Thus, what will history record of whom and what you are?
What you are in essence and action is a nation of ignorant cowards, SLAVES, to be exact, to the very nation you created and continue to pay for with your tax dollars, weapons, and the lives of your sons and daughters—Israel.
What you are is a nation of fools according to Israel, “detached from reality”; “delusional”, and full of “illusions”; in other words a nation of mental defects who are unaware of who’s the real boss of this nation and your supposedly elected government.
It’s Israel, Stupid.
But your arrogance and conceit of greatness, of a democracy, of a representative government, a nation where the people freely choose their President and Congressional Representatives, a nation of “American Exceptionalism”, blinds you to the reality that you neither control, own, nor create your own destiny.
Who does? It’s the little nation from afar—Israel.
"We are in a multi-polar world now," Robert Gates told a Washington Post columnist within a year of his taking over the Pentagon in early 2007.
Such an assertion sounds banal today, nearly three years after the outbreak of a global financial crisis that would underline Washington's relative decline vis-a-vis China and other emerging powers and bolster the perception that the 21st-century was unlikely to be as "American" as the last one.
But, at the time, it was anathema to the neo-conservatives and other hawks, led by Dick Cheney, the vice president who, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, drove the US into two costly wars and doubled a defense budget that was already greater than the combined spending by the world's next 20 biggest militaries in order to affirm that the world was in fact "unipolar".
For Gates, who replaced the strutting, no-nonsense - but ultimately clueless - Donald Rumsfeld, it was one of a number of statements designed to nudge his country into a more realistic understanding of its place in the world, and, more precisely, the limits to its vast military power.
Over the past several years I have been encouraged that nearly half my email response comes from evangelicals! My most popular articles often address Israel in Bible prophecy. (See, Babylon the Great is Israel, Michael Savage: Obama 'Laying Groundwork' For Apocalyptic War Against Israel) Increasingly, tens of thousands of Christians visit Truthtellers.org and Rense.com, the largest anti-Zionist internet news site with over one million unique visits a month (Rense.com's readership now equals World Net Daily, the largest Christian pro-Israel internet news service).
This trend toward greater openness to a truly Biblical perspective is seen in a new Pew Research poll of 2,196 evangelicals worldwide, 16 percent of which included evangelical leaders in the United States. "Among evangelicals from the United States three-in-ten (30%) sympathize more with Israel. Thirteen percent favor Palestinians and nearly half (49 percent) say they sympathize with both equally.
The survey showed that many evangelical leaders do think for themselves about the Mideast, particularly after Israel's embargo in Gaza and terrorist attack on the "Free Gaza" flotilla. Many clearly reject pressure to support Israel by Jewish muscle groups such as ADL as well as evangelical media and authorities. Over the past ten years, the voice of our National Prayer Network has been joined by other vocal Christian ministries. Through the airwaves, internet and direct mail we are blanketing the world with truth about Zionism. This Pew poll provides encouragement that together we may have had a more extensive impact than we dreamed. John Hagee-style support of Israel does not describe all evangelicals!
Tea Party Also Hears Truth about Israel
Two years ago, the National Prayer Network began sending our e-alerts to 850 Tea Party chapters in America. Within several weeks, about 185 chapters demanded removal from our e-list. But soon the objections stopped. For nearly two years, about 650 chapters have received our articles with hardly a murmur. Clearly, they remain curious and tolerant of truth they find nowhere else.
Explaining the Obama administration’s rationale for violating the War Powers Act by not asking Congress for authorization to attack Libya, the White House claims that what’s going on in Libya isn’t war, it’s a “kinetic military action.” This set off such a round of guffaws – even from Libya war supporters in the Democratic congressional caucus – that the administration felt compelled to send a government lawyer to Congress to elaborate on this exercise in Doublespeak. Harold Koh, the State Department’s lawyer-in-chief, explained to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that since there was no back-and-forth firing between American and Libyan forces, the Libyan intervention isn’t a real war – and therefore the President is not in violation of the War Powers Act. (No word yet on whether he’s in violation of the Constitution, which gives Congress, and not the President, the power to make war.)
This, by the way, is the same Harold Hongju Koh who once authored a legal brief [.pdf] challenging George Herbert Walker Bush’s authority to fight the first Iraq war, on the grounds that “the Constitution requires the president to consult with Congress and receive its affirmative authorization – not merely present it with faits accomplis – before engaging in war.”
Oh, but this isn’t a war – didn’t you hear me the first time? As Koh explained to the befuddled solons in his opening statement: the word “hostilities,” which “triggers” the 60-day time line imposed by the War Powers Act, is “an ambiguous term of art.” Translation: it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean – especially if that anyone is a sitting Democratic president. After all, Koh argued, the word wasn’t defined in the legislation, and there is no legislative precedent that would define it for us. Oh, and put down that dictionary – we don’t use them in ObamaWorld, which is in the same galaxy as Bizarro World. Instead, we must stick to “historical practice.”
This administration, armed with an ideology so far removed from American traditions and sheer common sense, is far more dangerous than its war-maddened predecessor. At least Bush spared us the verbal gymnastics and never denied he intended to take us to war. The current occupant of the Oval Office wants us to consider him a modern Gandhi while besting Bush at his own game. The pretentious doubletalk engaged in by this White House is an insult to the American people, and yet another measure of Obama’s monumental arrogance.
The Christian Science Monitor published a piece I wrote last month in opposition to allowing the U.S. government to kill Americans without a warrant, trial, or any judicial niceties. The article, “Assassination Nation: Are There Any Limits on President Obama's License to Kill?,” spurred a torrent of feedback on Yahoo.com that vividly illustrates how some Americans now view absolute power.
Some folks believed that opposing “extrajudicial killings” should be a capital offense. My article mentioned an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit pressuring the Obama administration “to disclose the legal standard it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.” “Will R.” was indignant: “We need to send Bovard and the ACLU to Iran. You shoot traders and the ACLU are a bunch of traders.” (I’m not aware that the ACLU is engaged in either interstate or international commerce.) “Jeff” took the high ground: "Hopefully there will soon be enough to add James Bovard to the [targeted killing] list." Another commenter — self-labeled as “Idiot Savant” — saw a grand opportunity: "Now if we can only convince [Obama] to use this [assassination] authority on the media, who have done more harm than any single terror target could ever dream of...."
Many folks feared that any restrictions on U.S. government killing could be fatal. As “Rogmac” groused: “You guys who are against killing these guys are going to be the death of all of us.” Other commentators started from the self-evident truth that, as “Bert” declared, “In the best interest of the United Sates and it's citizen's, someone has to be the judge, jury and executioner.” This theory of government differs significantly from that proffered in the Federalist Papers. “Rich” was sure everything had been done properly: “The warrants have already been signed, the execution orders have all been approved now we just need to find them and eradicate them.” Having a president approve his own execution orders is more efficient than the procedures used by the U.S. government in earlier times. “Coder Cable” joined the pro-power parade: “In a time of war, the military (ie: President) is allowed to execute anyone for the crime of treason, assuming there is strong evidence to backup the claim.”
This was practically the only pro-assassination comment that referred to a standard of evidence. The question of whether government officials can be trusted to arbitrarily label Americans as enemies did not arise. Instead, most commentators favored “faith-based killings,” blindly accepting the assertions of any political appointee as the ultimate evidence. “Dark Ruby Moon” wrote: “I won't loose a minutes sleep over these people being eliminated.... One of the reasons presidential elections are so important is we are picking someone who must make such difficult decisions and who is in the end accountable for those decisions.” Perhaps future presidential races will feature campaign promises such as “Vote for Smith — he won’t have you killed unless all his top advisers agree you deserve to die.”
In recent days, there have been persistent rumors that we could potentially be on the verge of a military conflict between Syria and Turkey. As impossible as such a thing may have seemed just a few months ago, it is now a very real possibility. Over the past several months, we have seen the same kind of "pro-democracy" protests erupt in Syria that we have seen in many of the other countries in the Middle East. The Syrian government has no intention of being toppled by a bunch of protesters and has cracked down on these gatherings harshly. There are reports in the mainstream media that say that over 1,300 people have been killed and more than 10,000 people have been arrested since the protests began. Just like with Libya, the United States and the EU are strongly condemning the actions that the Syrian government has taken to break up these protests. The violence in Syria has been particularly heavy in the northern sections of the country, and thousands upon thousands of refugees have poured across the border into neighboring Turkey. Syria has sent large numbers of troops to the border area to keep more citizens from escaping. Turkey has responded by reinforcing its own troops along the border. Tension between Turkey and Syria is now at an all-time high. So could we actually see a war between Syria and Turkey?
A few months ago anyone who would have suggested such a thing would have been considered crazy. But the world is changing and the Middle East is a powder keg that is just waiting to explode.
Since the Syrian government began cracking down on the protests, approximately 12,000 Syrians have flooded into Turkey. The Turkish government is deeply concerned that Syria may try to strike these refugees while they are inside Turkish territory.
Troop levels are increasing on both sides of the border and tension is rising. One wrong move could set off a firestorm.
America’s past and present testifies the fact that there is no country in the world matching its destructive oriented policies. The US is the sole country which annihilated millions of inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by using hydrogen bombs. Even today no living being in the two affected cities are safe from the thermonuclear aftereffects. Large number of countries had to go through rigors of civil war on account of US intrigues. In its bid to bring down populist elected governments of targeted countries, CIA and FBI secretly provided arms and funds to rebel groups and converted democracy into dictatorship. After making full use of the selected dictator, when he outlived his utility and became a liability, he was branded a traitor and popular movement organized against him. After creating political and economic instability, spreading lawlessness and inducing a civil war like situation, the US forces were pushed in under the pretext of saving the people from the cruel clutches of dictator. Tunes of freedom and democracy were played up full blast. Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya are cases in point where the people have been deprived of peace and independence.
In order to break-up USSR, CIA first fomented protests against Moscow in Eastern Europe in 1970s by overplaying prosperity and openness of Western Europe and then turned Afghanistan into a battleground. Osama bin Laden (OBL) and thousands of Muslim Jihadis were enticed from all over the Muslim world to promote culture of Jihad against godless communist super power. After accomplishing its objectives, the US abandoned the region in haste and got involved in renovation of Eastern Europe and expanding NATO towards the east. Afghan Mujahideen who had paid the heaviest price in pushing out Soviet troops and Pakistan that had led the proxy war had to go through a long period of trial and tribulation. Left at their own, both Afghanistan and Pakistan were unable to repair the badly bruised socio-economic fabric.
After 9/11, the blue-eyed boy OBL and his holy warriors who were profusely acclaimed by USA and entire western world were declared as most dangerous terrorists. After declaring OBL responsible for attacks on WTC in New York without furnishing any proof, the US destroyed Afghanistan in October-November 2001. Ever since, Afghanistan remains an occupied country and trigger-happy occupation forces have killed tens of thousands of Afghans. Vices that had been purged from the society by the Taliban during their 5-year rule (1996-2001) have resurfaced in a big way.
Most U.S. politicians have for so long shilled on behalf of Israel’s ahistorical and deceitful contention that a nation has a “right to exist” that it probably was inevitable they would come to believe the lie themselves. As noted here previously, every country has the right to defend itself according to its own best lights, but no country has a right to exist. Existence depends on national defense capabilities and a readiness to use war as a last resort to annihilate the few entities that pose life-and-death threats; a determination to avoid cultivating enemies at home and abroad; a prosperous economy that affords opportunities for all; and a cohesive social fabric that encourages free speech and welcomes an armed citizenry. Without these attributes a nation-state eventually goes up the spout, be it Israel or the United States.
President Obama’s 22 June 2011 speech on Afghanistan amounted to a declaration that the United States has a right to exist even if it refuses to defend itself. He is wrong. Certainly no country on earth has more human, economic, military, and historical assets at its command in attempting to survive than the United States, but if those assets are not used in an effective and timely manner Americans will eventually find that there is no one out there who will make sure that our country continues to exist.
Mr. Obama surrendered to worldwide Islamist forces on June 22nd. He and most of the U.S. political elite live in a world that does not exist and so make decisions that are uninformed by reality. In saying that the “wave of war is receding” Mr. Obama proved himself either ignorant or stupid, or perhaps just hopeful that those attributes characterize most of the electorate. America has lost its unnecessary war in Iraq. Washington accomplished nothing there that it set out to do; al-Qaeda and other Sunni Islamist groups have reformed and are on the offensive; and a Sunni-Shia civil war is shaping up that will destabilize the region — and perhaps oil production — even further.
America also has lost its war in Afghanistan. Even with the surge of U.S. soldiers and Marines the reality today is what it was before the surge: Karzai’s government and military/security services are not viable; the Taleban-led insurgency has the military initiative; and U.S. forces control a piece of ground only so long as they stand on it and are willing to kill to keep it. On this last point, when Obama, Gates, Mullen, and Petraeus say that the progress of the U.S.-NATO coalition is “fragile,” they are saying that there has been no military progress that can be sustained without the presence and combat activity of U.S.-NATO forces. The now ongoing movement of coalition combat forces from the Kandahar region to eastern Afghanistan, for example, will cede to the Taleban any recent gains in the former and demonstrates that the current level of forces cannot hold any territory unless they physically occupy it. What happens when there are 33,000 fewer U.S. troops in Afghanistan is really quite easy to predict: Defeat countrywide for the Karzai regime and a return to the status quo antebellum under the Taleban.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyau, a former furniture salesman, addressed congress recently. He received 29 standing ovations. His speech? Speech?
What Netanyahu actually did was drag it out of his pants and hose them down. Why did he do it? The answer is simple, because he could! Was it wrong? Caligula put his horse in the Roman senate. American’s never get the whole horse, just the horse’s ass.
Congress now has this down pat. The more given to Israel, not just cash but bloated defense contracts, $10 billion at a time, the more money they get back. Give Netanyahu a billion and he gets one of his friends to hire your wife for $150,000 a year to lick envelopes (among other things).
When Netanyahu arrived in America, he came to a country where the top celebrities were Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann. He knows a freak show when he sees one.
As speculation mounted last week that Greece would be the first European nation to default on its $157 billion loan crafted and partially funded by the International Monetary Fund, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R.-Wash.) has stepped up the fight in Congress to stop the IMF from spending $108 billion of U.S. tax dollars on European bailouts.
“At some point, there has to be an end to this vicious cycle of the IMF borrowing to bail out others that threatens all of us,” McMorris Rodgers, vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, told HUMAN EVENTS in an exclusive interview Friday. The Washington State lawmaker has introduced legislation that would rescind IMF authority to spend the $108 billion Congress appropriated for the fund in 2009.
Officially, her bill, HR 2313, would also secure the return of any unused U.S. tax dollars from that $108 billion IMF package and apply it to the deficit. So far, McMorris Rodgers’ proposal has 15 co-sponsors in the House. Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.) has introduced similar legislation in the Senate.
Referring to the sensational arrest last month of then-IMF Managing Director Dominque Strauss-Kahn on charges of assaulting a hotel employee in New York, McMorris Rodgers told us that “the scandal has now focused attention and started fresh debate on reevaluation of what the appropriate role of the U.S. should be toward the IMF.” Even before the arrest of the man known as “DSK,” she noted, “The IMF has not been forthcoming in what it has done with our $108 billion. At this point, neither the IMF nor [Secretary of the Treasury Tim] Geithner has let us know how much of it there is left for us to recover. We just can’t go on this way.”
President Barack Obama could not ask for a more helpful “opposition” party in charge of the House of Representatives. For the second time this month House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has maneuvered to prevent Congress from demanding that Obama abide by the Constitution’s requirement that wars be initiated by the legislative branch, not the executive. Furthermore, in seeking a middle ground between the patently irreconcilable options of enforcing the Constitution and adhering to the bipartisan consensus in favor of untrammeled presidential intervention abroad, Boehner has ensured that Obama’s illegal war in Libya continues indefinitely.
Indeed, as Politico put it, the House of Representatives’ latest expression of opposition to Obama’s war is “a rebuke the White House can live with.” On Friday the House voted overwhelmingly — 295 to 123, with 70 Democrats among the 295 No voters — against a resolution supporting the Libya mission that is similar to a Senate resolution sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). An hour later, however, it also turned down a measure that would have prohibited funding of certain operations in Libya. That bill failed, 238 to 180, a victim of Boehner’s attempts at compromise.
According to The Hill, Boehner had originally intended to have the House vote on both the resolution authorizing the war and one calling for its termination. However, says the paper, “after a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday,” the House leadership replaced the anti-war resolution with a bill that merely restricted funding for the war to “support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance,” according to the New York Times. The watered-down resolution, which Boehner called “a sensible approach,” satisfied neither hawks nor doves — nor, for that matter, constitutionalists such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — and deservedly went down to defeat along with the pro-war resolution.
Paul, naturally, voted against the resolution supporting the war since the operation is inconsistent with the Constitution. At the same time, he also voted against the bill that would have restricted the war’s funding, pointing out that such funding is already illegal and that “instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.”
One of the fundamental things a Mantra Thinker must insist on is that he refuses to agree on anything where discussion is limited. Respectable conservatives get paid to do the opposite.
Respectable conservatives get paid to agree that all men are equal or all the other “common ground” they have with Mommy Professor, up front.
We all know that Stalin, Hitler and Lincoln simply used phrases that had been agreed on in their respective Constitutions to completely destroy those Constitutions. Actually, Lincoln used a phrase from the Declaration to replace the Preamble to the United States Constitution, but the principle was the same.
America was very specifically dedicated to one thing, “Ourselves and OUR Posterity,” so Lincoln just substituted “All men are created equal” for it. At least Stalin and Hitler used the actual Constitutions.
The point here is that what the Buckleys called “common ground” is simply handing the whole game over to the enemy.
One of the most original and provocative books of the past decade is Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt (Rowman & Littlefield). “A critical look at salaried professionals,” says the cover, “and the soul-battering system that shapes their lives.” Its theme is postmodern America but also applies to Britain, where the corporate state has bred a new class of Americanised manager to run the private and public sectors: the banks, the main parties, corporations, important committees, the BBC.
Professionals are said to be meritorious and non-ideological. Yet, in spite of their education, writes Schmidt, they think less independently than non-professionals. They use corporate jargon - “model”, “performance”, “targets”, “strategic oversight”. In Disciplined Minds, Schmidt argues that what makes the modern professional is not technical knowledge but “ideological discipline”. Those in higher education and the media do “political work” but in a way that is not seen as political. Listen to a senior BBC person sincerely describe the nirvana of neutrality to which he or she has risen. “Taking sides” is anathema; and yet the modern professional knows never to challenge the “built-in ideology of the status quo”. What matters is the "right attitude".
A key to training professionals is what Schmidt calls “assignable curiosity”. Children are naturally curious, but along the way to becoming a professional they learn that curiosity is a series of tasks assigned by others. On entering training, students are optimistic and idealistic. On leaving, they are “pressured and troubled” because they realise that “the primary goal for many is getting compensated sufficiently for sidelining their original goals”. I have met many young people, especially budding journalists, who would recognise themselves in this description. For no matter how indirect its effect, the primary influence of professional managers is the extreme political cult of money worship and inequality known as neoliberalism.
The ultimate professional manager is Bob Diamond, the CEO of Barclays Bank in London, who got a £6.5m bonus in March. More than 200 Barclays managers took home £554m in total last year. In January, Diamond told the Commons Treasury select committee that “the time for remorse is over”. He was referring to the £1trn of public money handed unconditionally to corrupted banks by a Labour government whose leader, Gordon Brown, had described such “financiers” as his personal “inspiration”.
Despite President Obama’s trumpeted force drawdown in Afghanistan, by the end of next summer more than twice as many U.S. troops will be fighting in that country’s civil war as there were when he became president in 2009. His soothing words notwithstanding, a force of about 70,000 will remain there at least until the end of 2014. We can be sure, however, that that won’t stop the president from campaigning for reelection on a peace platform.
Obama’s speech the other night was mostly show, a spectacle to make the war- and deficit-weary public think he’s taking substantial steps toward disengagement. He did something similar in Iraq, though 50,000 troops remain and are still taking casualties.
It is easy for a president to manipulate public opinion, especially in foreign affairs and most especially when the mainstream media — conservative and “liberal” — are so compliant. The war will go on, but probably under the radar more than before, just as the war in Iraq does. The public and mainstream media attitude will be, “The president said the war is ending, so there’s no need to pay attention.”
One problem: Not much is changing.
In the coming months, politicians and pundits will debate whether Obama’s drawdown is too slow or too fast. The president explicitly took a middle position between those who wanted merely a token withdrawal, such as the top military brass and Sen. John McCain, and those who want an immediate exit, such as Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
Talk of Watergate and impeachment is again in the air in Washington, triggered by President Barack Obama's blatant and willful violation of the War Powers Resolution, and of the U.S. Constitution itself, with his Libyan War adventure. As Lyndon LaRouche has put it, Watergate II is in process.
It's not only Libya. Another potentially major vulnerability for Obama, is the disclosure that the Democratic National Committee held a meeting with top Wall Street campaign donors in the White House March 7, in possible violation of the prohibition against using government facilities for campaign fundraising. And, as EIR has reported ("Obama: Worse than Bush and Cheney," EIR, May 27, 2011), in addition to Obama's flaunting of the War Powers Resolution, he has also exceeded the abuses of the Bush-Cheney regime in the sphere of domestic surveillance targeting U.S. citizens, and in the arbitrary use of executive power.
A senior U.S. intelligence source with close ties to the Obama White House was blunt: "President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act and the Federal Constitution. His argument that the U.S. military involvement in Libya is a 'humanitarian intervention' is an evasion. The United States, as of last week, had spent $718 million on the Libya military operation. By next week, the amount will have passed $1 billion." He added that, without direct U.S. military involvement, NATO would be unable to carry out the Libya operations. "Seventy-five percent of all NATO operations involve U.S. capabilities. Without the U.S., the NATO military operation cannot be sustained."
The source emphasized that the Obama White House arrogantly misread the situation in Congress, anticipating that a bipartisan non-binding resolution by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) would allow the President to bypass the War Powers Act requirements. But a June 5 Washington Post op-ed by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put the fundamental Constitutional issues so squarely on the table, that McCain and Kerry withdrew their draft resolution of support for the Libya mission. That helped spark the bipartisan revolt that is now evident, seen in the passage of Rep. Brad Sherman's (D-Calif.) amendment barring any funding of the Libya mission, and in the bipartisan Federal lawsuit against Obama, filed on June 15, to bar the President from continuing the Libya War, on the grounds that it violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the sole authority to declare war.
Today's liberal leaders have divested themselves of the responsibilities of duty and prudence, resulting in an aristocracy of incompetence. Liberal vanity and fondness for central direction, ends justifying means, unbridled experimentation, tactics and the political warfare of cracking eggs for an omelet have resulted in widespread political irresponsibility. The good concept of a duty owed to the electorate no longer underpins the Democrat party, apparently unnecessary to its dreamy march toward technocratic monarchy. As with prior aristocratic governance, the governing liberal has quickly ditched responsibilities, the same responsibilities he adamantly requires of his subjects. Consider these double standards.
The Obama SEC plans to pursue fraud charges against Moody's and S&P for apparently incorrect debt ratings and inadequate investment research, while at the same time the President gets away with a joke about wasting billions of our tax dollars on "shovel ready" opportunities that never existed. Like the rating agencies, Mr. Obama was paid and painted a rosy picture, but assuredly did less research.
Likewise, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes Oxley required ever higher policing of conflicts of interest by corporate directors and advisors, yet Rep. Frank appointed his boyfriend to a position with a company Frank regulated and Rep.Waters allegedly steered federal funds to a bank her husband owned.
An aristocracy of incompetence exists and has flourished, in which a self-crowned ruling class plays by different rules, rules that reflect their dim view of voters. This system of double standards must attract a very different person, one looking for an angle and a low path. Different because no mature or thoughtful person would be drawn to a scenario in which their standards might be lowered, ethics diluted or personal disorder increased. This aristocratic opportunity then attracts an already irresponsible and vain sort.
Revelations unveiled in The New York Times last week detail how the president “rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department” and “decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without congressional authorization.”
This decision was based on Obama’s belief that the United States military’s activities “fell short of hostilities.”
Libya isn’t the only sovereign nation being subjected to the war president’s overt and covert U.S. military actions. In May, Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper of the U.S. armed forces, reported that despite the alleged death of Osama bin Laden, the U.S. is intensifying drone attacks in Pakistan. According to the article, “The U.S. started drone attacks in the Pakistani region in 2004; the numbers have continued to climb over the years, with 38 in 2008, 52 in 2009 and 132 in 2010.”
Yemen is also in the war president’s sights. According to Voice of America (VOA), the official overseas broadcaster of the U.S. federal government, the CIA “is building a secret air base in the Middle East to use for armed drone attacks on terrorists in Yemen [which] could be operational by the end of the year.”
Mantra Thinking is painstaking analysis of rules we take for granted. Mommy Professor, from a Mantra point of view, is just a repeat of The Emperor’s New Clothes. So genocide is ignored because Truly Intellectual People refuse to ANSWER the Mantra and expect it to go away.
It drives them nuts that we simply won’t do like good respectable conservatives and stop repeating the question because they can’t deal with it and it makes them uncomfortable. The rule in this society is that Mommy Professor gives an answer if he can, but if he can’t, a person stops asking because he is too Sophisticated and too Reasonable to just stay there and keep demanding an ANSWER.
So those of the Politically Correct faith bitch about how they have heard all this before. In their world that is all it takes to make a point they can’t deal with go away. All they have had to do is tell the Buckley types that repeating a question is not Uppah Clahss, and not only will a Buckley never ask it again, he will lead the lynch party against anyone who does.
So, like the people in The Emperor’s New Clothes, conservatives drop anything that Political Correctness can’t deal with and, like the adults in The Emperor’s New Clothes, they join or even lead in denouncing anyone who states flatly that the old guy is naked.
A twin tactic is the “We already answered that” bit. For someone to point out that “Where Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Have Guns” puts Political Correctness is an impossible position.
The military is the nation’s largest and most firmly entrenched entitlement program, one that takes half of every tax dollar. Even if “national security” is considered our number one priority (a dubious choice when the real unemployment rate is over 16%), estimates are that the military budget could be cut in half or more and we would still have the most powerful military machine in the world. Our enemies (if any) are now “terrorists,” not countries; and what is needed to contain them (if anything) is local policing, not global warfare. Much of our military hardware is just good for “shock and awe,” not needed for any “real and present danger.”
Military spending is the very essence of “built-in obsolescence”: it turns out products that are designed to blow up. The military is not subject to ordinary market principles but works on a “cost-plus” basis, with producers reimbursed for whatever they have spent plus a guaranteed profit. Gone are the usual competitive restraints that keep capitalist corporations “lean and mean.” Private contractors hired by the government on no-bid contracts can be as wasteful and inefficient as they like and still make a tidy profit. Yet legislators looking to slash wasteful “entitlements” persist in overlooking this obvious elephant in the room.
The reason massive military spending is considered the most “obvious” way to produce a fiscal stimulus is simply that it is the only form of direct government spending that gets a pass from the deficit hawks. The economy is desperate to get money flowing through it, and today only the government is in a position to turn on the spigots; but there is a tourniquet on government spending. That is true for everything but the military, the only program on which the government is allowed to spend seemingly without limit, often even without oversight.
Why is the military’s half of the pie sacrosanct? Wasteful and unnecessary military programs get a pass from legislators because the military is also our largest and most secure jobs program, one that has penetrated into the nooks and crannies of Every Town U.S.A. If it were disbanded, the economy would be crippled by soaring unemployment, plant closures, and bankruptcies.
The central idea in the compound theory of precision-guided coercion is a marriage of the military theory of techno-war, especially the use of high tech surveillance systems and precision-guided weapons, to the political theory of coercive diplomacy. This marriage is more a product of the Pentagon's advocates of techno-war than the go-along bureaucrats in Foggy Bottom. The Pentagonians sold the succession of Presidents after 1990 on the idea of combining the cold-war inspired theory of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) with post-cold war foreign policies. The RMA (not to mention the Apache attack helicopter) was originally conceived for fighting the tank-heavy forces of the Warsaw Pact on the North German plain, although the roots of using precision guided weapons and surgical strikes can be traced back to the disgraced theory of gradual escalation in Vietnam and the theory of daylight precision bombing in WWII.
Coercive diplomacy assumes that carefully calibrated doses of punishment (sticks that would sometimes be accompanied by carrots, but not necessarily) will ineluctably persuade an adversary to act in a way that we would deem acceptable. There is, for example, no carrot in the case of Qaddafi, where Nato is trying to coerce him into leaving office, so NATO can send him to the dock in the Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity. Some choice! In theory, the precision guidance technologies give the military a capability to carefully calibrate the coercion by surgically striking selected targets with so-called precision-guided weapons, fired from a safe distance, with no friendly casualties, and little unintended damage. Hi-tech surveillance systems would enable target identification and selection and then monitor the effects of the surgical strikes -- thus reducing strategy to a cybernetic negative feedback control system, a conception not unlike that of a common household thermostat.
This marriage of primitive pop psychology with the simplistic promises of hi-tech weapons makes war look easy, safe, and cheap -- and therefore easy to sell to Presidents with little or no military experience but who are under political pressure to do something 'decisive.' These benefits quickly became evident in the United States' increasing addiction to pointless drive-by shootings with cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs in the 1990s -- e.g., bombing a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, or destroying an Al Qaeda obstacle course in Afghanistan, not to mention the endless attacks on Iraq's air defense sites in the 1990s. This mode of thinking is now clearly evident in NATO's operations against Qaddafi in Libya.
Yesterday’s radicalism is today’s conventional wisdom – and nothing underscores this truism more than the current foreign policy debate. Remember way back when neoconservatives were calling for “draining the swamp” of the Middle East, George W. Bush was hailing the advent of a “global democratic revolution” to be led by the US, and anyone who dissented was marginalized as part of what Andrew Sullivan called a pro-terrorist “fifth column”? Those were heady days for the War Party, which was still enjoying the momentum of the post-9/11 rage that sucked us into two major wars simultaneously. It was also before the Great Meltdown of 2008, when the biggest pillars of the American economy creaked, cracked, and nearly collapsed of their own weight.
As a great songwriter put it a couple of decades ago: the times, they are a’changing.
A Pew poll taken a couple of years ago in which respondents were asked whether the US should “mind its own business” showed a huge disparity between elite and hoi polloi opinion on the matter, with the elites saying “No, no, a thousand times no!” and the plebeians answering “Heck yeah!” I suspect elite opinion hasn’t changed much: among the general public, however, recent polls show an even more overwhelming popular consensus in favor of non-intervention, including one taken by The Hill newspaper which records a whopping 72 percent saying “the United States is fighting in too many places,” and a mere 16 percent saying “the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level.” (Twelve percent weren’t sure.)
Against this level of popular disapproval, no administration can stand. That’s why the President is getting ready to announce the withdrawal of some 10,000 troops from Afghanistan, with more in the pipeline. There’s also the supposedly ongoing withdrawal from Iraq – yes, we’re still there!
Of course, there are the usual caveats about “conditions on the ground,” i.e. the possibility that the generals will veto more substantial future troop cuts. In short, these announcements of troop withdrawals are just smoke and mirrors: even if the administration actually follows through on the maximum cut of 30,000 soldiers out of Afghanistan, in stages, that will still leave 70,000. And will someone tell me what we are doing still bogged down in Iraq, which is being held up as a “model” of successful US intervention? According to the Status of Forces Agreement signed by the US and Iraq, all American troops are scheduled to leave by the end of 2011 – but the American public doesn’t believe it, and neither do I. The Hill reports:
Under the final topic of “sustainable development”, students examine the concept “economically, socially, environmentally, politically and technologically”. If this isn’t a viewpoint of totally restructuring our society, I don’t know what is. Finally, students are to “Analyze the characteristics and the application of Agenda 21: México in the international context and the actions at a regional and local level.”
How is this program implemented exactly? Take a cue from the Bilderberg syndicate structure. The heads of academia, as with any other field, attend the World Economic Forum and so forth. It's easy: go back to your institution and out of peer pressure or inside knowledge, implement the agenda!
The teachers that then go ahead and put it to use in the classroom, generally, have no idea of the true nature of the material they are teaching and merely superficially study the material themselves before passing it on to the unsuspecting populace.
The green culture has already been created by academia, via the policy making networks and institutes, government which has accepted this doctrine from the think tanks without question, manufactured media consent and ultimately the social pressure this all creates. To question is kooky! To defy is heresy!
"How much does the State weigh?" Josef Stalin asked an underling who had been ordered to extract a confession from an enemy of his regime. Stalin understood that, given enough time, agents of State-sanctioned cruelty can break any man.
Thomas J. Ball, who committed suicide by self-immolation on the steps of New Hampshire's Cheshire County Courthouse on June 15, was a man who had been broken by the State. A lengthy suicide note/manifesto he sent to the Keene Sentinel, which was published the day after his death , described how his family had been destroyed, and his life ruined, through the intervention of a pitiless and infinitely cruel bureaucracy worthy of Stalin's Soviet Union: The Granite State's affiliate of the federal "domestic violence" Cheka.
Ball and his family were casualties in what he calls a federal "war on men." He wasn't exaggerating -- and he has a lot of company.
When brought to bear against an isolated individual, the weight of this State apparatus will eventually destroy the victim. With each year, Ball's financial condition deteriorated and he became deeply mired in intractable despair. By the time he ended his life on June 16, Ball was a 58-year-old Vietnam Era Army Veteran who had been unemployed for two years. Owing to the fact that he couldn't pay the amount of child support extorted from him, Ball was quite likely going to be sent to jail on the following morning.
His only consolation, the company of his children, was sadistically withheld from him. The unfathomably arrogant and completely unaccountable functionaries who did so are people who have learned how to monetize the misery of the innocent.
The Zionists have a much better sense of how to do these things. They know that it is essential to focus on one or two key targets and issues, and pile on those issues from every direction without getting distracted by peripheral matters. To use my hunter analogy above, they are also standing in a circle, but they are facing inward from the high ground and firing rifled slugs downward at a wounded target. And remember as I wrote in the beginning that they are winning, and winning big time – or has no one looked at the change in the remnants of Palestine over the last five years (more settlements, more settlers, miserable Gaza) or the total lack of opposition to Israel now in the US Congress?
We need to adopt their approach to strategy, stop fighting them where they are strongest, and take a more indirect approach – Sun Tzu rather than Clausewitz, if you will. In the US, their strength is at the national level, and in some selected state level offices; their weakness is at most local levels. I doubt if there is a national office of anything, especially if it is based in Washington or New York City, that is not in their pocket, and I include the national offices of veterans organizations as much as the Congress. I would not be at all surprised if the national officers of (e.g.) the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) or the Navy League are regularly visited and entertained by AIPAC, for instance; but I'd bet the bank that the local VFW chapters here have never even heard of AIPAC. And the same with the rest – for instance, politicians who cozy up to AIPAC (or vice versa) in Washington are in their center of comfort and power, but when they come back to their home states and districts, the local media and the local chapters of their parties do not care about Washington, and that is where they can be cornered and hammered. And similarly in other countries.
My take is that we generally spend way too much time looking at Palestine when searching for ways to combat Zionism. The American people would not care greatly about a distant issue like the Palestinians, or an abstraction (however significant) like Zionist domination of the mainstream media, even if they knew the cold, hard facts about those things. They do care about things that hurt them, or make them afraid, or enrage them. Therefore, we in America and elsewhere should hit the Zionists on what they do to us — because if we take them down on that, especially in the US, then Palestine wins by default, BUT the converse does not hold.
The way I see it, the gate to first containing and then rolling back Israel, and thus helping Palestine, is not over there, it is in the US. The lock to that gate is not in Washington, it is in the heartland of America where the Zionists have as of yet remarkably little influence. And the key to that lock is the open wound today which is 9/11 and the wars it spawned. Nail them on 9/11 and the cover-up of it, nail them for the wars they contrived and the wars they want the US to wage on Israel’s behalf, nail them for the lives and treasure America has spent and the lives it has taken waging America’s Jewish Wars, nail them often and hard, and the Zionists may end up wishing Germany had won WWII. How to define 9/11 for the American public and to bring them its message is the subject of the next article: Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake.
In 2011, America is for sale and the communist Chinese are eager buyers. The Chinese government is using sovereign wealth funds and Chinese state-owned enterprises to buy up economic assets and huge tracts of land all over the United States. Many of our politicians hail all of this "foreign investment" as something that is "good for America", while many others see something much more sinister going on here. In any event, this is a trend that is rapidly accelerating and that is causing great concern among patriotic Americans.
In my recent article entitled "China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho", I examined a potential deal that Sinomach (a company controlled by the Chinese government) wants to do with the government of Idaho. There will be more on this deal in a minute.
But first it is important to note that this is a phenomenon that is happening all across the United States.
Today, the cost of transportation is rapidly going up. If state-owned Chinese companies can set up shop inside the United States and get massive tax breaks from state and local governments at the same time why wouldn't they want to do it?
ST. MORITZ, Switzerland—The secret globalist group “Bilderberg” called for a big war by expanding the turmoil in Libya into a full-scale conflict involving the entire Middle East except for Israel. This is a grim and bloody outlook, because, historically, every time Bilderberg orders war, the guns begin to shoot. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush followed orders and attacked Iraq in Persian Gulf War I. He lost to peace candidate Bill Clinton, who followed orders and invaded Yugoslavia.
The list is endless: Every war dating back to and including World War II has been ordered by Bilderberg. Although they did not start calling themselves Bilderberg until 1954, Rockefeller and Rothschild cronies had the ear of President Franklin Roosevelt when the White House baited the Japanese into conducting a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941.
When Bill Clinton, a Bilderberg attendee, was president, NATO became the UN’s standing army, operating anywhere in the world on the orders of the Security Council. Under the UN, NATO invaded Yugoslavia. Under its charter, NATO is a defensive army only. But the first weapon fired in anger was an offensive war under direction of the UN.
Bilderberg has forgiven Barack Obama for hesitancy about what is now “his war.” They understand the political delicacy in Washington but, as one said, “he’s a good soldier and he’ll follow orders.”
The NATO excursion into Libya started with disingenuous humanitarian concerns translated into a no-fly zone, which incrementally transitioned into attacks on Qaddafi's ground forces, targeted assassinations against Qaddafi himself, then talk of destroying civilian infrastructure and a full-out ground invasion. NATO declared mid-May that it would be "increasing the range of targets" it could hit, including "government infrastructure." With a residential area hit and NATO playing dumb over its role in murdering the very civilians it is supposedly protecting, it appears they made good on their promise.
The key to Qaddafi's long reign, his survival and resistance in the face of NATO's relentless attacks is the support he garners from his own people. While the mainstream media preys on the ignorance of its audience, those who took the time to examine the demographics of Libya would realize the current fighting is split along traditional tribal lines where animosity has existed, and in fact been funded and fostered by the West for at least three decades. With NATO incapable of handing their inept terrorist stooges on the ground the country with airstrikes alone, it appears they are attempting the same terroristic "shock and awe" tactics used against Iraq to break the will of the population with overwhelming violence.
Reports of civilian casualties owed to NATO strikes have been filtering out for weeks. Commonsense dictates the impossibility of dropping high explosive ordnance in the middle of a densely populated city without incurring considerable "collateral damage." However the corporate-owned media dismissed Libyan accounts of such murder and mayhem with a complete whitewash of NATO's terror over Tripoli. A ridiculous AP story titled, "Libyan regime accused of exaggerating casualties," claims that doctors dropped secret notes for reporters to read claiming many of the deaths the government was reporting were from road accidents rather than NATO's admitted bombardment of the nation's populous capital city.
Just before NATO itself had to admit it did indeed drop ordnance in a residential area, media outlets, who have built the entire case against Libya with unverified reports from less than objective sources (the rebels), attempted to downplay the "alleged" claims of the Libyan government. Slate made sure in a recent article to remind readers that, "the Libyan government’s claims of civilian casualties have been exaggerated in the past." We must assume a doctor dropped Slate a secret note as well, for Slate makes no attempt to verify their assertion.
So they discussed "China". Care to be a bit more specific? No – just "China". I wouldn't exactly describe their agenda as "information rich". They might as well have listed: "important stuff; things; other things; areas of interest; topics and assorted other subjects".
But more importantly, the website is full of inaccuracies, gaps, and outright lies. The delegate list is never complete, it's just a list of people who don't mind admitting they've been. Some prefer to keep their names out of Bilderberg history. (Tony Blair never admitted going, he even lied to parliament about it, although it's well documented that he attended).
Then it claims that: "Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity." Just not true. We know from the Treasury that Osborne has been in St Moritz in his official role as chancellor.
But a few moments digging around documents and history books, and you realise how the Bilderberg conference actually works. The annual conference bit, whilst being hugely important, is only the "public" bit of the organisation. The steering committee (which has on it, amongst others, our lord chancellor, Kenneth Clarke MP) meets throughout the year. It's extremely active, but even more secretive still.
For example, see if you can find this 1958 conference of the 'Extended Steering Group' in the official Bilderberg history …
This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war, given that actions have exceeded the 90 day period during which The White House doesn't need Congressional authority for military action under the War Powers Act.
The White House response: We don't need Congressional approval because this is not technically a hostile action (because we don't have ground troops in Libya).
Tonight the NYT has a major bombshell: Two top lawyers -- Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel -- told The White House otherwise.
Even Attorney General Eric Holder sided with Krass.
But Rather than heed their advice, he instead went with two lawyers with views more favorable to him: Bob Bauer (who is internal at The White House), and State Department advisor Harold Koh.
No doubt this will only embolden the bi-partisan group of Congressmen who think the war at this point is illegal.
Israel and NATO signed a far-reaching military cooperation agreement in 2005. Under this agreement, Israel is considered a de facto member of NATO.
If a military operation were to be launched against Syria, Israel would in all likelihood be involved in military undertakings alongside NATO forces (under the NATO-Israel bilateral agreement). Turkey would also play an active military role.
A military intervention in Syria on fake humanitarian grounds would lead to an escalation of the US-NATO led war over a large area extending from North Africa and the Middle East to Central Asia, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It would also contribute to a process of political destabilization in Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. It would also set the stage for a conflict with Iran.
Former CIA supervisor Glenn L. Carle has accused senior Bush administration officials of trolling secret CIA files for negative information about one of its public critics, University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole, according to the June 16 New York Times.
The paper reported that David B. Low, the National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Transnational Threats at the National Intelligence Council, asked Carle in 2005: “What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?” After being rebuffed for making an inappropriate request, Low continued: “But what might we know about him?” Carle said Low asked: “Does he drink? What are his views? Is he married?”
Carle rebuffed the request again, stressing that it was illegal. But the next day, Carle explained that "on his way to a meeting in the C.I.A.’s front office, a secretary asked if he would drop off a folder to be delivered by courier to the White House. Mr. Carle said he opened it and stopped cold. Inside, he recalled, was a memo from Mr. Low about Juan Cole that included a paragraph with 'inappropriate, derogatory remarks' about his lifestyle."
Juan Cole — the target of the CIA's political dirt, called the spying "outrageous." Wired.com's Spencer Ackerman summarized that "[B]ewilderingly, all Cole did was say mean things about the Bush team on the internet. He wasn’t a militant, he wasn’t even an activist. He blogged. To devote precious intelligence resources, especially from counterterrorism officials, to silencing him is laughably solipsistic."
A shadow has descended on freedom worldwide: Congress is in the dark; sovereign foreign nations are in the dark; and the average American can't imagine that a world of espionage, black ops, psy ops, and the apparatus of a surveillance-industrial complex run by globalists has them in the crosshairs.
When exiting CIA director, Leon Panetta, openly admitted that shadow wars and black ops should be a strategy employed through direct military control by the CIA, it marked a new Dark Age.
'(It's) appropriate for the head of such department or agency [read: CIA] to direct the operations of the element providing that military support while working with the Secretary of Defense.' A 'significant advantage of doing so,' he continued, 'is that it permits the robust operational capability of the U.S. Armed Forces to be applied when needed.'
That’s contentious: it would put the military in the territory of performing operations that the government can legally deny all knowledge of ordering... (Source)
A later response by Panetta to a question by Sen. McCain literally empowers Barack Obama to become a dictator, within a military dictatorship framework, as it heralds a philosophy of extralegal measures taken by the president "when needed" by the military.
Give Dennis Kucinich credit for tenacity. Having been thwarted by the House of Representatives’ leadership in his attempt to get the House to pass a resolution demanding an end to President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional war in Libya, the Ohio Democrat, along with nine other Congressmen, is suing Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in federal court in hopes of putting a stop to the United States’ involvement in the NATO operation.
The other plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.), Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), and Dan Burton (R-Ind.). They are being represented by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.
Their 36-page complaint cogently and thoroughly makes the case that Obama’s military action is indeed a war, that it was undertaken and is being funded in violation of the U.S. Constitution, that the administration has failed to satisfy the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, and that therefore the court should order the President to “suspend military operations in Libya absent a declaration of war from Congress.”
The Congressmen would certainly seem to have an open-and-shut case against the Obama administration — one that would probably prevail easily if it went to trial. Unfortunately, courts have previously ruled that members of Congress do not have standing to sue the executive branch, so the court could dismiss this case on similar grounds.
Former AIPAC staffer Keith Weissman, indicted in 2005 under the Espionage Act alongside colleague Steven J. Rosen and Defense Department employee Col. Lawrence Franklin, is desperately worried. In a lengthy, rambling monologue delivered to independent reporter Robert Dreyfuss, Weissman breaks a long silence to declare he’s “concerned that if a confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran leads to war, it will be a disaster—one that Weissman fears will be blamed on the American Jews.” It is telling, but unsurprising, that Weissman—through misrepresentations and false dichotomy—exhibits little concern for the broader potential consequence of war. Fortunately, his tired arguments are in a final lap toward oblivion.
AIPAC, in the business of advancing Israeli government policies in the United States ever since its founder left the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1951, has long portrayed itself as the sole distillery of Jewish policy needs to politicians eager to tap the Israel lobby’s seemingly limitless barrels of campaign donations. But AIPAC’s brand has recently sprung a leak as growing numbers of youthful, creative, and noisy organizations challenge its tired claims of representation and even legitimacy. Weissman’s actual concern is that AIPAC and its creaky constellation of affiliates will be blamed if the United States is successfully goaded or tripwired into an unnecessary war with Iran. Accountability has always been anathema for an organization operating more like a foreign intelligence agency than a tax-exempt social-welfare organization.
AIPAC has long brushed its footprints away from trapping pits into which it has successfully lured American taxpayers. The Los Angeles Times has lauded its “donor secrecy,” while Fortune called AIPAC “calculatedly quiet.” One anonymous AIPAC official even confided to The National Journal that “there is no question that we exert a policy impact, but working behind the scenes and taking care not to leave fingerprints, that impact is not always traceable to us.” According to the interview:
The overarching problem is the Israel lobby’s subversion of American governance through election fraud, the evasion of tax regulations and laws regulating foreign lobbies, and the systematized, ongoing infiltration of operatives into key government posts to advance the interests of a foreign state. Unfortunately for AIPAC, the Americans gathering to challenge it cross party lines. Whether they wear American flag pins on their suit lapels or Birkenstocks over wool socks is of ever declining significance. Weissman and his fellow travelers can try to outrun opponents by pulling an old horse’s head from right to left. Weissman clearly wants to tell his side of the story. But Weissman and Rosen will only reemerge as legitimate jockeys astride America’s policy circuits when they again register as AIPAC’s agents of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“House Committee demands documents regarding Operation Fast and Furious.” The buck does not stop with Obama and Holder though. Asked about prior knowledge of Operation Gun Runner / Fast and Furious… They just didn’t know what the hell was going on. Maybe this is true. Maybe they are way out of the loop, and this should concern not only every American, but citizens around the world!
Since Obama is nothing more than a figurehead, and a puppet for Global Intelligence (AKA the NWO)… It is possible that he IS completely out of the loop. This is not the best 2012 campaign slogan however: “Vote for me, uhh, I have no clue what’s being done in my name”.
It makes one wonder what ELSE in the area of False Flag Terror (which this P2OG style “Sting Operation” truly is)
In 1993, the world fell for another Alphabet agency “sting” operation at the World Trade Center. Though it was admittedly all run by the FBI, ask people today who blew up the towers in 93… “Muslim extremists” is sure to be the answer. How do they know? “I saw it on the TeeVee”
- And this is what we call LIES BY OMISSION! Kinda like the way the MSM and the Warren er… Hamilton / Kean commission omitted the collapse of Building 7 on 911 from their report. (which they admitted later was a total farce)
The only Christian I know who has spoken of the Pharasaical spiritual occupation of our societies, Bishop Williamson of the Catholic order SSPX, has been ordered to silence by the leader of his own order and by the Pope himself.
The Bishop believes that the endless repetition through the media of the 'Holocaust gas chambers' story has mesmerised and intimidated the entire Christian community into a kind of witless helplessness to the point where we have, effectively, abandoned something at the very core of Christ's message. (Williamson also believes, not without evidence, that the vision of horror that is the industrialised extermination of a people by 'gas chambers' is a lie.)
The mission of Christ, the Jew, was to save the Jews from the satanic wickedness of those who had taken over leadership of His people. His mission was to fulfil the true law of Moses and the prophets, to bring Jews and, through them, the whole world, into right relationship with the ecstacy that is the pure love of God.
The Pharisees wanted to invert this message, which they did. Their drive was to, amazingly, bring the Jewish people to absolute power and ownership over the entire world and its peoples. 'Monstrous'? 'grandiose'? Is there a word out there to adequately describe such an ambition.
If you had asked most people prior to the Sept. 11th, 2001 operation, where the World Trade Center and Pentagon were “attacked”, if they had heard of a False Flag Operation they would have most likely said no. There is a good reason for that due to the fact that an operation of that size had not taken place since our government purposely ignored the Intel received that the Naval Japanese Armada was planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. That was about 70 years ago and most Americans who were alive back then were not during 9/11.
False Flag Operations fall under the umbrella of Black Operations. Black Operations are of course Above Top Secret covert operations done by such special forces as the U.S. Navy SEALS, Delta Force, CIA, DEA and the rest of the military branches as well as other government agencies.
Black Operations are utilized for a number of reasons and I will name just a few. It is important to understand that most Black Operations are executed through the Pentagon but on some occasions it is a Military Industrial Complex Co-Op. By that I mean the Pentagon will work jointly with a private multinational company or institution if there is the opportunity for both sides to gain something out of it. Such Black Operations are assassinations, industrial espionage, force reconnaissance, Psy-Ops, Abductions, Drug Trafficking, False Flag Operation and more.
One prime example is if a nation is having a serious situation with their economy and the only way to get out of it is through an agreement with an outside country and/or source by which if the country in trouble executes a False Flag to invoke a war which causes financial gain then that said country will be bailed out. This same scenario has been conducted by the U.S. government on more than one occasion and it could very well happen again…and real soon.
In a report entitled "Your Hometown & the United Nations' Agenda 21" published in The New American's online edition for February 10, journalist William F. Jasper warned:
The UN’s Agenda 21 is definitely comprehensive and global — breathtakingly so. Agenda 21 proposes a global regime that will monitor, oversee, and strictly regulate our planet’s oceans, lakes, streams, rivers, aquifers, sea beds, coastlands, wetlands, forests, jungles, grasslands, farmland, deserts, tundra, and mountains. It even has a whole section on regulating and “protecting” the atmosphere. It proposes plans for cities, towns, suburbs, villages, and rural areas. It envisions a global scheme for healthcare, education, nutrition, agriculture, labor, production, and consumption — in short, everything; there is nothing on, in, over, or under the Earth that doesn’t fall within the purview of some part of Agenda 21.
And things have not improved since. In case the American people do not have enough with which to concern themselves, The Blaze further draws our attention to Agenda 21, a Soros-sponsored plan for world government. Already two decades old, Agenda 21 is a United Nations plan for “sustainable development” that was backed by George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders. Despite its seemingly innocuous intentions, The Blaze notes that several items are at risk under the plan: private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately-owned farms.
Fortunately, a number of Americans are waking up and demanding that their towns and cities retract their membership from ICLEI. In fact, the Roanoke, Virginia, Tea Party is holding a rally this week in order to draw attention from their local government and ask that it remove itself from ICLEI.
The greatest depression in human history is still in its starting stages. What the media and many officials often refer to as the "hangover" from the global financial crisis is in fact the end of the beginning. Originating in 2008, the global economic crisis took the world by storm: banks collapsed, the "too big to fail" became bigger by consolidating the rest, governments bailed out their financial industries, masses of people lost their jobs, the 'developing' world was plunged into a deep systemic crisis, food prices rose, which in time spurred social unrest; and the Western nations that took on the bad debts of the big banks are on the precipice of a great global debt crisis, originating in Europe, hitting Greece and Spain, but destined to consume the industrialized world itself. Though many claim that we are in a "recovery," things could not be further from the truth.
As the mainstream media is finally catching on to the reality of the mirage of the so-called "recovery", reports are surfacing about a dire global economic situation:
"Evidence of a deterioration of global manufacturing growth and renewed weakness in job creation in the United States emerged Wednesday, two reversals that have markets bracing for an economic pause, or worse... Add to that a daunting list of aggravating factors: the continued implosion of the U.S. housing market, an outbreak of worldwide risk aversion, high crude-oil and gas prices pinching consumer demand, further tightening in China and other emerging-market economies, stock market losses, lack of credit growth, the looming end to the Fed’s monetary stimulus, weak business capital spending, and the still-unfolding sovereign debt crisis in Europe."
And now top financial experts are warning of a new financial crisis altogether, since the monstrous derivatives market that played such a nefarious role in the preceding crisis has not been altered, nor have its systemic risks been addressed. The derivatives market - essentially a fictional electronic market of high-stakes gambling - has a value ten times that of the entire global gross national product of the world's countries combined. This market is dominated by hedge funds and the "too big to fail" banks, who in fact created the derivatives trading schemes. As one leading hedge fund manager recently stated, "There is definitely going to be another financial crisis around the corner... because we haven’t solved any of the things that caused the previous crisis." The market for derivatives is somewhere in the realm of $600 trillion.
Anonymous first called for Bernanke to resign on March 12.
The group's latest Youtube video has this description: In this new video release, "as a first step," Anonymous has called for public protests beginning on June 14th, continuing "until Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke steps down." To make their case, they have presented a list of recent scandalous Federal Reserve actions.
The group also provided a Google Map guide to a series of protests, aimed to "* End the campaign finance and lobbying racket* Break up the Fed & Too Big to Fail banks* Enforce RICO laws against organized criminal class* Order Ben Bernanke to step down."
Details of Flag Day rebellion are described on the Google Map site as such:
This Flag Day, Tuesday June 14th, we will launch a non-violent social movement with this list of demands:
* End the campaign finance and lobbying racket
*Break up the Fed & Too Big to Fail banks
* Enforce RICO laws against organized criminal class
Several days ago, the home of former Marine and Iraq combat veteran Jose Guerena was raided by local sheriffs in Pima County, Arizona, who were attempting to execute a narcotics search warrant. Unfortunately, the manner in which the SWAT team invaded Guerena’s home prompted Guerena to reach for his gun to protect himself and his family. Sheriffs then shot off 71 rounds and hit Guerena with 22, killing him. The department has officially taken responsibility for the fatal shooting. According to Politico, the tragedy is just one of many examples that prove law enforcement in the United States has been militarized.
For example, Pima County released several documents and a video related to the raid that may lend some evidence to Politico’s claim. A statement issued by the SWAT Supervisor involved indicates that after the SWAT team entered Guerena’s home, one or two “operators” were left with the body while the rest of the home was searched.
Politico writes that the use of the term “operators” is indicative of the militarization of the police:
“Operator” is a term of art in the special operations community. Green Berets, SEALs and other special operations personnel often refer to themselves as operators. It’s a recognition of both the elite standards of their units and the hybrid nature of their duties — part soldier, part spy, part diplomat. But importing operator terminology into domestic law enforcement is not a benign turn of the phrase.
Perceiving yourself as an operator plasters over the difference between a law enforcement officer serving a warrant and a commando in a war zone. The former Mirandizes, the latter vaporizes, as the saying goes — and as the recent Osama bin Laden raid vividly illustrated.
From the moment that the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Khomeini and tens of millions of Iranians toppled the Israeli-US-UK-backed Shah and defeated the CIA’s counterrevolution, there has been a sustained campaign of violence, propaganda and subversion against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This campaign, naturally, has been led by the Zionist entity with crucial support being provided by America, Britain and a handful of strategically installed Arab dictators.
But the Zionist’s entity’s wars, assassination attempts and sanctions have not broken the will of the Revolution. The aggression has not brought the Revolution to its knees, the Revolution has rejected the concept of groveling to Zionism as the Shah did so faithfully. Though mass murdering war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu has disturbingly labeled Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the successor of Ayatollah Khomeini, the ‘greatest threat to world peace (15),’ the Zionist entity has changed its tactics over the last 18 months, reverting to espionage and the hasbara blitzkrieg of the 1980s to smear Iran in the eyes of the Muslim/Arab world.
Iran was heavily targeted by the ‘whistleblower’ group known as Wikileaks, which stunk of COINTELPRO from the moment that it emerged in the Zionist media and has now been fully debunked as a CIA-Mossad intelligence operation (18). Wikileaks released scores of ‘secret documents’ that absolved Israel of any malice in occupied Iraq, instead blaming everything on Iran (19), a lie of epic dimensions repeated often by every Zionist think tank in the US and UK. Wikileaks, led by Julian Assange, an asset of Zionist media giant and warmonger Rupert Murdoch and a darling of the godfathers of the illegitimate Israeli state, the Rothschilds (20), has been lambasted by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a ‘psychological warfare operation (21).’
Recent endeavors of the Zionist media include ‘revelations’ about Ahmadinejad’s Jewish roots and ‘shocking discoveries’ of the six-pointed Israeli star engraved in a building in the main square of Tehran. Needless to say, both stories are pathetically false, with the latter being the work of Zionist-owned Orwellian internet behemoth, Google, and were released to sow discord, unrest and chaos within the Islamic Republic (22).
Shamir is able to say and write about things that -- in the politically correct climate currently limiting free speech in America (while its proponents hypocritically mouth platitudes about how "diversity is our strength") -- would automatically brand a Gentile as a "hate-filled anti-Semite." Things that will, if the ADL, JDL, WJC, AIPAC, and other such crypto-Zionist, Israel-first organizations have their way, soon be prohibited by the "Hate Speech" legislation they are pushing for in America. The same kind of legislation their sister organizations have successfully lobbied into law in countries like Germany, France, Canada, and, in the near future should current trends continue, the entire European Union. If or when this unhappy day arrives in the "land of the free and the home of the brave," it will be illegal to write, say, and, if enforcement of such a prohibition were possible, think such things as were said by Shamir in Spain. Here are some examples excerpted from an article about Shamir by Tom White in Culture Wars magazine (July/Aug. 2004. pp. 6 -9.):
In the "neo-Jewish" U. S., the Judaic paradigm came forth in place of apostolic Christianity, and with it the New World Order of a dwindling middle class, vast security apparatus, growing social gaps, and impoverishment of spirit. It is not the first time the Judaic paradigm [as opposed to the Helleno-Christian] rises in the world; but such societies invariably collapse for they lack a broad social base. Now its proponents have decided to ensure its survival by making it globe-wide; this is the reason of wars and expansion, for their design would not survive on any smaller scale. (Emphasis added.)
Though we may disagree with his politics, we consider Shamir to be a remarkable man whose love for his fellow Jews, and for humanity as a whole, shines through his work. It is worthy of note, and has been mentioned and demonstrated on this site, that the most persuasive and well-reasoned criticism of the terrorist state of Israel is not coming from the dimwitted skin-heads in their Nazi-like uniforms and their thuggish mannerisms (who are presented to us by the controlled media as being typical of the dissenters to Israeli aggression), but by the most intelligent and historically aware segment of the population. Such a segment would naturally include many right-thinking Jews, not a few of whom have been quoted or written about here on TGR.
This weekend the high-powered think tank, the Bilderberg Group, is meeting to discuss current events, form a consensus on the coordination of policies of the Western imperial powers, and to attempt to influence and shape the world in a direction of their liking. The Bilderberg Group, founded in 1954, is a secretive organizations which holds meetings once per year, drawing together roughly 130 of the world's elite: bankers (such as David Rockefeller), monarchs (such as Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands), central bankers, oil executives, industry leaders, media moguls, establishment academics, prime ministers, presidents and up-and-coming politicians, think tank leaders, the heads of foundations, military commanders and intelligence chiefs, and a host of other important figures.
Bilderberg is not a 'conspiracy', but is rather an organization for the formation of consensus among the elite. They do, however, have a common ideology. Denis Healey, a British politician who was a member of the gorup's Steering Committee for over thirty years, told the Guardian in 2001: "To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn't go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing." He added: "Bilderberg is a way of bringing together politicians, industrialists, financiers and journalists. Politics should involve people who aren't politicians. We make a point of getting along younger politicians who are obviously rising, to bring them together with financiers and industrialists who offer them wise words. It increases the chance of having a sensible global policy." [Source: Who Pulls the Strings?]
So while our elite get together to "increase the chance of having a sensible global policy" to bring about "a single community throughout the world," the people continue with their lives, not having the ability to influence the media, academics, politicians, or the direction of the world. Unless you are a geostrategic adviser or very rich and influential, chances are you have not been invited to this year's meeting. The discussions from each meeting are secret and unreported, yet the decisions or consensus being formed are far-reaching. Their deeds are done in the darkness of a media blackout. That which can undo them is done in the light. (Click here to learn more.)
Rep. Anthony D. Weiner has become the face of the Democratic Party. The New York congressman is embroiled in a scandal. Mr. Weiner has admitted sending sexual messages, as well as a lewd photo of his crotch, to numerous women - six so far and counting. Moreover, a picture of his naked genitals is circulating on the Internet.
Mr. Weiner, however, refuses to resign. At a news conference Monday, he admitted to exercising bad judgment and apologized repeatedly to his wife, Huma Abedin, who is pregnant. But Mr. Weiner insists he broke no laws and can still effectively represent his Queens constituents.
He is wrong. Mr. Weiner is a sexual predator who relentlessly pursued women on the Internet. By sending such graphic pictures and messages, he opened himself to potential criminal blackmail. This was shown by his weeklong campaign of manipulation and public lying. He first claimed that his computer was “hacked into” as part of a “prank.” He then denied the pictures were of him. When that didn’t work, he sought to portray the scandal as a hit job by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart. In short, Mr. Weiner desperately tried to cover it up.
Mr. Weiner’s actions are unacceptable for a public representative. His behavior was reckless, demonstrating an appalling lack of judgment. It also showed contempt for his constituents. He disgraced his office, violated his congressional oath to uphold the highest ethical standards and deliberately lied to his constituents and the electorate. Moreover, several messages reveal that he sought to coach a woman into lying about the scandal - including possibly offering the use of his staff and office resources. This would constitute clear abuse of power and misuse of taxpayer dollars. The House Ethics Committee has rightly launched an investigation.
The late Sam Francis opened the introduction to his (posthumously released) collection of essays Race and the American Prospect with this observation: “In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever the label we attach to our age, the Great Taboo is race.” After making many comparisons between the different times, he wrote: “If the analogy between the Victorian taboo on sex and the contemporary taboo on race is valid, then the essays in this book are logically the analogue of pornography.” [Return of the Repressed, The Occidental Quarterly Fall 2005]
Francis’ insight is particularly prescient given the Anthony Weiner scandal. The now-disgraced Congressman sent some pornographic images of himself to various attractive young women on the internet, sometimes unsolicited.
Disgusting pornographic images are not taboo to Democrats, of course—consenting adults and all that—but with so much political momentum against Weiner, they have begun trying to find some “progressive” reason to throw their former hero under the bus. Naturally, the best way is to accuse Weiner of breaking today’s “Great Taboo”.
Weiner is a far-left ideologue who has a 100% rating from the NAACP. He voted for “Hate Crimes” legislation, to apologize for slavery, and was one of a few dozen white Congressmen to vote against the censure of corrupt black Representative Charlie Rangel. What could Weiner have possibly done to deserve this indictment?
Goldman Sachs' dealings with Muammar Gaddafi's regime have come under scrutiny from US regulators investigating whether they broke anti-bribery laws.
The investment banking giant made the offer of a $50m (£31m) payment, which would have gone to the son-in-law of the state oil company boss, according to reports last week. Now it has emerged that the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking over documents related to the plan.
The payment was suggested at fractious talks between Goldman and the Gaddafi administration's sovereign wealth fund, the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), which was set up to invest hundreds of billions of dollars of oil revenues. The LIA had given Goldman $1.3bn to make complicated currency bets and other derivative investments, but the bank had lost 98 per cent of the Libyan money when those bets turned spectacularly wrong.
An offer was eventually made to the regime in Tripoli to take preference shares in Goldman. Goldman also agreed to pay a fee of $50m, which would have then been passed on to an outside adviser, Palladyne International Asset Management, which was run at the time by a relative of the state oil company's chief executive.
The SEC is examining paperwork related to the proposed settlement under a tough US anti-bribery law, which sets stiff penalties for bribery by any company operating in the US, regardless of where the corruption happened. It also does not require that a bribe was actually paid. The examination, revealed by The Wall Street Journal, has not progressed to a full-blown investigation.
Recent data released by Dimitar Ouzounov and colleagues from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland highlights some strange atmospheric anomalies over Japan just days before the massive earthquake and tsunami struck on March 11. Seemingly inexplicable and rapid heating of the ionosphere directly above the epicenter reached a maximum only three days prior to the quake, according to satellite observations, suggesting that directed energy emitted from transmitters used in the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) may have been responsible for inducing the quake.
Published in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) publication Technology Review, the findings are presented alongside a different theory called Lithosphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere Coupling, which hypothesizes that the heating in the ionosphere may have been caused by the impending earthquake as the fault line released radioactive radon. This theory, of course, is not actually proven, but is instead presented as a possible explanation for the presence of the high-density electrons and emitted infrared radiation that was observed.
Another explanation for this strange heating -- and one that, upon analysis, seems much more likely -- is that it was an indication that concentrated energy was used to induce the earthquake, and not the other way around. Numerous credible reports and scientific observations reveal that HAARP technology is fully capable of being used as a scalar weapon, meaning it can emit strong electromagnetic pulse bombs that can alter weather or trigger seismic fault lines.
"HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system."
Later references to HAARP describe it as "a matter of global concern," emphasizing that most people have no idea it even exists. This was written, of course, more than a decade ago -- and yet not much has changed since that time, despite several pushes to make HAARP more transparent. But if HAARP is truly responsible for helping to induce some of the seemingly natural disasters that occur in the world, it is no surprise that the program continues to be kept largely under wraps.
The National Security Complex has, in fact, grown fat by relentlessly pursuing the promise of making the country totally secure from terrorism, even as life grows ever less secure for so many Americans when it comes to jobs, homes, finances, and other crucial matters. It is on this pledge of protection that the Complex has managed to extort the tidal flow of funds that have allowed it to bloat to monumental proportions, end up with a yearly national security budget of more than $1.2 trillion, find itself encased in a cocoon of self-protective secrecy, and be 100% assured that its officials will never be brought to justice for any potential crimes they may commit in their “war” on terrorism.
Right now, even in the worst of economic times, the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon, and the sprawling labyrinth of competing bureaucracies that likes to call itself the U.S. Intelligence Community are all still expanding. And around them have grown up, or grown ever stronger, various complexes (à la “military-industrial complex”) with their associated lobbyists, allied former politicians, and retired national security state officials, as well as retired generals and admirals, in an atmosphere that, since 2001, can only be described as boomtown-like, the modern equivalent of a gold rush.
Think of it this way: in the days after 9/11, Vice President Cheney proposed a new formula for American war policy. Its essence was this: even a 1% chance of an attack on the United States, especially involving weapons of mass destruction, must be dealt with as if it were a certainty. Journalist Ron Suskind dubbed it “the one percent doctrine.” It may have been the rashest formula for “preventive” or “aggressive” war offered in the modern era and, along with the drumbeat of bogus information that Cheney and crew dished out about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was the basis for the Bush administration’s disastrous attempt to occupy that country and build a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.
There was, it turns out, a “homeland” equivalent, never quite formulated or given a name, but remarkably successful nonetheless at feeding an increasingly all-encompassing domestic war state. Call it the 100% doctrine (for total safety from terrorism). While the 1% version never quite caught on, the 100% doctrine has already become part of the American credo.