their fellow emirs, sultans and sheiks to safeguard the common patrimony of royal families against democratic or nationalist subversion.
Moammar Gaddafi was drafted as imperialism’s designated demon in North Africa, while Shi’ite Iran served as the scapegoat for royal reaction in the Gulf. The monarch-dominated Gulf Cooperation Council, acting through a confused Arab League, gave moral cover to the Euro-American bum-rush of an equally confused United Nations Security Council. "No-fly" Resolution 1973 landed on the heads of Libyan soldiers amidst the methodical destruction of the country’s infrastructure. Thousands of miles to the east, the Saudis and lesser royals brutally smashed the democratic aspirations of Bahrain’s Shia majority, and schemed to save Yemen from a peaceful people’s uprising.
"R2P is now wholly discredited in the eyes of the conscious world."
In the short-term, the Euro-American imperialists and Arab royal mafiosa hope their joint venture will quarantine or crush the Arab Reawakening outside its (barely and tentatively) "liberated" territory in Egypt and Tunisia. But the shock of seeing the empire’s death pass in front of its eyes in the form of a democratic – and, by definition, anti-U.S. imperialism – Arab nationalist oil dominion caused the Obama administration to kick the U.S. military’s Full Spectrum Dominance machinery into high gear. The world needed to know that this president will not allow American spheres of hegemony to shrink on his watch, and that he has the means and the inclination to kill at will. In the space of a few days, hits were made on Osama bin Laden, Moammar Gaddafi and Yemeni-American Anwar al-Awlaki. Should anyone have been fooled by President Obama’s soothing "A New Beginning" speech in Cairo back in June, 2009, they were quickly reminded that Assassinations-R-US.
Many states are in trouble, but not all. North Dakota has consistently boasted large surpluses, aided by a state-owned bank that is showing landmark profits. On April 20, the Bank of North Dakota (BND) reported profits for 2010 of $62 million, setting a record for the seventh straight year. The BND’s profits belong to the citizens and are produced without taxation.
Inspired by North Dakota’s example, twelve states have now introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility. Eight of these bills have been introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here.
The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses for Washington and Oregon. Their conclusion was that a state-owned bank on the model of the Bank of North Dakota would have a substantial positive impact on employment, new lending, and government revenue in those states.
The BND partners with local banks in providing much-needed credit for local businesses and homeowners. It also helps with local government funding needs. When North Dakota went over-budget a few years ago, according to the bank’s president Eric Hardmeyer, the BND acted as a rainy day fund for the state; and when a North Dakota town suffered a massive flood, the BND provided emergency credit lines to the city. Having a cheap and readily available credit line with the state’s own bank reduces the need for massive rainy-day funds that are a waste of capital and are largely invested in out-of-state banks at very modest interest.
The arrest of IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn has all the appearances of a frame-up ordered by powerful members of the financial establishment, in liaison with France's Nicolas Sarkozy, whose presidency has served the interests of the US at the expense of those of France and the European Union. While there is for the moment no proof of a plot, the unusual circumstances of his arrest and imprisonment require careful examination.
Immediately following Strauss Kahn's arrest, pressures were exerted by Washington to speed up his replacement as Managing Director of the IMF preferably by a non-European, an American or a handpicked candidate from an "emerging market economy" or a developing country.
Since the founding of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1945, the World Bank has been headed by an American whereas the IMF has been under the helm of a (Western) European.
Strauss-Kahn is a member of elite groups who meet behind closed doors. He belongs to the Bildeberger. Categorized as one of the world's most influential persons, he is an academic and politician rather than a banker. In contrast to his predecessors at the IMF, he has no direct affiliation to a banking or financial institution.
But at the same time he is the fall guy. His "gaffe" was to confront the Washington-Wall Street Consensus and push for reforms within the IMF, which challenged America's overriding role within the organization.
The demise of Strauss-Kahn potentially serves to strengthen the hegemony of the US and its control over the IMF at the expense of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called "Old Europe".
Virtually a handbook for overthrowing nations, the 156 page report focuses on effecting regime change within Iran. However, it is quite clear it draws on a body of knowledge derived from the Anglo-American empire's long history of fomenting unrest, division, insurgencies, coups, and regime change around the world. It is irrefutable proof that the global elite, not our legislators, are the arbiters of Western foreign policy.
It would seem even as "Which Path to Persia?" was being compiled many of the options on the table had already gone operational. Baluchi rebels residing in eastern Iran and western Pakistan were also mentioned in both the Brookings report and Hersh's article. US support for this group is quite ambitious. In addition to using them in terrorist operations against Tehran, they are also being built up and directed toward destabilizing and Balkanizing Pakistan.
It is inconceivable that one could read the pages of "Which Path to Persia?" and not understand the current "international community" as anything less than absolutely illegitimate. They contrive a myriad of laws with which to restrain and eliminate their completion with while they remain entirely uninhibited themselves in their own overt criminality. We also understand that the United States is not engaged in diplomatic relations with the world's nations as envisioned by America's Founding Fathers, but rather engaged in extorting and coercing the world to conform to it's "interests."
This report represents a full array of options not only for use in Iran, but throughout the world. In hindsight of the US-funded "Arab Spring" it is quite obvious that the methodology laid out in the report has been drawn on to destabilize and depose regimes as well as instigate wars of aggression. Upon studying this report, its implications for Iran and the surrounding region, we can understand better conflicts yet to unfold beyond North Africa and the Gulf. It is essential that reports like this are made public, their methodology exposed, and the true architects behind Western foreign policy revealed. As the report itself states numerous times, the vast majority of their gambits require secrecy, "plausible deniability," and that their dark deeds be done "without the rest of the world recognizing this game."
The world must realize who the true brokers of power are, and that by understanding their agenda, we can wholly reject it and pursue instead one of our own, locally, self-sufficiently, independently, and in true freedom.
There are several lessons, none of them comfortable, for Israel to draw from the weekend's clashes.
The first is that the Arab Spring cannot be dealt with simply by battening down the hatches. The upheavals facing Israel's Arab neighbours mean these regimes no longer have the legitimacy to decide their own Palestinian populations' fates according to narrow self-interest.
The second is that Palestinians have absorbed the meaning of the recent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah. In establishing a unity government, the two rival factions have belatedly realised that they cannot make headway against Israel as long as they are politically and geographically divided.
The third lesson is that Israel has relied on relative quiet on its borders to enforce the occupations of the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, in particular, have allowed the Israeli army to divert its energies into controlling the Palestinians under its rule.
The fourth is that the Palestinian refugees are not likely to remain quiet if their interests are sidelined by Israel or by a Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations in September that fails to address their concerns.
And the fifth lesson is that the scenes of Palestinian defiance on Israel's borders will fuel the imaginations of Palestinians everywhere to start thinking the impossible - just as the Tahrir Square protests galvanised Egyptians into believing they could remove their dictator.
In May of 2009 reports were coming out of President Obama’s support for Palestinian statehood. There were restrictions, to be sure, but the call for a contiguous Palestinian state was seen as a major move, unheard of for a US President.
Two years later, President Obama is planning to give another speech Thursday night, on the eve of a state visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The new speech is said to be a significant retreat, with the president openly condemning the Palestinian bid for statehood and issuing new demands to the Palestinian Authority.
The two year interim between the two policy positions has been a rocky one, with the US starting a mostly unproductive indirect negotiation system that was replaced by an extremely brief direct negotiation. This too collapsed in September when Israel began expanding its settlements again, and the process had been dead ever since.
President Obama is expected once again to call on Israel to “cease settlement expansion,” even though Netanyahu and other top Israeli officials have ruled out ever allowing another freeze. Though the State Department denied being “pessimistic” about the peace process, the speech seems to be mostly an admission of failure, backing off the positions that would have ended with a two-state solution and replacing it with, primarily, demands that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israel as a “Jewish” state.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, a master of Zionist double-speak and deception, is about to undertake the most important assignment of his life. Because of its continuing occupation and oppression of the Palestinians (not to mention on-going property and land grabs), Israel is becoming a pariah state so far as a growing number of the citizens of nations are concerned.
The main purpose of Netanyahu’s forthcoming trip to America is to launch a public relations campaign to rebrand Israel in the hope of stopping the rot of its growing isolation.
The highlights of this campaign launch will be a meeting with President Obama on 20 May; an address to AIPAC’s annual convention the following day; and, the climax, a speech to a joint session of Congress on 24 May.
With most Republicans who run for election to Congress now as willing as most Democrats to speak from Zionism’s script in order to secure Zionist lobby organized campaign funds and votes, it can be taken for granted that the applause Netanyahu will receive in Congress for his propaganda nonsense will match that he’ll get at AIIPAC’s convention. The truth can be simply stated. On matters to do with Israel-Palestine, it is not the Congress of the United States of America. It’s the Congress of Zionism and its deluded Christian fundamentalist allies.
Two Pakistani soldiers were injured Tuesday when Pakistani ground troops were fired on by NATO helicopters that had crossed into Pakistani airspace over North Waziristan. NATO denied that its helicopters entered into Pakistan, but did concede that they fired into North Waziristan after coming under attack.
The Pakistani army said it has lodged a “strong protest” with NATO, while making clear that it stood by the troops’ action to oppose this latest violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
Yesterday’s border clash came amid the deepest crisis in US-Pakistani relations since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. At the time, Washington threatened to bomb Pakistan “back into the Stone Age” if it did not break relations with the Taliban regime in Kabul and provide logistical support for the US invasion of Afghanistan.
The current crisis was provoked by the unilateral May 2 raid the US mounted in Abbottabad, deep inside Pakistan, to assassinate Osama bin Laden. The operation included plans to attack Pakistan’s military if it tried to oppose this violation of Pakistani sovereignty.
The great and powerful Oz of Wall Street was not the only target of Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse, the 650-page report just released by the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, alongside Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Their unusually scathing bipartisan report also includes case studies of Washington Mutual and Deutsche Bank, providing a panoramic portrait of a bubble era that produced the most destructive crime spree in our history — "a million fraud cases a year" is how one former regulator puts it. But the mountain of evidence collected against Goldman by Levin's small, 15-desk office of investigators — details of gross, baldfaced fraud delivered up in such quantities as to almost serve as a kind of sarcastic challenge to the curiously impassive Justice Department — stands as the most important symbol of Wall Street's aristocratic impunity and prosecutorial immunity produced since the crash of 2008.
Last year, in the one significant regulatory action the government has won against the big banks, the SEC sued Goldman over a scam called Abacus, in which the bank "rented" its name to a billionaire hedge-fund viper to fleece investors out of more than $1 billion. Goldman agreed to pay $550 million to settle the suit, though no criminal charges were brought against the bank or its executives. But in light of the Levin report, that SEC action now looks woefully inadequate. Yes, it was a record fine — but it pales in comparison to the money Goldman has taken from the government since the crash. As Spitzer notes, Goldman's reaction was basically, "OK, we'll pay you $550 million to settle the Abacus case — that's a small price to pay for the $12.9 billion we got for the AIG bailout." Now, adds Spitzer, "everybody can just go home and pretend it was only $12.4 billion — and Goldman can smile all the way to the bank. The question is, now that we've seen this report, there are a bunch of story lines that seem to be at least as egregious as Abacus. Are they going to bring cases?"
Here is where the supporters of Goldman and other big banks will stand up and start wanding the air full of confusing terms like "scienter" and "loss causation" — legalese mumbo jumbo that attempts to convince the ignorantly enraged onlooker that, according to American law, these grotesque tales of grand theft and fraud you've just heard are actually more innocent than you think. Yes, they will say, it may very well be a prosecutable crime for a corner-store Arab to take $2 from a customer selling tap water as Perrier. But that does not mean it's a crime for Goldman Sachs to take $100 million from a foreign hedge fund doing the same thing! No, sir, not at all! Then you'll be told that the Supreme Court has been limiting corporate liability for fraud for decades, that in order to gain a conviction one must prove a conscious intent to deceive, that the 1976 ruling in Ernst and Ernst clearly states....
“Today Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was present for both the U.S. 9/11 and the U.K. 7/7 terror attacks, comes to Washington, DC, and will remain in the U.S. until late next week. The last time he visited, secret national level nuclear war games began, and four U.S. nuclear reactors had emergencies.”
Constitutional Captains Coup
Yesterday was the beginning of an ominous set of events in the U.S. and Israel, the sum of which warrants — demands – the most dire conclusions and counteractions. As principled patriots read and reflect, I urge them to listen to and learn from my recorded broadcast of military coup orders accepted, even applauded, by half a dozen Ghost Troop officers,. Most of us were mere captains, but we acted decisively — in accordance with our military training — to preempt what was clearly treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
Saturday, May 21, has been heralded by a nationwide billboard campaign as the day when Jesus will return, initiating the rapture.. Thousands of billboards have programmed Christian Zionists to pray for an apocalypse, and they just may get what they want.
On Sunday, May 22, Obama will be leaving the country, this time for Ireland, not India. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Cabal that masterminded 9/11 uses Cabala coding to organize and orchestrate terror events:
The POTUS is a puppet, a coerced collaborator on notice to get the job of 9/11-2B done — or else.
Opposing Christian values, the Anti-Defamation League, Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU and a myriad of other liberal Jewish organizations loathe the burgeoning creationist and intelligent design movements. ADL joins legislators and scientists to mock the "unscientific" idea of special creation and assists the courts in banning equal representation of the creationist model in public schools.
Modern creation science is led by an array of top-flight Ph.D. scientists, including biochemists, paleontologists, astronomers and geologists. It presents a formidable battery of evidence now knocking hundreds of holes in traditional evolutionary arguments. As never before, scientific creationism debunks the contrived "evidence" that evolutionary theory has fed on since Darwin. Polls show that the common sense of most Americans won’t let them believe that blind chance and random mutations spontaneously generated the infinitely complex, stupendously designed miracle of life. Cutting edge biochemistry continues to probe the astounding complexities and interdependencies within living organisms. Even mainstream scientists increasingly doubt the ability of "the law of tooth and claw" to explain life on earth. Evolutionary theory is especially impoverished as we continue to learn the evasive mysteries that distinguish humans from all other life: self-awareness, imagination, conscience and ability to conceive of God.
Why doesn’t the scientific community abandon Darwin’s failed hypotheses? Simple: The Jewish-dominated media and educational establishment are determined that, like unconditional support of Israel, Holocaust mythology, hate laws, and “civil rights” favoritism, there will be no end to the relentless force-feeding of evolution. Belief in evolution is a prerequisite for Jewish supremacism’s new-world order.
Yet anti-Zionist leadership on the right remains oblivious to the fact that evolution is the largest, ugliest, most aggressive tentacle of the Jewish revolutionary octopus. Anti-Zionists are often evolutionists, claiming that Jews evolved in a way that makes them inherently degenerate, subversive, and corruptive. They make the most Luciferian, dehumanizing fable ever invented by pseudo-science into a pillar of their thinking!
This is what it comes down to: A TV 'news' presenter reveals in all its starkness, how the Empire corrupts totally. Here we have an apparently intelligent and educated person dismissing the leader of a country as if he's just another expendable piece of the Empire's junk. 'Yeah, why you don't just get rid of him, make him go away'. It's absolutely outrageous that we accept this kind of rubbish and it's echoed right across the MSM (see below).
By what right does the media pass judgement in this way? Worse still, we accept it as legitimate news making, where 'received opinion' is folded faultlessly into the mix. It's assumed that we have every right to pronounce on the fate of others, made especially easy when the self-same 'news' presenter has helped in demonizing Gaddafi and turning him into the other.
Perhaps if she'd also asked, 'What about giving NATO an exit strategy?", I would have more sympathy but it would in no way alter the fundamental assumption that the presenter is fully immersed in the idea that we can behave as we please, commit even worse crimes in the name of preventing crimes! The arrogance of Empire knows no limit.
Elsewhere some British military buffoon calls to demolish what's left of Libya and blow Gaddafi away by bending the 'rules' even more than they've already have been. So here we have a military man acting and behaving as if he were an elected politician and the BBC has no problem with this:
With Osama bin Laden’s death it seemed for a moment that the U.S. government and the media might begin to assess why al-Qaeda and the Islamist movement are larger, more geographically dispersed, and more active in the United States then they were at 9/11. Having treated bin Laden for more than decade as a celebrity rather than as the thoughtful leader and modern manager he was, his death ought to have sidelined the Entertainment-Tonight approach to bin Laden/al-Qaeda/Islamist analysis and allowed all concerned — officials, journalists and citizens — a chance to step back and ask why America’s Islamist problem continues to expand. Two weeks after bin Laden’s death, however, the chance of such a clear-headed assessment — like the so-called Arab Spring — seems to be fading.
1.) One kind of specious analysis, however, seems to have been skewered by leaks describing bin Laden’s hands-on management of al-Qaeda even from hiding. This is the social scientists’ pet theory of “leaderless jihad,” which — like their other fatuous theory about deradicalizing Islamists — has never been much more than a means by which social scientists can entrance naive politicians and thereby get their hands on money from the public treasury.
2.) The term “disloyal” in this context refers to any U.S. citizen who seeks — via rhetoric, lobbying, bribery, campaign contributions, or media manipulation — to involve the United States in another country’s wars or external disputes even though no U.S. interests are at risk. The Israel-Firsters certainly fall into this category, as do George Clooney and his fellow Hollywood celebrities who have helped to create a situation in Africa that will lead to war by successfully pressing the U.S., the UN, and the EC to back the theft of oil-rich lands from Muslim Sudan and give them to a new Christian state apparently to be called Southern Sudan.
The stage is now being set for this low intensity rebellion to get the “foreign support”. This would interrupt Pakistan’s use of this resource rich, strategically located province, prevent Iran from sending a pipeline to India, as well as eject the Chinese from the region. For those wondering why America is attempting to escalate tensions in Pakistan over the “Bin Laden” hoax instead of using it as an excuse to leave the region, the Balkanization of Pakistan and the permanent disruption of Pakistan’s, Iran’s, and China’s development may be the answer. Mulla Omer and Quetta Shura will be the buzz word of tomorrow. Iranian president stated that Osama was in US custody long before his assassination in Abbottabad. A British paper today indicates at action against Pakistan’s nuclear assets. Kerry the founder of KLB and KLL is saying aid to Pakistan may be stopped. For a person following the Think Tanks and US, UK study groups its not a news. Let me list history of few reports from net.
Quite clearly when Islamabad accused foreign governments of fueling and arming the unrest in Baluchistan, they were absolutely correct. Seymour Hersh’s report lays to rest any illusions over whether or not America is arming Baluchi rebels. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report also openly calls for arming and sending Baluchi rebels out against Tehran. More recently, longtime proponent of a Baluchi insurgency, Selig Harrison of the Soros funded Center for International Policy, has published two pieces regarding the “liberation” of Baluchistan itself.
Harrison would follow up his frank call to carve up Pakistan by addressing the issue of Chinese-Pakistani relations in a March 2011 piece titled, “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” He begins by stating, “China’s expanding reach is a natural and acceptable accompaniment of its growing power—but only up to a point. ” He then reiterates his call for extraterritorial meddling in Pakistan by saying, “to counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
Taylor summarizes the current PC orthodoxy on how white people should think about race as follows:
"Race is an insignificant matter and not a valid criterion for any purpose—except perhaps for redressing wrongs done to non-whites. The races are equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable."
No, the much more serious roadblock to the emergence of white identity politics: more Jews don’t want it to happen than do want it to happen.
Many Jews have strong reasons for their aversion to white identity politics, either irrational (the Cossacks are coming!) or rational (what’s in it for me?).
Perhaps Taylor can persuade enough Jews to get onboard to make white identity respectable in the MSM and thus with the media’s consumers, the public. He’s striven manfully and graciously over the years to make Jews feel welcome in his movement and many Jews have written for American Renaissance.
The fundamental question for 21st Century white identity politics is the same as for Armenians, just two or three orders of magnitude greater in media influence: What’s in it for Jews?
Most alarmingly, 9/11′s legacy has proved detrimental to the security of our country. According to the National Journal, fighting this phantom demon of terrorism today involves 1,271 government agencies, producing 50,000 intelligence reports a year that for the most part nobody reads. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110506/pl_yblog_exclusive/the-cost-of-bin-laden-3-trillion-over-15-years Meanwhile, “black budgets” for intelligence operations have mushroomed to $75 billion a year, financing both domestic and international surveillance that monitors law-abiding citizens across the country. There’s no federal auditing authority or Congressional oversight over “black budgets.” It’s all tax free and unregulated. It’s a secret government gone wild.
Osama’s death has been a great victory for the CIA. But it will not bring U.S. soldiers home from Iraq and Afghanistan, where military operations have cost $1.6 trillion and counting. It won’t end the nonsense War against Libya, which has no justification at all.
Osama’s death will not quash the planning stages for future wars against Syria, and God help us, Iran.
Is it really patriotic to stay silent while the military industrial complex devours our economy for its own profits? Without producing benefits for U.S. soldiers? Admiral Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doesn’t think so. He has described America’s national debt as “the greatest threat to our national security.”
Our country is teetering on the abyss. If we’re going to succeed in restoring the great traditions of liberty and moral authority, we’ve got to relearn the history of 9/11.
The White House claims it has recovered one million pages of data from the Bin Laden compound. This is already being used to legitimize the phony narrative of the war on terror and will most likely be cited as a casus belli with which to fortify the official story behind 9/11, while neutralizing a plethora of other inconvenient questions and cover-ups.
We’ve already seen the administration invoke this alleged data cache for the purposes of public relations ploys. The claimed threat on Obama’s life has been hastily exploited as a means through which to insert the president directly into the narrative of the fairytale so he can continue to pose as a “tough guy” leader, which is precisely what Democratic strategists have yearned for over the years with their calls for Obama to seize upon a terror attack in the United States for political grist.
The Bin Laden fable has been used by the administration in precisely the way a terror attack would have been exploited, to keep Americans in a state of fear, to push for more constitutional erosions, and to allow Obama to grandstand as a strong man protector.
But don’t expect the revelations from this “1 million page cache” to stop at ludicrous claims of Al-Qaeda attacking 500mph trains that don’t exist, or the contents of Bin Laden’s porn collection.
Just like the mythical hijackers’ passports that floated out of exploding airliners and drifted calmly down to the street to be found by authorities in the days after 9/11, in addition to Mohammad Atta’s bag which just happened to contain incriminating flight manuals, a personal statement and a copy of the Qur’an, planted evidence is evidence of the fact that the Osama raid was a carefully crafted hoax
Presidential hopeful Ron Paul insists that the U.S. government shouldn’t go to war without a declaration of war. His son Rand has also taken this position, as have several libertarian-leaning Tea Party candidates. According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress is invested with the power to declare war. These constitutionalists say that obtaining a declaration should be a requirement before military action is authorized.
I’m not sure that this is resonating with those who are unfamiliar with what a declaration of war means. For most people, the declaration of war is a formality whereby the president makes sure that Congress agrees to the use of the military. Some might even go so far as to say it is the president “asking permission” from Congress to do so. By this reasoning, both Presidents Bush and Obama have complied, especially considering H.J. Res. 114 of October 2002. With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror. What is the difference between that and a declaration of war?
The answer is both intuitive and supported by history. First, a “declaration” has nothing to do with “permission.” Neither is it the same thing as creation or initiation. One can only declare something that already exists. Therefore, a declaration of war does not create a war or initiate a war. A declaration of war is a resolution passed by Congress recognizing that the United States is already at war.
The intent of the declaration-of-war power is for the government to have an adjudication process for war analogous to a criminal trial for domestic crimes. Evidence must be presented that the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States. The Congress must deliberate on that evidence and then vote on whether or not a state of war exists. The actual declaration of war is analogous to a conviction at a criminal trial. The Congress issues the “verdict” and the president is called upon to employ the military. To wage war without a declaration of war is akin to a lynching: there has been no finding of guilt before force has been employed in response.
What has happened to the West is that it can see itself and others only through the eyes of its own propaganda. There was a great deal of talk about China’s lack of democracy. As the BBC program was being broadcast, the news intruded that Greeks had again taken to the streets to protest the costs of the bailout of the banks and Wall Street – the rich – being imposed on ordinary people at the expense of their lives and aspirations. The Irish government announced that it was going to confiscate with a tax part of the Irish people’s pension accumulations. It simply did not occur to the host and other guests that these are not democratic outcomes.
It is a strange form of democracy that produces political outcomes that reward the few and punish the many, despite the energetic protests of the many.
Political scientists understand that US electoral outcomes are determined by powerful monied interests that finance the political campaigns and that the bills Congress passes and the President signs are written by these interest groups to serve their narrow interests. Such conclusions are dismissed as cynicism and do not alter the mindset.
While the program’s host and guests were indulging in the West’s democratic and human rights superiority, the American Civil Liberties Union was sending out a bulletin urging its members to oppose legislation now before Congress that would give the current and future Presidents of the United States expanded war authority to use, on their own initiative, military force anywhere in the world independently of the restraints imposed by the US Constitution and international law.
In other words, in the great American “democracy,” the president is to become a Caesar.
The authoritarian societies of the past have tended to fail for specific reasons—problems which the regime in Beijing is very carefully avoiding:
1) They were personalist dictatorships that depended upon the vigor of a single despot whose luck eventually ran out.
2) They were stuck in the past, and did not adapt to modern technology. In this category go traditional societies from Spain to Zululand.
3) They went broke because they didn’t understand economics and thought they could create wealth by political fiat. In this category goes the USSR and all its imitators.
4) They got arrogant and blundered into wars they couldn’t win. In this category go Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam Hussein.
In China’s case, we can rule out #1 and #2 above with ease. Problem #4, of course, refers, from our present vantage point, to the future, as we cannot be absolutely sure they won’t do something stupid militarily. But the evidence appears to weigh against it. Beijing for now appears to be a disciplined player of the game which, while certainly willing to use force (ask Tibet!), isn’t going to romp into strategic catastrophe from sheer excess testosterone.
Here's a clip of Hillary moaning about the "repressive Chinese system of government."
“We have made very clear, publicly and privately, our concern about human rights. We see reports of people, including public interest lawyers, writers, artists, and others, who are detained or disappeared. And we know over the long arch of history that societies that work toward respecting human rights are going to be more prosperous, stable, and successful."
Can you believe the arrogance? The United States has a higher percentage of its population in prison than any other country in the world. And, Clinton dares to scold China about "detained or disappeared" people?
But, yes, it's true; the Chinese haven't mastered democracy like we have in the good old USA, where 5 right-wing jurists pick the president, and where the government taps your phoneline, sifts through your e mail, and gropes your scrotum before you hop on a flight to Boise. That's capital "D" democracy; land of the free and home of the Ponzi-scamster. We might boot you out of your home, kick you out of your job, and fleece you out of your retirement, but we've got our principles, dammit!
But, let's cut to the chase. Do you know what this is really all about, all this duplicitous foot-stomping and pontificating by Ms. Clinton?
Jewish Robert Iger's ABC has announced a new TV series next fall, Good Christian B*tches, which will feature Southern girls who "are taught to love Jesus, but just because we're Christians doesn't mean we are perfect." So says author of the book by that title, Kim Gatlin. On its cover the "h" in "b*tches" has Satan's forked tail hanging from it, contrasting to a halo around the "d" in "good." The message couldn't be clearer: Christians are hypocrites; Christian girls are very possibly b*tches.
Gatlin's book, about malicious southern Christian gossip and hypocrisy, provides plenty of abuse of Christianity. Leave it to heavyweight Jewish media moguls Iger and homosexual/Jewish producer Darren Star to pick up her story and vent their animus against Christians on prime-time TV. Recent Disney pro-homosexuality, even at their theme parks, is legendary. Star is a veteran of trashing Christian sexual morality, having created "Melrose Place" and "Sex in the City."
Of course, in Canada, under the Jewish Anti-Defamation League's hate laws, if a Christian uttered the phrase "good Jewish b*tch" in public, he could face a minimum fine of $5000 and more than $150,000 in legal fees. In America he could easily be fined and perhaps jailed by local governing bodies influenced by ADL.
But when superpowerful Jews create a television series kicking Christianity and Christian women in their moral solar plexus, no alarm is raised by the American Jewish community, especially ADL. ADL seems conveniently distracted at this time, loudly preaching "tolerance," "respect for diversity" and "civility" elsewhere.
1. Barack Obama's achievement: From the day he assumed office, the president of the United States made preventing an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities a high priority. To prevent a strike, America tightened its supervision of the Israel Defense Forces. The Obama administration expanded aid to Israel for missile defense, but new offensive weapons were provided to Israel only in the form of "forward deployment" in emergency storehouses whose opening requires American approval. Hezbollah has a similar arrangement with its Iranian patrons; only the latter are authorized to allow the use of long-range missiles deployed in Lebanon. This tight supervision has contained Israel, for the time being.
2. Iran's deterrent works: Iran learned the lessons of the bombed nuclear reactors in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007: It dispersed its nuclear facilities to make an air strike more difficult. Even more importantly, it decided to take the war into enemy territory and build a strategic offensive arm against Israel.
3. A dispute at the top: Over the past 10 days, a serious disagreement has emerged among Israel's leadership over the need for and wisdom of attacking Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who promised upon returning to power that he would do everything to prevent the Iranians from gaining nuclear weapons, is sticking to the view that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is Hitler. In his speech on Holocaust Memorial Day, he once again termed Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas "new villains working to destroy the Jewish state" and warned, "The entire world will learn that when Israel and the IDF say never again, we mean every word."
Interim Conclusions: In his upcoming speech to the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu will reiterate his warning that Israel is being threatened with destruction, and as such, it should not be pressured to withdraw from essential territories of the West Bank and transfer them to the hands of the "villains." Hints that he will dispatch the air force on a "never again" mission to Iran if Israel is pushed into the corner are meant to deter Obama from imposing an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Suddenly the political theatrics gurus and spin doctors are in full gear in Obama’s America. They are going to “talk the trees into growing blue feathers” and they may succeed: such is the state of mind of the ever-gullible, permanently indoctrinated, thoroughly brainwashed people of the United States of America who are persistently subjected by their own political establishments to feel fearful of foreign ideologies, external non-existent and self-fabricated threats from demonized nations. America’s security is at risk – and the slogan always works – the media drills the message into the deeply troubled psyche of the American people and the spin doctors and the theatrics gurus know it. They have gone into full operation to get their “Chief” re-elected for the second presidential term.
And the world will have to suffer, specifically the Muslim world, and most particularly Pakistan and its people, this time around, the American atrocities that are going to be inflicted, as always to prove that there is a “tough guy” in the White House to save Americans from the nasty, uncivilized and brutal forces of Islam. A long time ago, there was a threat from the native American Indians which was overcome by gallant American cowboys. The threat of socialism and communism was crushed by God-fearing, democratically spirited Obama predecessors and by American covert and overt wars in Latin America, Vietnam and elsewhere – and indeed, cheered on by perpetual media propaganda and Hollywood films. Bush hyped the Iraqi threat by blatant lies and a complaisant media. And now, Barrack Hussein Obama is there to respond resolutely to the Islamic threat – the misguided Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. After all, Americans are the “chosen people of God.” Hail Caesar, Hail Obama! What else can a nation ask for?
Whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, or died 8 years ago, is not the important issue. Let us step back a bit: in December 2001, the American hyped-up media in its anti-Islamic zealousness and to justify American military-political aggression against Iraq-Afghanistan had broken the news that Osama Bin Laden was killed in Tora Bora. This was later officially denied. George W. Bush figured out that a dead Osama Bin Laden would cause the loss of momentum in the so-called war on terrorism and, in fact, Osama Bin Laden’s death would work contrary to Bush’s fundamental global objectives of American hegemony in the Central Asian Islamic States and South Asia to control the region’s natural resources, including gas, petrol and other valuable mineral deposits. So, in hindsight, Bush lied as he had lied to the world community and American people about the weapons of mass destruction threat from Saddam Hussain’s Iraq.