Former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton appeared together Friday for the first time as Frank McKenna, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States, moderated a talk on global affairs in Toronto. The two were paid $150,000 each.
Not everyone was happy to see Bush and Clinton in Canada while those who paid to see them speak were said to have gotten a few laughs. War criminals are not comedians. 5/29/09
A day later our current president/war criminal takes his wife out on a 'date' in New York.
President Obama and Michelle come back to the White House via Marine One after the New York date.
Taxpayers footed the bill for the big night on the town, which included orchestra seat tickets at $96.50 apiece, and at least $24,000 for each of three aircraft -- including two smaller aircraft for White House staff and reporters -- used for the trip, sources said.
Governments, local, county, state or federal, are artificial entities created by the people. Governments, collective organizations, were created to protect the life, liberty and property of each and every person.
Frederic Bastiat said: “If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”[1]
Individuals cannot transfer rights or powers they do not inherently possess to an artificial government entity. One cannot bestow a right or privilege that one does not possess – those powers that each and every person possessed prior to the establishment of said government. Individuals may not legally plunder the property or resources of others, kill people, impose moral sanctions, or a plethora of other regulations, public and private extortions that governments regularly engage in.
Bastiat said: “Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?”[2]
The government, constitutionally, is limited only to those functions in which an individual citizen has a right to act. The government has derived its powers from the governed. People cannot delegate powers it does not possess to its creation. John Locke explained the concept: “For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.”[3]
For instance, if Citizen A has a vehicle and Citizen B doesn’t, Citizen B cannot arbitrarily seize citizen A’s vehicle. That would be stealing! Citizen B, despite the fact that he may lust after Citizen A’s vehicle, cannot legally delegate a government entity to take Citizen A’s vehicle in his behalf. If the government usurps such authority, that would constitute public plundering – the road to tyranny. America is obviously well down that road, given the current pandemic public plundering sanctioned and facilitated by the government.
The vehicle analogy is also applicable to car dealerships, many of which are being illegally seized and transferred to other parties. The following letter appeared in a Florida newspaper in late May 2009: “My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business. We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability. I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life. On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory. Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank. HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN? THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY. This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong. This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster. HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
I am certain that George Joseph is just one of many dealers whose businesses have been seized by major car manufacturers, sanctioned by the bankers directing the current administration’s spoils system of rewarding campaign contributors, friends and corporate allies. This is a blatant Communistic redistribution of property. The Elite have no loyalties – other than to each other.
Unfortunately, government power was usurped long ago by the Elite, the majority of them lawyers, who impose laws favorable to themselves and their corporate cohorts but disastrous to the common citizen. To keep us fighting among ourselves, the Elite fashioned political parties. The sincere Republican and Democrat citizens are so preoccupied blaming the specific parties that they fail to recognize that the Elite within both parties utilize the spoils system – no matter which party is in power. Politicians are like professional wrestlers with orchestrated differences who choreograph their moves and celebrate after each match. Citizens naively believe the rhetoric because we hope things will improve while government Elites of both parties plunder our lives, liberties and pockets. We have all become enslaved and ransacked by a government that was “hired” to protect us from such egregious abuse.
In the 1700s the term “slave’ was applied to all indentured servants. Both black and white servants were granted their freedom as serving a specified length of time – typically seven years. Black and white slaves worked, lived, and played together, apparently indifferent to skin color differences. Racism was absent. That mutual acceptance was artificially altered when the minority colonial Elites, concerned about possible rebellion from the majority non-voting lower classes, took firm measures to divide poor whites and blacks “both socially and economically.” The bulk of society was composed of servants, landless tenants or small yeomen who owned inconsequential land that the Elite didn’t want. The Elite established a “divide and conquer” tactic that is still very much in place in most societies.[4]
Historian Edmund S. Morgan pointed out, “For those with eyes to see, there was an obvious lesson in the rebellion. Resentment of an alien race might be more powerful than resentment of an upper class.”[5]
Edward Bernays, the grand master of propaganda stated: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.”[6]
The government and their compliant corporate press mold and manage our perceptions and prefer that we focus our anger and attention on numerous distractions – the illegal aliens, illusive terrorists, same-sex marriages, welfare recipients, North Korean testing, whether the CIA lied or was it Pelosi, Islamic fundamentalism, whether torture photos should be released or the current Supreme Court nominee, as if one court appointment can change the political landscape. The fact is that the government Elite set up this entire environment of contention to divert our attention from their treacherous unconstitutional, criminal activities – in both parties. This is all part of America’s drive into a One World Order, now hyper accelerated under the current administration.
You might ask – how did government Elites create the current environment. Decades ago the government abandoned the constitutional principles of non entanglement with foreign countries. Government officials are no longer public servants but private servants to deep-pocketed multinational corporations whose money keeps ego-driven politicians in power. Those same multinational corporations control the media flow of information in order to keep the people in an ignorant trance. Character-challenged politicians, mesmerized by power and money, cater to the insatiable greed of the privileged Elite under the pretext of spreading democracy, ousting cruel dictators, restricting the spread of Communism, Nazism, Fascism or terrorism.
The CIA created al Qaeda, the database and instigated Islamic fundamentalism by training 100,000 fundamentalist Muslim Mujahadeen. The CIA-friendly Zbigniew Brzezinski revealed that, unbeknownst to the American public and Congress, that Trilateralist Jimmy Carter authorized $500 million on July 3, 1979 to create an international terrorist movement that would spread Islamic fundamentalism throughout Central Asia in order to destabilize the Soviet Union, another made-in-America enemy that had served the purpose of its creation and now had to be dismantled. The CIA called this Operation Cyclone and functioned from 1979 to 1989 at a cost of $20-30 million per year beginning in 1980 which rose to $630 million per year in 1987. The U.S. poured another $4 billion into setting up Islamic training schools in Pakistan (Taliban means student). Young zealots were recruited and sent to the CIA's spy training camp in Virginia, where future members of al Qaeda were taught sabotage skills – terrorism. Young Afghans, Egyptian and Jordanian Arabs and some African American Muslims were instructed in the latest sabotage skills.[7]
Taxpayer funds financed the I-hate-America textbooks for Muslim students. Prior to 1967, Islamic fundamentalism was a relatively small movement. In the early 1980’s, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) gave a taxpayer funded grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and it’s Center for Afghanistan Studies to develop specialized textbooks. For more than twenty years the U.S. spent millions of dollars producing fanatical Islamic schoolbooks for distribution in Afghanistan, a country now known for its terrorist training camps. The schoolbooks, used throughout the 1990s for the country’s core curriculum, included illustrations of guns, bullets, soldiers, and mines to indoctrinate young minds towards violent destruction. Who authorized this hateful instruction for young impressionable minds?[8]
For $190,000 a year, Donald Rumsfeld sat on the board and “attended nearly all of the board meetings” of the Swiss-based ABB Company between 1990 and February 2001.[9] In 2000 (based on a Clinton era contract) ABB sold $200 million worth of components to North Korea to allow construction of two nuclear reactors. Currently, there are concerns about their activities. In December 1983 and again in March 1984, Ronald Reagan sent his personal emissary, Donald Rumsfeld, a former Secretary of Defense, to meet with Saddam Hussein along with Reagan’s handwritten note. This first meeting, on December 20, 1983, was for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations between Iraq and the United States, the first since the 1967 war. We formally restored diplomatic relations with Iraq in November 1984. Then, Rumsfeld and his corporate cronies secretly supplied Saddam's military with the components to build chemical and biological weapons. Rumsfeld is just one example from dozens of Elites who repeatedly shift from boardroom to government office while stuffing their pockets from both positions.
David Rockefeller admitted in his relatively-recent book: “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”[10] What further proof do we need of a pervasive conspiracy – just look at the mounting evidence and forget the mesmerizing, feel-good political jargon emanating from Washington.
Footnotes:
1, The Law, The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society by Frederic Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Research, New York, pp. 2-3 2, The Law, The Classic Blueprint for a Just Society by Frederic Bastiat, Foundation for Economic Research, New York, pp. 2-3 3, Locke, John, 1632-1704. Two Treatises of Government: of Civil Government Book II, p. 135 4, Divided, the South’s Inner Civil War by David Williams, The New Press, New York, 2008, p. 15 5, American Slavery, American Freedom by Edmund S. Morgan, W.W. Norton & Co., 2003, pp. 269-270 6, Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Organizing Chaos, p. 37 7, How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahadeen: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), January 15-21, 1998, p. 76; The CIA's "Operation Cyclone" - Stirring the Hornet's Nest of Islamic Unrest, October 27, 2002, 8, From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts by Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway, Washington Post, March 23, 2002 9,Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea 10, David Rockefeller: Memoirs by David Rockefeller, Random House, owned since 1998 by the large German private media corporation Bertelsmann, 2002, p. 405
John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counter terrorism, told a Senate committee that activists had claimed responsibility for more than 1,200 criminal incidents in the US since 1990, including arson and bombing attacks against animal research laboratories and the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries.
"There is nothing else going on in this country over the last several years that is racking up the high number of violent crimes and terrorist actions," Mr Lewis said.
He singled out the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) as being of particular concern.
Mr Lewis said the FBI drew its conclusions after looking at all types of cases and comparing the animal rights groups with "rightwing extremists, KKK, anti-abortion groups and the like".
He said most animal rights and eco-extremists had so far refrained from violence targeting human life, but added that this could change. "We have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics," he told the Senate environment and public works committee.
"Attacks are also growing in frequency and size," he said, adding that it was plainly a matter of luck that nobody had been killed. "Once you set one of these fires they can go way out of control."{more}
According to the FBI, “Daniel Andreas San Diego is wanted for his alleged involvement in the bombing of two office buildings in the San Francisco, California, area. On August 28, 2003, two bombs exploded approximately one hour apart at the Chiron Corporation in Emeryville. Then, on September 26, 2003, one bomb strapped with nails exploded at the Shaklee Corporation in Pleasanton. San Diego was indicted in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in July of 2004.”
The FBI announcement continues, “San Diego has ties to animal rights extremist groups. He is known to follow a vegan diet, eating no meat or food containing animal products. In the past, he has worked as a computer network specialist and with the operating system LINUX. San Diego wears eyeglasses, is skilled at sailing, and has traveled internationally. He is known to possess a handgun.”
I guess that makes the animal rights activists Number 1 in striking back at a violent system.
This is in fairly stark contrast to the anti-war, anti-criminal government, anti-one world government crowd who take to the street in peace and write millions of words about the plight of the people but pretty much stop there.
The FBI seems to have a harder time infiltrating these 'terrorist' groups or individuals. Let's hope that is the case.
Thomas Paine's Corner often reports on the more radical aspects of passionate people.
Animal rights activists have claimed responsibility for a fire that gutted the Reno business office of a company that ships monkeys from China for scientific research in the United States and elsewhere.
Reno police and fire officials began investigating the arson claim by the Animal Liberation Front after The Associated Press sought comment about an e-mail the group circulated to media outlets and posted on a Web site.
“At this point we are looking at it as a lead,” Reno police spokesman Steve Frady said Wednesday. “There is evidence of arson. At this point there is no physical evidence to link this with the group claiming responsibility,” he said.
No one was injured in the fire that broke out about 4 a.m. on May 18 and caused an estimated $300,000 damage to offices of Scientific Resources International Inc. just southwest of downtown Reno, Frady said.
The North American Animal Liberation Front Press Office, which posts messages from groups taking credit for animal rights violence, said on its Web site Tuesday that it received an “anonymous communique” last week indicating ALF was claiming responsibility for the fire.
“In the early morning hours of May 18th, four incendiary devices were planted at Scientific Resources International, a supplier of non-humyn (sic) primates for use in vivisection labs all over northern Nevada,” the message read. “The concept of animals existing as `resources’ is utterly despicable, and we vow to do all in our power to run businesses like these into the ground.” {more}
The Animal Liberation Front is a grass-root, underground, militant direct action group that frees nonhuman animals from laboratories, fur farms, factory farms and other places in which they are imprisoned and tortured. Besides rescues, the ALF also engages in the destruction of equipment and property used in the oppression and exploitation of other animals.
Rooted in the UK’s hunt saboteur movement in the mid-1970s, the ALF is anarchist in structure, meaning there is no conventional leadership or central organization. Anyone who is a vegan and commits an act of sabotage against animal exploiters or frees other animals (while taking the necessary precautions to avoid taking a human life) can rightfully consider themselves a member of the ALF.
In the tradition of the Underground Railroad, John Brown, and the Jewish anti-Nazi resistance, the courageous members of the ALF are freedom fighters, fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.
And they have been effective, as evidenced by the fact that they’ve cost the animal exploitation complex hundreds of millions of dollars since their inception and by our corporatist government’s foaming-at-the-mouth response to their actions. The FBI has labeled the freedom fighters of the ALF, who are engaged in extensional self-defense of nonhuman animals—sentient beings whom are being holocausted at the rate of billions per year— the “number one domestic terrorist threat.” So who are the terrorists here? Animal-defending members of the ALF or ruthless animal-slaughtering corporations and their government protectors? {more}
Who would have thought that the most symbolic but effective attacks of people against the system in the US would be dominated by animal activists? If these actions are not 'false flags' designed to create 'domestic terrorists', then I say hats off to those who have guts.
Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you. Thomas Jefferson
Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do. Thomas Jefferson
The struggle for Korean nuclear independence is extremely relevant for the Middle East, and first of all, for the Iranian nuclear project. The Judeo-American interests want to turn North Korea into an example for Iran. They wish to do something nasty to not-too-relevant Korea so that Iran will fall in line. But a nuclear Iran is likely to check Israeli warmongers and force Israel to proceed with peace process. The balance of fear, or MAD (mutual assured destruction) is still the only way to deal with the Israeli-American threat.
Fry and Laurie (or Laurel and Hardy) could do it nicely:
- The Chosen have got nukes. They've gone nuclear!
- Well, is that news? Israel has had hundreds of nuclear bombs for some twenty years, according to Vanunu, but only antisemites ever mention it.
- Sorry, I did not mean the Chosen People, I mean the People of the Chosen, and “Chosen” is the Korean name for North Korea.
- The Chosen? How dare they challenge the international community! Where do these Chosen men get off thinking that they are chosen?
The successful underground nuclear test in North Korea unleashed a huge wave – a wave of hypocrisy, that is. The state with by far the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the country that has already used A-bombs against civilians, the US, expressed its outrage. U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said, “The United States thinks that this is a grave violation of international law and a threat to regional and international peace and security and therefore the United States will seek a strong resolution with strong measures.” According to Rice, it is not invasion, it is not occupation, it is not aggression, but rather it is arming oneself against a very probable invasion, aggression and occupation that violates international law. And she did not remind us of a well-forgotten fact: for many years it was North Korea that called for turning the whole of Korean peninsula into nuclear-weapons-free zone, and it was the US that insisted on having its nukes on North Korea’s doorstep.
North Korea, or the Chosen in its own language, is a country of indomitable men and women. They are strong, independent and hard-working. They shake hands with an iron grip. Their names are short, their cabbage is fiery, their national pride knows no limits – and for good reason: they fought against the US in its prime, and survived the worst onslaught ever engineered by Man. Think Dresden, multiply by Gaza and add Iraq to equal Korea in the 1950s. The US and its satellites dropped more bombs on this small mountainous country than they had dropped on Germany. General Douglas Macarthur wanted to nuke them, but Harry Truman stopped him: there were no objects worth nuking, for every single standing man-made structure had already been destroyed. The Korean War was mass murder writ large: millions of Koreans were killed, burned by napalm, shot and executed by the Americans and their allies. Any Korean village's death rate could compete with that of Auschwitz.
The Koreans survived and rebuilt their country. But the massive bombing took a heavy toll on the people’s psyche. A nation will never be the same after saturation bombing, any more than will an individual who has been gang raped. Usually they break down into total submission for a generation (that is why gang rape is the prisoners’ way to assume control over a disobedient inmate), so did Serbs, so did Germans, so did the Japanese after being sodomised by US bombs. The Koreans’ own post-traumatic syndrome consisted of withdrawal, extreme self-reliance and endless fear of another attack. This fear was well-grounded in reality: US troops and bases still occupy the south of the Korean peninsula. South Korea is still as far from independence as it was before the WWII, only the US has replaced Japan as the colonizing power.
In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: "We are out of money."
But obviously not sober enough to pass up on a new 'czar.' This time an internet security head with 'powers' yet unknown. For the Looming Cybersecurity Emergency Reaction that may be soon needed?
Surveillance and censorship wouldn't be a big part of the this 'cyber superman' scheme, now would it? Nah, it's to protect government and business as usual.
Melissa Hathaway, Rod Beckstrom and Paul Kurtz are the front runners in the race to be the US government’s first ‘Cyber Czar’. So tips Don Adams, the Palo Alto-based Chief Technology Officer, Worldwide, Public Sector for tech giant Tibco.
The Obama administration’s information security chief (a job title has yet to be confirmed) will be tasked to protect the nation’s government-run and private computer networks. He or she will report directly to the President, and possibly to the economic and national security departments.
Melissa Hathaway is the interim White House Cyber Security Adviser and a former intelligence official. Rod Beckstrom served as the former director of the National Cybersecurity Center (NCSC) at the US Department of Homeland Security. Paul Kurtz is the former Senior Director for National Security of the Office of Cyberspace Security in the White House’s National Security Council (NSC). {more}
Everyone hates the criminal hackers, scammers, virus and malware spreaders but is this the reason to put the ability to shut down the internet into the hands of the few.
No, the ultimate use would be to keep information, except from government sanctioned sources, from being spread in case of a national 'emergency.'
Like maybe a false flag attack used to manipulate the population into fear and insecurity. We can't have truthful information and discussion get in the way of new wars and enslavement, now can we. The internet without censorship is a threat to those in power and the lies they tell.
Three incidents that created enormous fear of the boogeyman du jour were the Oklahoma City Bombing, TWA 800, and of course, 9/11. I will not discuss the issue of whether the government was involved in either of the above, but there is credible evidencehere,here, and herethat the government’s version of the events are highly suspect and certainly would not hold up under the scrutiny of a totally independent (non-governmental) investigation.
Many believe the government incapable of conducting, or being involved in, any false-flag operation involving the possible deaths of American citizens. I offer as exhibit (A)Operation Northwoods, and Exhibit (B) evidence from the1993 WTC bombing.
The state has one powerful tool at its disposal to control the masses: fear. A minority can control and enslave a majority only as long as the majority fears the minority. The state will do whatever it takes to maintain that control. The state lied about the circumstances of the attack on Pearl Harbor; they lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident; they lied about theOklahoma City bombing; they lied aboutTWA 800; they lied aboutRuby Ridge; they lied aboutWacoand theylied about 9/11. The very essence of government isfearand the lie.
There will be another event such as those mentioned above when the state feels it is beginning to loose control of Boobus, it needs the premise for a new war, or reason to expand the ones it now has. When it happens, will you run their lies up the flagpole, or demand the truth, refute the lies, and expose the liars? {more}
I was cleaning up a storage area and came across the newspapers I had saved from Sept. 12 through Sept. 18, 2001. They were the Tennessean and USA Today editions.
The only thing I could find on WTC Building 7 during this time period was from USA Today on 9/12/01, with just a mention that it collapsed at 5:25 pm.
The 'pancake' theory came into play quickly as an excuse for the free fall collapses.
"...the same type of "pancaking effect" that demolition experts use when they bring down a building with an implosion."USA Today 9/12/01
From the Tennessean on 9/12/01 were reports of an explosion before the WTC 1 collapse.
Also from the Tennessean on 9/12/01...
So far I haven't come across anything that hasn't been retold over and over. The deception and cover up started early. I will post more if I find something interesting.
I'm looking at all major decisions, appointments and laws made by the Obama administration and Congress from the premise that anything they do is not in the best interests of the American people. A premise that did not begin with Obama but is a continuation of the ruling bodies and their actions in modern times since at least the formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 with only a few exceptions. The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the supreme court is not an exception, it reinforces the rule.
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.
"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."
As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination. {more}
Any "misinterpretation" of the constitution on 2nd amendment rights shows she is not qualified.
In the forward to "The International Judge," Sotomayor makes another statement on 'interpreting' our constitution.
"The question of how much we have to learn from the international community when interpreting our constitution is not the only one worth posing."
I don't like that 'opinion.' It's not in our best interests.
Going back to the Vietnam War, I have personally known several soldiers who died on foreign soil. Others I knew returned but died prematurely as a result of their deployment, not from a bullet but from the demons that attached to their psyche and they couldn't shake.
I have always had a problem with these modern 'wars.' They didn't come about out of any truth or justice. Never were we fighting for 'freedom' unless you include the freedom to steal, lie and kill for the profit of a few who have no conscience.
The bottom line is that every single soldier who lost their life died in vain.
Along the way, the military also took the lives of literally millions of civilians in their home countries. They too died in vain.
I respect the families of those who died. There is no pain greater than losing a child that you cared for, loved and wanted the best future possible for. I personally have experienced that. You move on but there's a hole in your heart that can never be healed.
So we're here on another Memorial Day. There will be speeches, parades and thoughts for the fallen. Mostly it will be a day off of work for millions who will eat and drink but not really consider their role in allowing the killing to continue.
If you have been deceived and support the fraud of war, there still is the opportunity for honest realization.
Only when we stand up and refuse to send our sons and daughters to slaughter and be slaughtered for the lies of the neverending wars will we avoid seeing another child die in vain.
Are you willing to accept responsibility or just slog along and allow the continuity of war crimes in the present 'American Way?'
Remember that the next one to die may be your child or grandchild.
I think I can safely credit Israeli foreign policy with ruining my summer. If you’re the empathic type – it’s hard to go to the beach and swim in the sun while, several thousand miles beneath your feet, people are being killed en masse by people who should know better about how not to treat people – based on their own historical experience.
Israel violated a ceasefire and launched a sustained assault on Gaza last Boxing Day while many of us were on our bach couches, sailing our boats, and favoring a stretched stomach.
1,400 people died from planes, tanks, bombs, missiles, and small arms. You can reread that last line again if you need to.
These are events. And they happened.
At the time, if any of us looked at the daily newspaper about the events then our own vague take-home from reading would be that the events were a religious squabble, fueled by some Islamic splinter group hell bent on global dominance.
As in the past, the events would be explained to you minus any historical context and the conflict timeline would begin with some random act of Palestinian aggression – such as kidnapping a couple of soldiers or some loose use of ordinance. This aggression would be treated as discrete – almost as if it came from out of nowhere, unprovoked and unconnected to anything that had gone before.
If you had read your newspaper at the time of the events, then you might have glanced at an advertisement from a group encouraging you to think of any media outlet that criticizes Israeli foreign policy as ‘unbalanced’ – before you flipped to the sports section to load up on info to exchange with your friends over a beer at today’s bar-bee.
If, at the time, you were only watching the news on TV then there’s every chance that you could have missed the events completely, as the state and standards of local television news broadcasting have never been worse.
If you were watching news coming from England and America on the internet, then you would have understood (even perhaps agreed with) the wisdom of bombing densely populated urban areas in response to such acts of aggression.
If, however, you were watching news coming from other parts of the world on the internet – then you would have noticed something else entirely.
You would have noticed news footage of chemical weapons being used on suburbs, cell phone videos of human body parts scattered along city streets as bombs fell, interviews with physicians discussing bizarre never-before-seen war wounds, and dead kids. Lots and lots of pictures of dead kids.
Had you read some of the endless commentary and analysis available, you would have discovered that Israel was founded as a “Jewish state” in 1948 through the ethnic cleansing of Palestine’s non-Jewish majority Arab population.
You would have also learned that Israel has been maintained in existence only through Western support and constant use of violence to prevent the surviving indigenous population from exercising political rights within the country, or returning from forced exile.
At this point, you may have even begun to suspect that your choice of news outlet determines your own opinion of the events.
Assuming, of course, that you give a damn. If you were raised by racists, then these events probably won’t bother you. Feel free to flip on to the next article – we probably don’t have much to say to each other anyway.
But if you weren’t raised by racists and if you were following the events on the internet – then you would have seen global outrage over these events on a far wider scale than previously seen (even when Israel bombed Lebanon in 2006).
What also emerged were new levels of dialogue regarding Israel’s behavior on the world.
For instance: In the many comments sections of the blogosphere, I witnessed the age old charge of anti Semitism shot down in flames and exposed as a red-herring act of misdirection as it seems that most Semitic people speak Arabic.
In reading these spirited arguments and debates, I came to understand how geographically localized and racist perspectives can wither and die in the crushing grip of global human common sense – when the excuses used to justify such murderous behavior, are picked apart and disassembled by wider groups.
I also noticed an intense and ineffective propaganda effort designed to help me blame Islam for this bloodbath.
I don’t really think that religion is very central to this dispute.
I think it has more to do with ‘who gets to live where’. About who owns and distributes the resources. About who drinks the rivers.
Instead of being a behavioral motivator, Islam is more an unfortunate flag of solidarity against continuous western territorial encroachment and political dominance in the South West Asian region. But try telling that to someone who knows only what they are shown on FOX, CNN, and the BBC.
Places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and most of Eastern Europe all suffer greatly from western meddling and interference.
The root cause of the conflict between the Zionists and the Palestinians is as follows.
Israel is expanding and has done so since it was established by force as a nation state more than 60 years ago.
The unfortunate concentration of ownership of commercial news media outlets and the self censorship of the people within those organizations means that consumers of western press are more likely to believe that Hamas & Islam are directly to blame for the conflict. Thanks to the lack of historical context provided, shooting rockets at Israel is not widely understood as a potential downstream effect of occupation and abuse of dominance.
Israel’s “war” was not about rockets.
They served the same role in its narrative as the non-existent weapons of mass destruction did as the pretext for the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq (and I’m still waiting to be carefully led through a clear explanation for that one).
Gaza does not exist and act in isolation. Israel never stopped occupying Gaza even though it recently made a show of doing so. This is because Israel thoroughly controls the borders of Gaza through force – turning the area into one giant open air concentration camp. If you don’t believe me, then try reaching Gaza by boat. See how far you get.
This border control severely limits the flow of life giving resources to the people living there. And those people exist with the daily choice dealt to them by an Israeli foreign policy of “let us take your land and your life or we’ll shoot you”. Try to imagine how you and members of your family would react when faced with such impossible options.
And in the case of this recent and sustained attack on Gaza, Israel has once again demonstrated that it possesses the power and the lack of moral restraint necessary to commit atrocities against a population of destitute refugees it has caged and starved.
The dehumanization and demonization of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims has escalated to the point where Israel can bomb their homes, places of worship, schools, universities, factories, fishing boats, police stations – in short everything that sustains civilized and orderly life – and claim it is conducting a war against terrorism.
In the absence of any political and moral legitimacy (beyond that which it affords itself in a froth of self righteous fury) the only arguments it has left are bullets and DIME bombs.
Heavily armed and left to its own devices Israel will certainly keep trying – as it has for sixty years – to massacre Palestinians into submission.
It is not widely known that there are very vocal and active Israelis that are furious at the actions of their government, just as there are Americans that are furious at US policies.
Personally, I restrict my disgust to the Israeli government for the same reason I’ve never held America and Americans all liable for the foreign policies of the Bush administration.
Israel’s recent achievement in Gaza has been to make South Africa’s apartheid leaders look wise, restrained and humane by comparison. One of the factors that helped bring an end to the brutal apartheid regime in South Africa was international pressure for economic, sporting and cultural boycotts. Israel is starting to feel similar pressure from world opinion, and its true nature as a failed and brutal colonial project has been laid bare with its genocide upon Gaza (and yes, killing 1,400 people with military weapons is indeed genocide – don’t try and tell me that it isn’t).
It is time that Israeli and American foreign policy makers rejoin the international community – instead of cynically pretending that they represent it.
These events in Gaza will also likely be seen as the turning point when Israeli propaganda lost its power to mystify, silence and intimidate as it has for so long. Even the Nazi Holocaust, long deployed by Zionists to silence Israel’s critics, is becoming a liability – now that once unimaginable behavioral comparisons are now routinely heard.
If Hitler were alive today (and maybe living somewhere near Bogota) he would probably be smirking beneath that stupid-looking little grey moustache of his.
I’d rather not care about this. I have better things to do with my time than research racism and murder. Better things to do than fielding playground-type abuse and threats from aggressive and poorly informed Israeli supremacists (many of which seem to be suffering from an unrealistic kind of hubris).
But, if genocidal behavior like the events in Gaza and Ossetia becomes normalized – then none of us are safe. And everything New Zealand soldiers fought and were killed for in the past was for nothing. If my country was being overrun and bombed by some oppressive force bent on occupation, then I would sure as hell want someone else on the other side of the world to give a damn. Just like we did with Kuwait in the early nineties, remember?
Israel is expanding – and has done so ever since it forced itself on the region in 1948.
This is the root cause of the conflict.
Many in the west are unable or unwilling to consider this slow Israeli border expansion as a possible factor in the Palestinian rocket attacks.
If the democratically elected Hamas is to recognize Israel as a precondition for peace – then which Israel is it supposed to recognize? 1967 Israel? 1982 Israel? 2009 Israel?
Can someone point me in the direction of a map with fixed borders?
Len Hart puts together another convincing essay on the crimes of 9/11. Although not all encompassing and doesn't name all of the actors that are due indictments for their actions (that would take a few books), it's worth a look as a reminder of the key event that led us to where we are now.
In 1776 we went to war with England to gain our sovereignty and the right to control our own money. It's been a war to keep those rights and we lost it in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act.
The Federal Reserve is neither “Federal” or a “Reserve,” but the private cash cow of the International Banking cartel of Zionist Jews. Watch this video to understand the forces that really control this country.
Vimeo version is here in case youtube decides to censor.
How many people still believe Obama would not lie and break a pledge to not increase taxes. Remind yourself...if he and congress lie about anything, wouldn't they lie about everything.
“I can make a firm pledge,” [Obama] said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”
On the heels of the major tobacco tax, now there may be another assault on the working class.
Drunk on power and dazed by ambition, members of Congress have stumbled upon a novel way to keep their spending binge rolling -- and leave American taxpayers with the hangover.
Under a Senate proposal, Congress would raise the federal excise tax on beer by 145 percent to more than $3 a case.
Uncle Sam also would snatch an additional $7 on a case of wine -- a staggering increase of 233 percent and an additional 20 percent on hard liquor sales.
"Buzz-kill doesn't even begin to describe this invasion," said a GOP congressional aide.
Not content just sticking it to alcohol drinkers, the lawmakers also proposed slapping new taxes on soda.
Luckily, no one making under $250,000 drinks beer, soda, wine or hard liquor. Either that, or Barack Obama is a liar.
While we have had our attention diverted through all kinds of media propaganda, 'terrorists' in NY, etc. etc., the cap and trade bill has passed through the senate committee. No tax increases for the poor and middle class huh. Liars.
In a revealing editorial today, the Washington Examiner (not related to Examiner.com) revealed a huge unemployment package buried in the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy bill.
At first glance this just seems like more of the usual Washington shuck-n-jive. However, when one considers the implications of this, it becomes apparent that the writers of the cap and trade bill are very clearly aware that this bill will cost thousands of jobs. So much so that unemployment benefits for those losing their jobs because of it will go for THREE YEARS, 156 weeks. Obviously they are not expecting these hapless folks to find new work easily! The Washington examiner reports that these victims of Washington DC legislation and Congress will get 80% of their insurance premiums paid, a 1500$ relocation allowance, and job search expenses of up to 1500$.
If this is an energy bill… which by the way, is being sold as legislation that will create higher paying “Green” jobs, in higher numbers than those lost, then what are unemployment benefits for up to three years doing in it?
Note to all of those who are supporting this bill, both Nationally and locally here in Oregon, be prepared for your energy costs to go up by a minimum of 50%, and by some estimates up to 90%. Let’s put some numbers with that. Say your average electric bill for a year is 100$ a month. That’s 1200$ a year. Your bill will go up to 150$ a month, for a total of 1800$ a year with just a 50% increase. With a 90% increase that number will be 2280$, or 190$ a month. But that’s not all; the cost of your Natural gas will go up similarly. So will the grocery store’s electric bill, 50% higher refrigeration costs = 50% higher cost passed on to you the consumer. Your Hairdresser’s electricity cost will go up, and so will the cost of your shampoo blow-dry, and Color. Every single industry that uses power of any sort will go up, and your cost of living will rise exponentially.
All this for less that 2 tenths of a degree cooling over the next century, which will absolutely crack up the Chinese and Indians who are praying (if the communist government of China would admit to praying) that this legislation passes! Why?
Because it will absolutely kill the productive engine that is the lifeblood of the United States of America, the economic engine of the world! Of course they want it to pass, it will make them the world’s only superpower. Throw in the fact they own a huge swath of our national debt, and you should now be seeing a very dark black cloud rising over our future.
It should be stressed here, that even a COMMUNIST Government will not institute legislation that will destroy its economy to the extent that this bill will.
This is no doom and gloom prediction, clearly the writers of the bill know it too, or there would not be three years worth of unemployment benefits in it. The section we are speaking of it on page 781 of the 946 page bill. “Title IV, Subtitle B, Part2, Section 426 of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” Ah such innocuous and lovely sounding poison they come up with now a days!
Would you like that with a side of Arsenic? Hemlock perhaps?
Exactly where is all of the money going to come from to pay for all those unemployment benefits? The Rich? They will leave the country and take their money with them, just as they did in Cuba so long ago. Big Business? Oh no, they will leave too if they can, or they will fold and be Nationalized as well as GM and 2/3rds of the Auto industry. The Small business owner? They will go out of business. The only ones left will be the little guys, and that means all the rest of us. Can you smell the tax hike coming? There is no fiscal way this can be done without raising taxes to pay for the huge numbers of unemployed that are expected to need this craftily buried unemployment package. Assuming you aren’t on it that is. But don’t expect that to protect you, you still have to pay taxes on your unemployment benefits. A delicious irony no?
Forget Electric cars the only truly green alternative, they will be too darned expensive to charge. The irony of this is just too precious not to comment on…. The only possible alternative to liquid fueled cars will be legislated right out of existence before they can even get produced! Paradox of all green paradoxes! I think the space time continuum just wrinkled a bit… the only truly green car… the contradiction is just too perfect.
Has Washington lost its collective mind? Who is running this place and why are they trying to kill us and our livelihoods? Why are they deliberately trying to take food out of the mouths of our kids? That’s what they are doing. For 2 tenths of a degree? Certainly as China and India make up for our non-productivity, and with the knowlage that they indeed will not institute legislation as stupid and financially unsound as this, it is pointless. They have publically stated they will not do such damage to their economies. Knowing this... that 2 tenths of 1 degree seems likely to get swallowed up by an increase in Chinese and Indian productivity. Can you think of anything more pointless than this? Spitting into the wind perhaps?
Folks the insanity being considered in Washington DC may well make it impossible to live in the United States and live a successful prosperous life. Mexicans won’t be coming here anymore; it will be Americans going to Mexico looking for jobs.
That’s no joke.
The Washington Examiner quotes Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation: “The fact that generous unemployment benefits are buried in the bill means that “green jobs are bunk,”” The Foundation found that “Waxman-Markey is the largest, most intrusive energy tax increase in American history. It would reduce the nation’s GDP by 7.4 Trillion, raise electricity rates 90 percent and gasoline prices 74%.”
So, how do you like that “Hope and Change” now? This what you were expecting and voted for? We were warned by Obama himself, he said he was going to do it in the campaign, kill coal… this is your government at work. Unless you stop it by contacting your congressperson now.
Otherwise get ready for the worst; you might want to buy a lot of extra blankets while the prices are still low. {source}
There are plenty of ways to help the environment but none that the Obama administration and Congress will consider if it doesn't benefit big business.
There are also plenty of ways to eliminate the need for any more taxes.
Shut down most of the federal government.
End the wars and bring our troops home.
Eliminate foreign aid to terrorist states such as Israel.
Abolish the Federal Reserve.
I'm sure there are many more ways you can think of to end wasted federal spending.
But consolidating power and turning America into a third world country depends on taxing us to death.
The liars are trying to see to it and all in the guise of saving the planet or saving us from ourselves.
Obama's stimulus plan for job creation may soon include a new classification of national 'security' workers...mind readers.
The alleged 'leak' by the NY Times of Obama pondering a plan of "Preventive Detention" would require those that have psychic powers to be an integral part of the "War on Terror."
The new age of fighting those who would harm us is here.
Remember the OK City and 9/11 attacks? If only we would have had 'mind readers' scouring the country before these attacks occurred, picking up on the vibes of 'domestic extremists' before they had done anything and pointing the finger at their brain waves of violence. Well, Tim McVeigh and those 19 Arabs with boxcutters would have been indefinitely detained without charges or trials and thousands of lives would have been saved.
Why care about the constitution, habeas corpus and verifiable evidence when enemies are in our midst?
We could even use private non-profit organizations such as the ADL to train the 'mind readers' and save a bunch of bucks. I'm sure they would be glad to offer up help since they are already in the thought/hate crime business.
As the Obama/Emanual 'National Service' plan comes into play, what better way to put the kids to good use. As they plant trees and help the little old ladies across the street, they could also be using their psychic projections...err, psychic intuitions to prevent crime.
Our government and homeland security have wasted a lot money on cameras, survellience, Patriot Acts and the like when all along the key to combating 'terrorism' has always been our minds.
Many people do not have the time, place and money for gun training and practice. There is an option that saves a lot on ammo and won't disturb the neighbors.
A Chinese BB or pellet air rifle and handgun is a cheap alternative. I paid $20 each for the ones in the photo several years ago at the tool show sales that are fairly common around here.
The guns well made, heavy duty and they have the feel and weight of the real ones. Powerful and accurate but only one shot at a time.
I think the transfer of training works.
They are good for teaching kids and useful for chasing varmints from your garden and property.
Practice with handling, point and shoot and safety issues can be had in the privacy of your back yard without getting the law called on you.
Authorities launched an investigation today to find the mother and her teenage son who are running from the government. The 13 year old boy has been ordered by a judge to undergo chemotherapy treatment for his cancer.
The mom, Colleen Hauser, and her family have refused chemotherapy treatments and have turned to natural healing methods to treat the boy's cancer.They say they use herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives to treat his cancer.
According to Minnesota statutes, parents are required to provide necessary medical care for their child, and that alternative methods of health care are not enough. Before the woman and her son fled on Wednesday morning, the court issued a warrant for her arrest and that the boy be placed in foster care where he would receive the chemotherapy treatments.
The boy's parents are Roman Catholic and also believe in a Missouri-based religious group that believes a "do not harm" principle used by some American Indians.
What do you think? Should the boy be taken away from his family and forced to receive treatment? {source - Examiner}
For opting to explore alternative and natural remedies rather than chemotherapy for their son, the parents were accused of medical neglect and now face having their son taken away from them by Child Protective Services (CPS). They may also face prison time if they refuse to follow the judge's orders.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a health condition that is widely known by alternative cancer practitioners to be reversible (curable), especially in younger patients. Conventional medical doctors have told the courts that unless Daniel is subjected to toxic chemotherapy treatments, he has a 95% chance of dying.
That statistics is an outright lie. It is one of the many deceptive statistics put forth by the cancer industry in order to scare patients into submitting to extremely toxic protocols that cause far more harm than good.
Cancer patients cured by chemotherapy? Zero
There is not a single cancer patient that has ever been cured by chemotherapy. Zero. They don't exist. Not a single documented case in the history of western medicine.
And why is that? Because conventional medicine operates from the false belief that there is no cure for cancer! Thus, anyone offering a cure (or assisting in the body's own natural reversal of the disease) is immediately dismissed as a quack. Meanwhile, the real quackery is found in the pushing of toxic chemotherapy chemicals that are injected into the bodies of patients and called "treatment" when they should really be called "torture." (Nancy Pelosi, by the way, was never briefed on the fact that chemotherapy is torture...)
What's most disturbing in all of this, of course, is that the state is now forcing parents to poison their own children, requiring they hand over money to Big Pharma and conventional cancer treatment centers. The concept of freedom of choice has been stolen away from parents. The idea of protecting your children from toxic chemicals has been not just nullified, but made illegal!
Furthermore, the whole universe of natural cancer cures that really work has been sidelined by this Minnesota judge who is, no doubt, completely ignorant on cancer and human physiology. All these were utterly ignored: Vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/008567.html), selenium, oxygen therapy, medicinal mushrooms, microalgae, Amazon rainforest herbs, Chinese Medicine herbs, high-dose vitamin C, raw foods juicing, wild foods extracts, superfood powders, raw cacao, broccoli sprouts and a thousand other things that we know help the body reverse various cancers.
All these things were apparently thrown out of the courtroom and almost certainly disparaged by drug-pushing doctors who claim that only their own chemicals can treat this disease. {more -Mike Adams at Natural News}
Accused: James Cromitie, pictured with FBI officers in New York last night, is said to have wanted to do 'something to America' in revenge for U.S. killings of Muslims in Afghanistan
For a year an FBI informant had infiltrated the alleged NYC 'terrorist' group. How much influence did he have on them to even consider a bombing? Supplying the fake bombs and choosing the targets is typical FBI behavior. Remember the 1993 WTC bombing?
Just in time for the senate 'hate crime' bill and a good opportunity to ratchet up the fear.
Four muslims angered by the Afghanistan conflict were arrested in connection with a plot to attack the US military and prominent Jewish sites in New York.
The men were held on Wednesday night while attempting to carry out a plot to bomb two synagogues in the Bronx and use stinger missiles to shoot down military planes near an Air National Guard base in Newburgh.
"The defendants wanted to engage in terrorist attacks. They selected targets and sought the weapons necessary to carry out their plans," Lev Dassin, acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement.
The four men, named by police as James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, were arrested after buying inactive missiles and inert explosives in a sting operation run by the FBI and other government agencies.
They are accused of planning to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Riverdale section of New York's Bronx borough and to shoot down planes located at New York's Air National Guard base at Stewart airport in Newburgh, New York some 70 miles north of New York City.
All four are charged with one count of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, and one count of conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, which also carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
The authorities said that the men, all living in Newburgh, would appear in court on Thursday. The undercover operation leading to their arrests lasted about a year.
Representative Peter King of New York, a senior member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, said: "This was a long, well-planned investigation, and it shows how real the threat is from homegrown terrorists."
Agents and police watched Wednesday night as the suspects allegedly planted what they thought were bombs outside two Jewish community centers in Riverdale, a Bronx neighbourhood. The suspected terrorists got as far as planting a bomb inside a parked car. Investigators however, said the explosives involved were fake and were supplied to the men in a sting operation to ensure they didn't obtain real bombs.
The arrested men had vowed to take revenge on America for the war in Afghanistan. "Hatred of the West. The leader of the group, James Cromitie was concerned about deaths at the hands of the U.S. military in Afghanistan," asaid Joseph Demarest the head of the New York FBI.
"I hate those f**king Jewish bastards." the criminal compliant recorded Cromitie as saying.
Local radio station WTN is running an ad about every 30 minutes urging people to call Tennessee Congressman Bart Gordon to vote for the cap and trade scam. This ad is paid for by the shadowy Climate Protection Action Fund whose website only says 'coming soon.'
One group of 'climate' activists, the ICLEI, at least gives a list of who funds them.
ICLEI is able to provide best-in-class service to our members and elevate local climate action and sustainability to remarkable levels only through the generous support of the following private foundations, federal agencies and other entities:
Argosy Foundation
The David Rockefeller Fund
Fairfield County Community Foundation (Betsy and Jesse Fink Fund)
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Houston Endowment Inc.
Henry P. Kendall Foundation
The Joyce Foundation
The Kendeda Fund
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California
Marin Community Foundation
Marisla Foundation
The Meadows Foundation
Mental Insight Foundation
Merck Family Fund
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The New York Community Trust
Pacific Gas & Electric
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The San Francisco Foundation
The Scherman Foundation, Inc.
The Seattle Foundation
The Summit Foundation
Surdna Foundation, Inc.
Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation
Tides Foundation
The University of Michigan, School of Public Health (Ann Arbor)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. EPA Office of Environmental Education
Wolfensohn Family Foundation
When the Rockefeller Foundation has a hand in anything, the American people are in trouble. The rest of these government and non-government organizations are accessories to crimes and those who work for them are just basically 'useful idiots.'
Growing up I heard my mother repeat this FDR phrase many times. In hindsight it's debatable whether FDR actually hated war, he took us into WWII through deception and for world banking interests, but it's likely Eleanor did hate war.
Women get it or at least they used to. Seeing their sons, husbands, fathers and friends die in war evokes that innate revulsion to killing.
Where are the mothers now? The 'volunteer' military and the incessant propaganda by the controlled media seems to have diminished those mothering instincts in the population at large. It's exactly what the ruling class of endless war wants.
“We are a nation at war.” This phrase was invoked hundreds if not thousands of times by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales and others to justify military atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan, torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal domestic spying and an imperial presidency’s arrogation to itself of unprecedented powers.
Earlier this year, White House aides indicated to the media that the Obama administration was dropping references to the “global war on terrorism,” the Bush administration’s all-purpose justification for its wars abroad and assault on democratic rights at home.
What is becoming ever clearer, however, is that the methods introduced under Bush are being maintained largely intact by the new Democratic administration, while its dishonest rhetoric justifying them is sounding more and more like that of its predecessor.
What does it mean to say America is “a nation at war”? The US Congress has not issued a declaration of war against any country.
America is a nation at war only in the sense that its military is perpetually employed in carrying out illegal invasions, colonial-style occupations, bombings, assassinations by predator drones and other acts of violence against peoples unfortunate enough to find themselves in the way of American capitalism’s plundering of the world’s resources and markets.
The enemy’s identity in this never-ending war is deliberately kept vague as the targets for US military aggression are ever changing. Thus, Panetta refers only to “those that would threaten the United States of America.”
To call this Orwellian is not hyperbole. The perpetual state of war imposed upon the oppressed citizens of Oceania in Orwell’s “1984” could have been written as an allegory for modern US state policy under both Bush and Obama.
Panetta left little to the imagination about the political implications of this supposed state of war.
The CIA director said that he wouldn’t “deny them,” meaning the US Congress, “the opportunity to learn the lessons from that period.” However, he cautioned that any investigation must be done in a “very careful” manner. Probing the war crimes of the past must not interfere with the war crimes of the present and the future.
When Panetta was first nominated as CIA director, Republicans and some Democrats pointed to his lack of any intelligence experience. In the end, however, he was confirmed by the unanimous consent of the Senate.
He is a man clearly trusted by America’s ruling elite to protect its interests. First a Republican aide to the Nixon administration, he became a Democratic congressman and then chief of staff to President Clinton. Afterward he pursued profitable relations with the centers of corporate and financial power, while remaining deeply involved in state policy. In 2006, he joined the Iraq Study Group, which was formed to effect a tactical shift in US war policy. In 2008, he was paid more than $830,000 in consulting fees and honorariums by the likes of the BP Corporation, Merrill Lynch and the Carlyle Group.
Panetta speaks for the state-within-the-state, the permanent apparatus of the military and the intelligence agencies that dominate the US government no matter which party is in power.
These layers are pushing back following the limited exposure of the Bush administration’s crimes with the release of the torture memos last month. This was further indicated in an article that appeared Tuesday in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, who enjoys close ties to the CIA. It cited concerns by “agency personnel” that they would not be able to “conduct interrogations effectively,” given new proscriptions against torture, and that “other operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan will come under review.”
The Democrats are cowering before these pressures. Obama’s press secretary has refused to utter a word about the clash between Pelosi and Panetta, while Democrats in Congress are shying away from the debate on torture, treating it increasingly as a distraction.
The Obama administration is acting to perpetuate and politically legitimize the criminal policies initiated under Bush, while shielding those responsible. The two wars launched to assert US hegemony over the Persian Gulf and Central Asia are continuing with bipartisan support, and Obama is responsible for his own war crimes, including this month’s bombing that slaughtered 150 civilians in Afghanistan. Domestic spying, extraordinary rendition and military commissions have all been upheld by the administration. The resumption of torture is inevitable and in all likelihood has already begun.
In the end, this entire process exposes the futility of elections under America’s two-party system. Those who take office—Obama no less than Bush—are accountable not to the American people, but to a narrow constituency consisting of the financial oligarchy, the military command and the intelligence agencies, those who really rule America.
A couple of mothers did take action by suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the Iraq war. But surprise, surprise...the lawsuit was thrown out. I thought it was supposed to be the duty of the federal courts to rule on questions regarding the constitution.
NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Two mothers of soldiers who served in Iraq have failed in their attempt to sue the federal government over the constitutionality of the war.
U.S. District Judge Jose Linares dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday.
The women and the group New Jersey Peace Action claimed President Bush overstepped his authority by invading Iraq in 2003 without formally declaring war.
Linares sided with the government's position that the courts don't have jurisdiction to rule on what is essentially a political matter. He also wrote that second-guessing Congress is not the judiciary's duty. {source}
Constitution...what constitution? Old words on a GD piece of paper can't interfere with politics.
Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary branch of government. The Supreme Court was organized in 1790 with judicial power to review cases arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States and treaties. Statutory authority for the Court can be found in 28 U. S. Code Sect.1251 et seq. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to create additional federal courts. The hierarchical system which evolved is Courts of Appeal and lower level trial courts, Federal District Courts.
The federal courts have the judicial responsibility to rule on the constitutionality of federal laws, to interpret and to apply the laws to resolve disputes. The federal courts have "limited" jurisdiction in that they can only decide certain types of cases as determined by Congress or defined in the Constitution. That means the federal courts decide cases interpreting the Constitution, all federal laws, federal regulations and rules, and controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. {source}
I can see no reason for the people of Kentucky to not support Dr. Rand Paul for the Senate seat in 2010. Talk is that Jim Bunning, a great baseball pitcher but a not so great constitutionalist, will retire. He's 77 and needs a rest.
I saw Rand speak at his father's appearance in Nashville in May of 2007. He has the talking points and would make a good 'designated dissenter' in the senate just as dad is in the house.
He's going the Republican route for the votes. I would prefer he be an independent but I can see that this may have the best chance for success.
Even MSNBC gave him some time to announce his proposed run for senator from Kentucky.
Kentuckians could and most likely will do much, much worse if anyone but the 'favorite son' gets to be their next senator.
But Rand, just like his father, will not go into the controversy of the 9/11 issue.
Any protest against Obama and his policies that generates publicity is good. I know that Catholics are ingrained to be anti-abortion but being against killing should not stop at this one issue.
War for empire, war based on nothing but lies, war for profit and the resulting killing should stand right alongside abortion as an outrage.
Obama is now a war criminal, walking in the footsteps of his predecessors, and this fact should at least be equal with those willing to speak out against killing, whether pre-birth or later in life.
A pro-life protester is arrested by police prior to President Barack Obama'scommencement speech at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel sought to buck up college graduates Sunday, telling the graduating class of George Washington University that the worst job market in decades presents opportunities in addition to challenges.
"There is a silver lining to graduating at this moment in time," Emanuel told the graduates massed on the damp National Mall. "You not only have an opportunity to serve your country. You have an extraordinary opportunity to change it." {more}
"Just in case a new false flag attack is implemented to convince you that more war is needed, we'll put on a show of how 'Homeland Security' will save a few. And what better place to practice.....ground zero." Jan
NEW YORK - MAY 17: A man acting as a victim of an explosion waits to be evacuated out of the train station amongst police, firefighters and medical personnel during an emergency drill staged at the World Trade Center site on May 17, 2009 in New York City. The drill simulated an explosion involving a PATH commuter train in an underground tunnel between New York and New Jersey and involved more than 800 emergency services' first responders.
NEW YORK - MAY 17: An emergency responder carrying a toy doll that simulates an injured baby looks for a triage station during an emergency dril
Paramedics escort a participant dressed as a victim away from the scene of a simulated train bombing at the World Trade Center PATH train station during a multi-agency disaster response drill Sunday, May 17, 2009 in New York
Police and firefighters work at the scene of a simulated train bombing at the World Trade Center PATH train station during a multi-agency disaster response drill Sunday, May 17, 2009 in New York. thanks to Little Sister Katy and Eddie for the photos
The climate dream team? Rep. Henry Waxman, former VP Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey are set on getting a cap-and-trade climate bill passed ASAP.
With the Nashville global warming cheerleader conference over, the kiddies will take to their congressional districts with the new training given them to make sure that their guru Gore is successful in getting Congress to go along with his theft scams.
H.R. 2454 is almost 1,000 pages. No one in Congress will know WTF it is all about.
Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey introduced "H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act." The Energy and Commerce Committee will begin markup of the bill on Monday, May 18, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., and will complete consideration before the Memorial Day recess.
It's a given that when congress moves to pass a major bill, it it not in the best interests of the American people. The only interests they are concerned with are the ones who will make a profit and kick back a little to them.
The talking points for passage will be repetitive sound bytes that sound so good if one doesn't dig into the details.....solar, millions of jobs created, wind, electricity rates down, build the clean energy future and end our addiction to oil and coal.....
Better think again. A certain few will make plenty of money and we will pay for it.
Of course we want clean energy and a clean planet. It's just that Congress and Al Gore will never lead us there.
Day by day our rights are eroded. We are criminals unless we can prove otherwise. What would be next...DNA samples? Oops, don't want to give our law makers any ideas.
Motorists stopped for traffic violations in Tennessee could be fingerprinted if state lawmakers approve a bill pending in the legislature
Currently, when drivers are cited during traffic stops, police officers ask for the driver's signature on the ticket, but the proposed bill would allow police departments to eliminate signatures and collect fingerprints.Supporters say collecting fingerprints would save money and help police determine whether the driver is wanted for a criminal offense, but opponents worry that it allows the government to tread on individual privacy rights.
State Sen. Joe Haynes and State Rep. Mike Stewart co-sponsored the bill, which gives police departments the choice of collecting a signature or a fingerprint, or collecting a signature and a fingerprint. The bill has been approved by the state House of Representatives, and senators will vote on the measure Wednesday.
If the bill is approved, the Metro Nashville Police Department plans to start requiring fingerprints by the end of the year. Police reports would be filed electronically, as would traffic and misdemeanor citations."This police department intends to use the fingerprint the same way as a signature is currently used," Metro police spokesman Don Aaron said. "If a person who has stolen someone's identity gives a wrong name, an officer will be able to catch that immediately. And, if they have an outstanding warrant, be it for a misdemeanor or a serious felony, an officer will be able to see that as well."
Instead of purchasing electronic signature pads to allow motorists to sign for traffic tickets, Metro wants to use electronic fingerprint readers because they cost about $500,000 less than signature pads.
In Metro, 151,587 traffic citations were issued in 2007. On average, Metro police say, between 12,000 and 13,000 moving violations are issued per month.
Chris Stanley, 19, a student at Nashville Auto Diesel College, has received two tickets since moving to Nashville a year ago. "I wouldn't give them my fingerprint,'' he said. "They would have to arrest me."
According to Aaron, someone who refuses to provide a fingerprint will be arrested.
"It would be the same thing as a person not signing for a citation if they were stopped today," he said. "This department has no plans to create a database for all these fingerprints. They won't be captured and kept forever."
Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Knoxville Republican, is skeptical and takes issue with the legislation. "If someone said this 15 to 20 years ago, people would be rioting about it. Now it just seems like a lot of people are giving up and giving away their freedoms," Campfield said. "It's scary. I really think that these fingerprints will be used to create a database eventually, if not right away. If you don't think it is, then you're just kidding yourself."
If the bill passes, Tennessee would join other states and cities that have adopted fingerprinting for traffic citations.
The police department in Green Bay, Wis., has been fingerprinting traffic offenders for two years, said Lt. Mark Hellman. Some citizens were concerned at first, he said.
"I think they saw that it wasn't that big of deal, and that the ones who were most worried about it were likely the ones who were doing something wrong," Hellmann said. "What they didn't understand was that a routine traffic stop on the street is an arrest, technically, even if you aren't taken into physical custody, and during an arrest, you are fingerprinted." {more}
The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a non-violent protest group who share concerns about antisemitic online content, as well as content which promotes terrorism on sites including Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Google Earth, Blogger, and other sites and forums throughout the internet. The JIDF believes in direct action both to eradicate the problems we face online and to create the publicity that will cause those with the power (companies like Facebook and Google) to take the needed action themselves.
A jewish group, the JIDF, taking issue with the jewish internet moguls....yeah right.
A non-violent protest group...I'll have to question that. Attacking free speech, creating false history and trolling the internet to censor any criticism of jewish criminals and their allies plus Israeli genocide and war crimes may not be physically violent but it sure as hell is violent against freedom and truth.
"eradicate the problems we face online" means shutting down anyone who would dare to express their first amendment rights.
The JIDF, google, wikipedia, youtube.....
working together to create an antisemitic free internet..... one where the truth has no place.
I have always considered this blog to be fairly moderate. A hodgepodge of posts on various topics that one would think are not all that controversial.
But this month someone at google decided to apparently censor and filter out any direct links here. Some links are still there through other blogs and websites but even putting quotation marks around blog titles don't show up as they once always did. Even the several thousand images that once showed up in a search don't appear. I have received no warnings or complaints from google.
Plus photobucket says that 25 gigs of bandwidth have been used up in just a few days and so the links are disabled. I can't figure that one out, having had an account there for a couple of years with no problems.
I'm wondering if anyone else has seen their blog censored in searches on google lately. I've heard that it has happened to others before and a quick look through searches of some favorite blogs seem to show the same thing.
Are they trying to discourage bloggers by dramatically decreasing hits to their sites?
Free speech via the major search engine seems to be on the decline.
U.S. president says Jewish American history 'demonstrates how America's diversity enriches us all'
U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday declared May Jewish American Heritage Month, saying that the "United States would not be the country we know without the achievements of Jewish Americans."
Well that last statement is certainly true, if it wasn't for the actions of many of the American jewish community the United States of America would still be a Constitutional Republic which puts the interest of America before the interests of the Zionist state of Israel!
I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations........... Al Gore
Hundreds of former Vice President Al Gore's volunteer troops are gathering in Nashville today for the launch of a campaign for tough laws to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.
At least 500 "presenters" trained earlier will attend the two-day event, which includes panel discussions and a plan for activism. The architect of that plan is Steve Hildebrand, deputy director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign.
The goal is to pass strong legislation before the Copenhagen Treaty negotiations in December. That treaty would replace the current Kyoto treaty. {more}
Financial interests centered in the City of London and on Wall Street are pushing for the United States to destroy itself by the adoption of a cap-and-trade scheme, based on the hoax of Al Gore's global warming. Part of this policy of cap and trade calls for the deployment of low energy-density, intermittent, renewable energies, like wind and solar, to replace existing baseline sources like nuclear and coal.
The reality of this policy of cutting or capping carbon dioxide emissions is that there will be an explicit limit on the amount of energy produced, and there will be a limit as to what type of sources will be available to produce this limited amount of energy. By limiting the amount of energy available for medical purposes, heating of homes, cooking, and providing freshwater, cap and trade will set the stage for genocide.
The policy has its roots in the fascist ideas of British economist and Cambridge University professor Arthur Pigou, who worked closely with John Maynard Keynes during the 1930s. In a 1920 book entitled, The Economics of Welfare, Pigou argues that the way to change a behavior, is to tax it out of existence. With cap and trade, you tax energy until it becomes too expensive, and this, in turn, forces people to choose between using high-priced energy, and suffering the devastating health consequences of not using it. Essentially, all environmental taxes or policies are of Pigouvian influence. The trade part of the policy means creating a speculative market in carbon dioxide offsets, so that nations or producers whose output is less than the minimum standard, can sell their carbon offset to a producer who is exceeding the limit. As in the derivatives bubble, the speculators will act as middlemen for this exchange.
Depopulation through Energy Starvation
Given that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide declines exponentially, as concentrations increase, and that it has been demonstrated, that we have already seen most of the warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide, there is no reason for a cap-and-trade policy—unless it is to fulfill the expressed intentions of certain people to reduce the world population from the present 6.7 billion down to 2 billion, by the use of energy starvation. {more}
According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000.Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.
In any other industry this would be considered a severe conflict of interest. In essence, Al Gore has helped to create a fictitious catastrophe, then told everybody what the solutions have to be, and then put himself in a position to capitalize on the hype. It’s not only seriously dishonest, but many people and industries are going to suffer in the wake of this hype while Gore and Big Green bring in millions (and in some cases, billions) of dollars in green money. {more}
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A resolution urging the creation of statues to be built on the Tennessee Capitol grounds of the state's two Nobel Peace Prize winners, Al Gore and Cordell Hull, is on its way to a full Senate vote.The Senate State and Local Government Committee on Tuesday advanced the measure supporting the privately funded statues on a 9-0 vote. The resolution previously passed in the House unanimously.
Gore is too busy stuffing his fat face to address environmental issues that he can't make money from.
I read with dismay John Olver's May 13 letter concerning the merits of Al Gore, tax incentives for hybrid vehicles and the question of human-based toxicity to the environment. In his quest to clamp down on fossil fuel companies and the auto giants, Gore shamelessly avoids talking about something we all could and should do something about as individuals: Eat less or no meat.
American per capita consumption of meat has more than doubled since 1961. Americans now kill and eat nearly 10 billion animals a year, more than 15 percent of the world's total consumption. That is almost 200 pounds of meat, poultry and fish per year per person, not even counting dairy and egg products.
A University of Chicago study reported that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by 20 percent, it would be as if we all switched from an average gas guzzler to a Prius hybrid. A similar study by Japan's National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science estimated that producing 2.2 pounds of beef creates as much carbon dioxide as the average car emits every 155 miles. An equivalent amount of plant foods produces 24 times less carbon dioxide.
If you claim to be an environmentalist and still eat meat, you're really just a hypocrite.
Tragic but not unexpected. From a government that conspired and carried out with help from the Mossad and others the killing of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11 to jump the planned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, insanity is the norm. The lies of war and the Pentagon's immoral use of troops take its toll.
Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, May 12, 2009
BAGHDAD, May 11 -- An American soldier opened fire on comrades Monday afternoon inside a combat stress clinic at a large U.S. military base in Baghdad, killing five and wounding three in an attack that prompted officials to promise to try to ease the strain on troops deployed to war zones.
The gunman was taken into custody shortly after the 2 p.m. shooting at Camp Liberty, part of a sprawling military installation near Baghdad International Airport, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Brian Tribus said.
The military did not identify the gunman or shed light on what his motive might have been. Tribus said the gunman's name will be disclosed when and if charges are filed.
The shooting, among the deadliest attacks on American troops in Iraq in recent months, comes as U.S. commanders are grappling with the rising rate at which service members are committing suicide. Military leaders have attributed the increase to the stress of multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Monday's attack was the deadliest incident involving a soldier opening fire on comrades since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The rampage shook up soldiers at Victory Base Compound, which includes Camp Liberty, in large part because most feel relatively safe at the heavily guarded base.
"A lot of soldiers are wondering why," said a senior military official in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We will be asking as leaders: What could we have done? How could we have protected the soldiers?" {more}
Although Vietnam was different, draftees mostly instead of volunteers, it too was a war of lies for profiteering. Instead of random killings of other soldiers, many were premeditated.
The original caption on this photo read, "These battle-weary troops from the 1st Air Cav had just staged a 'combat refusal' at the PACE firebase. Troops would from time to time, kill their own officers. These soldiers were not involved in a fragging, but they were angry that they couldn't wear peace symbols on their uniforms. Photo: home.mweb.co.za
The question of crimes such as "fragging", "combat refusals", desertion and AWOL within the Vietnam conflict is one which brings emotions to the fore. Many veterans deny that "fragging" or "combat refusals" occured, whilst others feel desertion and AWOL was merely a means of resisting what was felt to be a unjust and illegal conflict.
One partial reason for such sharp differences in the perceptions of veterans: support for the war back home, and the perceived prospects for victory, declined sharply during the seven years of heavy American involvement in Vietnam.
Indeed, military leaders themselves recognized a crisis among Vietnam soldiers in the war's last years. In an article called "The Collapse of the Armed Forces" published in the Armed Forces Journal in June, 1971, Colonel Robert Heinl declared that the army in Vietnam was "dispirited where not near mutinous."
Combat Refusal. Where soldiers refused to obey orders this became known as a "combat refusal". In a report for Pacifica Radio, journalist Richard Boyle went to the base to interview a dozen "grunts" from the First Cavalry Division. The GI's had been ordered on a nighttime combat mission the previous night. Six of the men had refused to go and several others had objected to the order. This is also referred to in "NAM - The Story of the Vietnam War (Issue 8)" where a photograph can also be found and captioned "These battle-weary troops from the 1st Air Cav had just staged a "combat refusal" at the PACE firebase.
"They'll have to court-martial the whole company," one soldier told Boyle. "I say right away they can start typing up my court-martial."
The GI's told Boyle they objected not only to what they saw as a suicidal mission but to the war effort itself. Their commanding officer wouldn't let them wear t-shirts with peace symbols, they complained. "He calls us hypocrites if we wear a peace sign," one GI said. "[As if] we wanted to come over here and fight. Like we can't believe in peace, man, because we're carrying [an M-16] out there." Rough figures for "combat refusals" are indicated in column b. below.
Another soldier piped in: "I always did believe in protecting my own country, if it came down to that. But I'm over here fighting a war for a cause that means nothing to me." Historians say so-called "combat refusals" became increasingly common in Vietnam after 1969. Soldiers also expressed their opposition to the war in underground newspapers and coffee-house rap sessions. Some wore black armbands in the field. Some went further.
Fragging. When one American killed another American, usually a superior officer or an NCO, the term "fragging" came into use. Although the term simply meant that a fragmentation grenade was used in the murder, it later became an all encompassing term for such an action. It is known that "fraggings" did occur during Vietnam, but the precise number is uncertain.
"During the years of 1969 down to 1973, we have the rise of fragging - that is, shooting or hand-grenading your NCO or your officer who orders you out into the field," says historian Terry Anderson of Texas A & M University. "The US Army itself does not know exactly how many...officers were murdered. But they know at least 600 were murdered, and then they have another 1400 that died mysteriously. Consequently by early 1970, the army [was] at war not with the enemy but with itself." {soure}
Things are moving quickly to eliminate what rights we still have. By using stealth legislation and actions that the majority of Americans are unaware of, we are being painted into a corner where the only options are to submit to unconstitutional demands or step into the muck and fight back.
On October 16, 2004, President George W. Bush signed the Israel Lobby’s bill, the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. This legislation requires the US Department of State to monitor anti-Semitism worldwide.
To monitor anti-Semitism, it has to be defined. What is the definition? Basically, as defined by the Israel Lobby and Abe Foxman, it boils down to any criticism of Israel or Jews.
Rahm Israel Emanuel hasn’t been mopping floors at the White House. As soon as he gets the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 passed, it will become a crime for any American to tell the truth about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and theft of their lands.
It will be a crime for Christians to acknowledge the New Testament’s account of Jews demanding the crucifixion of Jesus.
It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 percent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.
It will be a crime to doubt the Holocaust.
It will become a crime to note the disproportionate representation of Jews in the media, finance, and foreign policy.
In other words, it means the end of free speech, free inquiry, and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Any facts or truths that cast aspersion upon Israel will simply be banned. {more}
Israel even moves to make the Pope a talking puppet for them.
After intense lobbying aides agreed the Pope would not make an address on a specially constructed stage in a Palestinian refugee camp that abuts the Israeli security barrier.
That platform would have provided television cameras with powerful images of him speaking against the wall, which cuts off Palestinian communities, and even of Israeli watchtowers in the background. {more}
Our children are not exempt from becoming tools of the state.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think even BushCo stooped this low. I suppose we now see even more of Zionist Rahm’s influence on Obama. An Israeli code of ethics in war and truth is emerging from the Obama White House.
“A joint U.S.-Afghan investigation confirmed that an unspecified number of civilians died in a southern Afghan battle, but the initial findings released Saturday appeared to blame Taliban militants who used locals as “human shields.” MSNBC
The potential for poisoning the American public for the profit of criminal pharmaceutical companies is coming into play.
Winter Patriot is back after a short hiatus to give us some insight into the Neverending Wars™.
The Obama administration embodies none of the change we were hoping for. We are still governed by Bush/Clinton retreads, neo-con chicken hawks, friends and agents of Israel, and Wall Street bankers. None of these people see anything wrong with the American imperial project. The destruction of Pakistan is, and always has been, essential to that project. And the movers and shakers don't care how much pain and suffering they cause.
To prevent a disastrous war between the USA and Pakistan, it would be necessary to dismantle the American imperial system, and this -- as we keep seeing over and over and over -- is not about to happen.
Along with animal factory farming and the resulting carnage and environmental degradation, vivisection is an issue that gets buried among many 'progressives' and 'conservatives' who would rather look the other way.
Millions of nonhuman animals are vivisected every year to ensure our “safety” when we take prescription drugs. Just how safe are we? Consider that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are the fourth leading cause of death, 15% of hospital admissions are related to ADRs, prescription drugs kill over 100,000 people every year (more than street drugs), and ADRs cost us over $130 billion in medical expenses every year.
Despite its demonstrably abysmal results and despite exciting breakthroughs in genetics and other areas of science, and the rapid development of technologies that make vivisection antiquated and obsolete, it persists, not because it brings “truth,” but rather because it is highly profitable up and down throughout the long chain of “research.” There is tremendous peer-pressure and academic inertia to continue confining and torturing other sentient beings without their consent for several reasons, but aside from the facts that vivisection is a deeply entrenched orthodoxy which is handed down from one generation of researchers to the next and that nonhuman animal research is easily published (no small incentive to practice it in the ‘publish or perish’ environments of universities), vivisection generates and protects income. Vivisection continues to be highly regarded and heavily promoted within the mainstream medical and scientific communities, as many universities have come to depend mightily upon the multi-million dollar grants they receive to fund nonhuman animal research, even that which is frivolous or redundant.
Big Pharma, one of the largest supporters and beneficiaries of nonhuman animal research, uses its significant influence—an influence derived from deep pockets and even deeper incestuous relationships with legislators, government regulators, peer-reviewed medical journals, publicly funded institutions, and doctors—to sustain the lie that it would be impossible to innovate and market new prescription drugs without vivisection. {more}
After almost eight years, the Statue of Liberty crown is opening for visitors on July 4.
I guess the decision was made to end this small part of the 9/11 cover up and use the reopening as symbolic of the 'change' in direction of the new administration.
Using the Statue of Liberty for the propaganda purposes of maintaining the myth that 19 Arabs did 9/11 and that none of our national treasures are safe has been an insult to knowledgeable Americans. The grand reopening will be used as a talking point/media event for the President and many others. That will also be insulting.
Equally insulting is the push to use eminent domain to finish up the land grabbing for a $58 million, 2,200-acre permanent memorial and national park at the 'crash' site of Flight 93 on 9/11. It needs to be ready by the tenth anniversary for the propaganda stage show of 'we've been safe since that day but we can't let our guard down.'
Memorializing a flight shot down by our Air Force and the so far successful psyops of "Let's Roll" is as in your face as social engineering and conditioning can be.
In this photograph released by the White House of the flight that terrified many, Air Force One passes by the Statue of Liberty in New York. (Photo/The White House)
Just another reminder/reinforcement of the 9/11 lies. Keeping the folks in a state of fear. It's not a coincidence that this photo was released on the same day as the announcement of the reopening of the Statue of Liberty.
Obama met with 9/11 and USS Cole victims families to placate them but the sad thing is that these deceived people still actually think that al-Qaeda did it. They are looking for justice in the wrong places.
The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.
The American people do actually deserve better than this never ending onslaught of 9/11 propaganda but the problem remains.....most don't even care.
That should be the first step via H.R. 1207. The second would be to abolish the Federal Reserve outright.
Criminal charges against Stephen Friedman would also be appropriate but unlikely. The Federal Reserve is an illegal entity. Their only purpose is to extort money from the people and continue the almost 100 year old stranglehold on our government and financial system.
How long will we allow this criminal enterprise to continue to operate? Congress and the Obama administration are bought, blackmailed and afraid to take on the Fed.
Stephen Friedman, former CEO of Goldman Sachs and most recently the Chairman of the New York Fed, was allowed to own, buy and trade Goldman Sachs stock while overseeing Goldman Sachs banking issues in New York State and the AIG bailout dollars that flowed to Goldman Sachs and to basically run his own little mafia style racketeering organization.
In fact, Friedman, his family and friends made millions on his own personal crime family.
This is the guy that hand picked Tim the Tax Cheat, and this is the guy that made sure Tim the Tax Cheat replaced Paulson . . . and other Goldman Sachs bankster.
So where is Andrew Cuomo? Hiding. And where is AG Eric Holder? Well he works for Goldman Sachs . . . indirectly, so he’s not going to say a word. And where is the SEC? Goldman runs the SEC, full stop, period, end of discussion. {more - Mike Morgan}
Another Jewish, CFR stooge for the bankers. Paid very well to scam the people. Sounds familiar.
We are called to be watchmen on the wall, not prophets. Prophets see visions of the future, whereas watchmen watch; constantly alert, looking for signs and indications that trouble isbrewing.
There are two fundamental ways to view history. We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history. We call the other view the conspiratorial view of history.
Accidental History
In the catastrophic or accidental view of history we are led to believe that historical events, such as wars and revolutions were the direct result of some sudden or surprising event. While the catastrophic view is accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it does not always provide a realistic view of humanity and events influenced by man.
Young, malleable American and other Western minds are sadly taught the Accidental view of history in the government school systems. This view is reinforced throughout their lives by the controlled mass media. As a result, when most discover the Conspiratorial View of History, the immediate reaction is shock, disbelief and a refusal to accept something other than they've been taught to believe.
Conspiratorial History
Conspiratorial history studies that part of history that is a product of man's planning. In conspiratorial history we are led to believe that events, such as wars and revolutions, are the result of planned events. While the conspiratorial view is not accurate for weather, volcanoes and earthquakes, it is a realistic and accurate view of the interrelationship of man and nations. Since the planning for most of these events was done in secret, we use the term conspiratorial history. That is; this history is the result of plans constructed in secret, which by definition is a conspiracy.
Interestingly enough, the Conspiratorial View of History is also the Biblical View of History. Try Psalms 2 for starters.*
We believe that current world events are not simply circumstantial, but the result of an organized campaign by an elite group of unseen and widely unknown world leaders. Their goal is to exercise absolute dictatorial control over the world, to establish a New World Order.
The Cause of War
Wars start when one nation moves into the territory of another; depressions occur when markets take unexpected downturns; inflations occur when prices are driven up by shortages; revolutions start when the people, always spontaneously, rise up to overthrow the existing government.
These are the traditional explanations of historical events. Events happen by accident; there do not seem to be any causes.
But this explanation of history leaves gnawing questions in the minds of serious students. Is it possible that government leaders and others planned these events and then orchestrated them to their desired conclusions? Is it possible that even the great catastrophes of history were part of this plan?
There is an explanation of historical events that answers these questions in the affirmative. It is called the Conspiratorial View of History and it is the alternative to the Accidental View, the view that is commonly held today. It is possible, therefore, to summarize the major events of history into two alternative schools of thought:
The Accidental View of History:
Historical events occur by accident, for no apparent reason. Rulers are powerless to intervene.
The Conspiratorial View of History:
Historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the public, but are well known to those in power at the time.
Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations has been quoted as saying: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way."
If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events.
But if the events still occur after the government officials had been expected to prevent them, the government officials have failed in their assigned duties. There are only two explanations as to why they failed:
The events overwhelmed them, and could not have been prevented; or
The events were allowed to occur because the officials wanted them to occur.
It is difficult for the casual observer to believe that World War 1 and World War 2 could not have been prevented, as humane people of conscience do not allow harmful events to occur.
If a planned and unwanted event is allowed to happen, those who planned the event would have to have acted in secret so as to prevent discovery of their plans by those who would be adversely affected.
Planners working in secret to plan an event that the people do not wish to occur are, by definition, members of a conspiracy. Webster's defines conspiracy as a "combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose."
Not only must the Conspirators work in secret, they must make every effort to ensure that their plans are not made public. The first task of a conspiracy, then, becomes that of convincing the people that the conspiracy itself does not exist.
This makes the task of uncovering the machinations of the conspiracy all the more difficult.
Conspiracies Exposed
There are three ways of exposing a Conspiracy:
One is for any of the participants in the conspiracy to break with it and to expose his or her involvement. This takes an extremely courageous individual, and that type of exposure is indeed rare.
The second group of exposers are those who have unknowingly participated in a conspiratorial planning of an event but who didn't realize it until later. These individuals, and there aren't many in the history of the world, have also exposed the inner workings of the conspiracy at great peril to themselves.
The third method of exposing a conspiracy is for researchers to uncover conspiratorial designs in the events of the past. If you're interested in this field of study I'm sure you've come across many such sources who expose conspiracies.
It is our belief that a conspiracy does indeed exist, and that it is extremely large, deeply entrenched, and therefore extremely powerful. It is working to achieve absolute and brutal rule over the entire human race by using wars, depressions, inflations and revolutions to further its aims. The Conspiracy's one unchanging purpose has been to destroy all religion, all existing governments, and all traditional human institutions, and to build a New World Order out of the wreckage they have created.
Notice that if the Conspiracy does exist, it will do everything it can to deny the charges of both those who seek to expose it and those who claim to have been a part of it.
"Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves." Walter Rathenau, who in 1909 controlled German General Electric.
"Fifty men have run America and that's a high figure." Joseph Kennedy, the father of the late president John Kennedy.
"There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In Fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any group, and frequently does so."
"I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records." Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professor of History at Georgetown University's Foreign Service School, author of Tragedy & Hope.
What Motivates the Conspiracy?
The ultimate purpose of this Conspiracy is power. There are some who desire this more than even material goods, although the two frequently go together.
"Rose Kennedy (the wife of Joseph Kennedy) knew that the man she loved loved a power beyond the power of money. He wanted the power of government, and he would have it." Pearl Buck author of The Kennedy Women.
The Conspiracy, then, needs conspirators, and it is logical to ask why illustrious men of wealth and fortune would join such an enterprise.
"The answer is quite the reverse of the question: These men (involved with the Conspiracy) became illustrious primarily because they were part of the Conspiracy." Blair Coan, author of The Red Web.
So those involved do not become rich and/or illustrious and then join the Conspiracy; they become rich and illustrious because they are members of the Conspiracy.
But what is their motive? What prompts men to seek wealth and position?
"When a person has all the money he needs, his goal becomes power." Former Congressman John Schmitz.
"There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are... love of power and love of money.... When united... they have the most violent effects." Benjamin Franklin
However, power itself has a corrupting influence on those who seek it. In an oft-quoted truth. Lord Acton explained power thus: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Those who seek power will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally cause depressions, revolutions, and wars in order to further their desire for more power. This corrupting nature of the very pursuit of power explains why the moral mind of the individual who neither desires power over others nor understands the desire for such power cannot fathom why power-seekers would want to create human misery through wars, depressions, and revolutions.
In other words, the conspirators are successful because the moral citizen (you and I) cannot accept the conclusion that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.
Another power seeker, the Russian anarchist Bakunin, explained that this process of corruption even affected those dedicated to freedom who were given power to protect the powerless. He wrote that "... the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty."
"Power is the end. What other delight is there but to enjoy the sheer sense of control? Let me see any other motive in the people who command." Richard J. Whalen, author of The Founding Father, speaking of Joseph Kennedy.
Albert Pike's Letter To date, no conclusive proof exists to show that this letter was ever written. Nevertheless, the letter is widely quoted and the topic of much discussion.
Following are apparently extracts of the letter, showing how Three World Wars have been planned for many generations.
"The First World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the Czars in Russia and of making that country a fortress of atheistic Communism. The divergences caused by the "agentur" (agents) of the Illuminati between the British and Germanic Empires will be used to foment this war. At the end of the war, Communism will be built and used in order to destroy the other governments and in order to weaken the religions." 2
Students of history will recognize that the political alliances of England on one side and Germany on the other, forged between 1871 and 1898 by Otto von Bismarck, co-conspirator of Albert Pike, were instrumental in bringing about the First World War.
"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm." 3
After this Second World War, Communism was made strong enough to begin taking over weaker governments. In 1945, at the Potsdam Conference between Truman, Churchill, and Stalin, a large portion of Europe was simply handed over to Russia, and on the other side of the world, the aftermath of the war with Japan helped to sweep the tide of Communism into China.
(Readers who argue that the terms Nazism and Zionism were not known in 1871 should remember that the Illuminati invented both these movements. In addition, Communism as an ideology, and as a coined phrase, originates in France during the Revolution. In 1785, Restif coined the phrase four years before revolution broke out. Restif and Babeuf, in turn, were influenced by Rousseau - as was the most famous conspirator of them all, Adam Weishaupt.)
"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001, world events, and in particular in the Middle East, show a growing unrest and instability between Modern Zionism and the Arabic World. This is completely in line with the call for a Third World War to be fought between the two, and their allies on both sides. This Third World War is still to come, and recent events show us that it is not far off.
THE PROTOCOLS OF POLITICAL ZIONISM AKA THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION INTRODUCTION, PREFACE AND PROTOCOLS #1 TO #2. http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=594
"It is important that the dialogue with Iran be limited in duration and that if after three months it will be clear that the Iranians are playing for time and not ceasing their nuclear program, then the international community will have to take practical measures," Lieberman said in a release issued Wednesday by the foreign ministry. {more}
"I do not doubt that Israel will do what it thinks it needs to do, regardless of whether the U.S. approves," said Mark Fitzpatrick, non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
"Israel would seek forgiveness, not permission."
A retired Israeli general who advises the government on strategic issues suggested there was a tacit synchronicity in recent messages about Iran from Israel and the United States:
"The Israeli threat adds urgency to Obama's calls for diplomatic engagement, and should Israel take things into its hands, the Americans retain wriggle room, some deniability." {more}
However, now that the triger to Israel’s 240-400 nuclear bombs is in the hands of a Zionist mass-killer, Benjamin Netanyahu, who gloated on the 9/11 carnage - could scare the hell out of Obama’s Israel Lobby-controlled administration with the help of its White House Chief of Staff, a former Israeli soldier and son of a Jew-terrorist or fake another much bigger terrorist attack than the 9/11 - to swing American public opinion in favour of war on Islamic Iran. Former US Middle East negotiator, Aaron David Miller did predict that Netanyahu’s first priority would be a strategic conversation with Barack Obama to scare the day lights out of the US president, the ultimate objective of which would be mobilizing not only the US but also the entire international community into addressing the Iranian situation in a manner deemed acceptable to the Zionist regime’s agenda in the Middle East. {more}
The Obama administration may think bombing Iran's nuclear installations is a bad idea, but that does not seem to have made much impact on Israel's thinking, if recent comments by Israeli President Shimon Peres are to be believed.
Speaking to Jewish leaders in New York the supposedly dovish Mr Peres said that Israel would continue to consider other "options" for dealing with the threat posed to the Jewish state's existence by Iran's illicit nuclear programme if American attempts to bring Iran to its senses failed.
Mr Peres did not spell out what those other options might be, but it is widely known that Israel is prepared to launch unilateral military against Iran if the West's attempts to negotiate a resolution of the crisis fail. The likelihood of Israel attacking Iran, moreover, has increased dramatically since the hawkish Bibi Netanyahu became prime minister. {more}
The Council on Foreign Relations never met a war they didn't like. It's part of their job in creating a 'new order.'
The concept of justifiable war is not simply one for history. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan -all are potential theaters for new or intensified U.S. military action. The question is not whether they would constitute just wars. That is too impractical a standard. The question in the real world is whether they would be justifiable--to Congress, to the American people, to the world. It is a question President Obama will have to answer. {more}
The never ending war. The Orwellian twisting of words calling our 'surge' in Afghanistan "the good war" by the neocon/neolib/neo-killers is a sick attempt to perpetuate the myth that cave dwellers did 9/11 and that al-Qaeda will strike again on our soil if we don't get them and the Taliban over there.
There will be no expose of the American/Mossad 9/11 false flag. We'll just continue to kill civilians and spend our way to oblivion. The Obama administration is a war criminal regime the same as the Bush one was. War profiteers laugh all the way to the bank and the goal of World War III to solidify the banker/globalist/zionist empire and a one world government/ currency looms ever closer.
We are now in the midst of a full-blown campaign to "roll out the product" for a new war: this time, in Pakistan. Anyone who lived through the run-up to the invasion of Iraq should be able to read the signs -- anyone, that is, who is not blinded by partisan labels, or by the laid-back cool of a media-savvy leader far more presentable than his predecessor.
We noted some of these signs in a long post yesterday and won't belabor them here. But today brings yet another bumper crop of panic buttons and alarm bells from the powers-that-be, with ever-increasing emphasis on the "Taliban kooks with Muslim nukes" theme: one more variation on the old "mushroom clouds rising in American cities" ploy that has worked like a charm for our militarists lo these 60 years or more.
Some of the war-pushing powers-that-be are public figures in the Obama Administration (including Obama himself, who has dutifully taken on the Bushian mantle of Fearmonger-in-Chief), and some of them are shadowy, unnamed eminences in the military-security apparat, clearly aiming to act for Obama as those daggers of the mind did for Macbeth: "Thou marshall'st me the way that I was going." {more}
Our Secretary of State/War Whore Hillary Clinton has 'regrets' and is 'impressed.'
In Washington, where Afghan President Hamid Karzai met Wednesday with top officials, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. deeply regretted the loss of life.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is optimistic that Afghanistan and Pakistan will take steps to fight extremists and that she's "quite impressed" with recent Pakistani military action against the Taliban.
Smiling faces belie intentions of death.
WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama must press visiting Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to accept more help in securing US aid to secure his country’s nuclear arsenal, a top senator said Wednesday.
‘He must convince President Zardari to accept more assistance and embrace cooperation,’ said Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Lugar, a leading US foreign policy voice, cited global concerns that unrest in Pakistan could lead to its nuclear weapons, or the raw materials for chemical or biological weapons, ‘falling into the wrong hands.’ {more}
There’s a good question: “What does the USA contribute to the world?” Let’s leave aside the US delusion that it brings democracy and freedom to a benighted world.
Americans like doing one thing and they do it a lot: they like creating dead foreigners and travel all over the world to do it.
To make killing foreigners easier, Americans are very good at devising ingenious means of doing it, such as smart bombs, beam weapons and drones with which operators in Nevada can safely bomb wedding parties in Iraq or Afghanistan. One can only think that if all this money, energy and Yankee ingenuity were put into renewable energy and infrastructure improvement at home with genuine grass-roots economic aid abroad, the world would be a much better place and Americans would be much better loved. America is certainly the most powerful country in the world but what does that mean? It means only that America has the ability to kill more foreigners than anyone else. It’s by no means evident that this makes it the world’s legitimate policeman, implanter of democracy and freedom or any other of its myths. Nor is America the world economic leader, having ignored sound economics and squandered its wealth on an extravagant life-style and its military-industrial complex. Its debts and fraud are now being paid for largely by the rest of the world.
Politicians rely on the fact that dead people can’t express an opinion. I’ll do it for them. Not one of the dead American or European soldiers would have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan if he had known he would die there. They really believed that they would live and they believed the lies. {more}
A situation involving an amateur bomb at a school in Cookeville gave some recipients of Homeland Security money and training a chance to show their stuff in crowd control and handling an 'emergency' situation. Look for much more of this social engineering testing/refinement in the coming months.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Rahm Emanuel
COOKEVILLE, Tenn. - Two Cookeville schools have been evacuated and classes have been canceled for the day after a minor explosion at one and the discovery of a blasting cap at the other.
Police told a local newspaper neither school had received any threat.
Cookeville Police Capt. Nathan Honeycutt said a soda bottle filled with chemicals exploded in a trash can at Avery Trace Middle School on Wednesday morning.
No one was injured. Police also found an exploded blasting cap near the football field of Cookeville High School.
A high school resource officer was walking around the campus when he noticed the blasting cap, said Putnam Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jackie Farley.
Students from both schools were bused to Tennessee Tech University in Cookeville.
Parents were able to pick up children there. Hundreds of parents showed up to do that, and they waited for hours for their children.
Honeycutt said the two incidents were unrelated.
The Tennessee Bomb and Arson Squad is assisting the investigation.
Tennessee's legendary favorite son allegedly gave a speech before Congress in 1828 that reflected a change in his attitude towards government spending. We could use a few more like Davy today to rein in the 'charity' spending to banks and special interests.
Col. David Crockett US Representative from Tennessee
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and---‘
"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. …But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'
" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'
" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'
"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'
"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that youare convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'
" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’
" 'My name is Bunce.'
" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'
" 'Yes.’
" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'
"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.
"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:
" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"
"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
"He came upon the stand and said:
" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.' "I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'
"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." {source}
Schwarzenegger dances around the issue of legalization of marijuana. Don't look for him to take on the Feds and exert states rights. There's too much money involved in the "War on Drugs,' the prison and extortion system and rogue elements of our government controlling the illicit drug supply.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday it's time for California to study whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use, though he's not yet advocating for such a change.
The governor was asked about a recent Field Poll showing that 56 percent of registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana to raise revenues for cash-strapped California. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would legalize the drug for recreational use, rather than just medical purposes.
"Well, I think it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate," Schwarzenegger said. "I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues, I'm always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect did it have on those countries?"
He said his native Austria is revisiting some of its marijuana laws, for instance. The Austrian Parliament last year authorized cultivation of medical marijuana.
"It could very well be that everyone is happy with that decision and then we could move to that," Schwarzenegger said of other nations' legalization policies. "If not, we shouldn't do it. But just because of raising revenues ... we have to be careful not to make mistakes at the same time.
Schwarzenegger previously has shown a casual attitude toward marijuana. He was filmed smoking a joint in the 1977 film, "Pumping Iron." And he told the British version of GQ in 2007, "That is not a drug. It's a leaf." Spokesman Aaron McLear downplayed the governor's comment as a joke at the time.
California alone could not easily legalize pot, given that it remains a federally regulated substance. Ammiano said in March he is hoping President Barack Obama would allow California to move toward legalization. {source}
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m here today to tell you something you already know, and I assure you this — President Barack Obama shares that same commitment. His support is rooted in his personal connection to the Zionist idea to which he spoke about last year at this conference. He said last year that when he was a child, and I quote, “I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity, and I deeply understood the Zionist idea that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.”
By turning towards the right I mean voting according to the constitution. Voting this way once does not make him a strict Constitutionalist. Pelosi and his other 'leaders' will see that he doesn't go too far astray.
Of course this was a safe vote in going against Democratic majority. It wasn't close and they'll let him slide on this one if it saves Bart a few votes in 2010. The loyal 'old hands' have to stick together.
Let's see which way he goes when the vote may be close and his vote would be seen as crucial.
His handlers will coach him.
~~~~~~~
Bart responded to my email asking him to vote no on HR 1913.
Dear Kenneth,
Thank you for sharing your opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate CrimesPrevention Act. Hearing from you helps me better represent Middle Tennessee.
Like you, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protections.I voted against this bill because I do not believe in special treatment for any group of people. All citizens are equal under the law and should be treated the same. H.R. 1913 passed the House on April 29, and now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I may ever be of assistance to you and your family.
Stay in touch,
BART GORDON Member of Congress
~~~~~~~
H.R. 1913.....that's the same year the Federal Reserve came into being.
There are so many proposed anti-human laws festering in the depths of Congress that it's hard to keep up. Destroy our small farms yet give exemption to Chinese food imports, shoot us up with toxic vaccines, allow the continued use of GM food to wear down our health, make new mothers submit to mental health exams before bringing their babies home...drug them if they don't pass the test. That's just a few.
An unhealthy, dumbed down and drugged citizenry is easier to control. They are killing us slowly for profit and de-population purposes and all we do is ask Congress to not pass these laws.
The wire tap skills of the Investigative and Enforcement Services of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, of the United States Department of Agriculture are the world's most sophisticated. There are no bounds to the budget, the equipment, and the staff used to locate family farmers who may be in violation of one of over 18,000 USDA regulations, laws and policies. This IES agent may be watching you. His salary is evaluated by his dedication to enforce penalties on livestock producers. Unless you are sure you know all the new USDA regulations that can be enforced against you, your farm, and your family -- watch for this highly paid enemy on a road near your farm.
Dear Representative DeLauro:
I live in the United States. Not the Washington D.C. Corporate zone, but in the sovereign state of Minnesota in the sovereign United States. You may be unfamiliar with that and the subsequent documents that establish not only my personal rights, but which also limit the reach of government, but then again, maybe not. Its apparent you live in some other part of the world where individual liberties and rights are not a consideration; a place where police state conditions are not only accepted but, encouraged.
I just read the bill you authored H.R. 875 and am left wondering just who it is you work for and where it is you live?
Having printed off and actually reading your bill, I see that there are massive and extremely punitive punishments and fines for non-specific violators most of which would be leveled against small and independent producers, family farms and non-corporate operations. In other words, you did not site specifically just who would be subject to these police state actions, nor did you specify who would possibly be exempt….like maybe small independent and family farmers and herders who aren’t the cause of the known food borne illnesses.
I also noted that exemptions are provided for foreign importers such as China; a known source of contaminated foods, medicines and other products. For the life of me I can not figure out why you would provide an exemption for countries that have consistently shown their disregard for the US consumer.
I couldn’t help note that in Sec. 406 you state:
In any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction shall be presumed to exist.
This section says a whole lot in a very few words. Any actions, enforcement, requirements, with regards to an assumed (not presumed) connection to food safety laws; in other words you can just assume interstate commerce is involved and claim jurisdiction. That kind of blows away the “this isn’t going to affect farmers markets, home gardens, etc., doesn’t it? It seems to me if interstate commerce is going to be assumed to exist in any attempts to enforce this new food policing law, anyone who produces, buys, or otherwise touches food from any source is by your definition and planned targeting, already engaged in interstate commerce and by extension and without any evidence needed, guilty.
Question: Would this apply to Monsanto?
Your bill goes on to say that there will be no judicial review allowed, even to determine the validity of the charges that may be levied against an individual.
Disease is big business and pharmaceutical corporations are cashing in on the destruction of health worldwide. Akin to their sinister forbearers at IG Farben, who were convicted of crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trails, today's pharmaceutical corporations are now perpetuating genocide on a global scale.
Millions are spent funding candidates from both political parties ensuring that no matter who is in office the laws enacted favor them. Pharmaceutical firms contributed $1,995,384 on the Obama campaign alone. These corporations purchase, sorry, "fund" not only the government officials, but also most of the institutions who are supposed to safeguard the public health, which means all of these institutions have been affectively subverted. In fact the major pharmaceutical firms and their corporate partners in crime fund everything from medical schools to the American Dietetic Association to United Nations sponsored programs like Codex Alimentarius (international agreements controlling production and distribution of food and supplements).
Companies like Monsanto have not only been profiting from the poisoning of the people of the world, (giving us useful products like agent orange and aspartame,) but have been for many years buying and working in partnership with major pharmaceutical firms and therefore also profit on the treatment of the symptoms caused by their poisons. One pharmaceutical company purchased by Monsanto in 1985 was G.D. Searle & Company. Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of G.D. Searle & Company at that time and he played a major role in Monsanto's acquisition of the company. Searle is now Pfizer.
Many medications and vaccines potentially cause more problems than they solve. This is not a side effect, this is part of how big pharmaceutical companies make their money. There is far more money in keeping patients dependent on expensive drugs than there is in curing them. If a drug causes more illness, (particularly one which seems unrelated,) the new symptoms must then be treated. The more problems a patient suffers from, the more drugs you can sell them. These companies are pushing the deadliest and most addictive substances known to man and they do it legally.
Vaccines are out and outright toxic. Here is just a short list of some of the chemicals and heavy metals commonly found in many vaccines: formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, aluminum sulfate, sorbitol, bensethonium chloride, and phenol. Some vaccines such as GalaxoSmithKline's Havrix for hepatitis A contain diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue. In addition there are the vaccines which get accidentally, so they claim, contaminated. Oops, was that bird flu we put in there?
New studies are connecting the skyrocketing autism rate with vaccination. Is it any wonder that children are suffering from the effects of as many as 36 toxic shots by the age of five in America, 20 in the UK and 26 in Australia? If vaccines protect your child, how is it possible that of the three countries listed the USA has the most vaccinations and also the highest child mortality rate under five? I personally know a young couple whose beautiful vibrant two year old daughter died due to complications from her vaccination.
The fear of a pandemic alone is enough to generate major profits for the big pharmaceutical companies. A new vaccine or treatment is advertised and governments, hospitals and even common people will stockpile the medication out of fear of infection. Each time the media plays up the new pandemic flu, be it bird or swine, the big pharmaceutical firms laugh all the way to the bank.
Doctors who speak out against dangerous drugs are put on hit lists . Merck had a list of doctors who were to be "neutralized" or "discredited" because they had criticized the painkiller Vivoxx (now withdrawn from the market.) Those Doctors who play ball with the major pharmaceutical corporations and prescribe large enough quantities of a company's drugs may receive "incentives."
Alternative healthcare is under attack. Anything which can not be patented and controlled by the big pharmaceutical firms, such as herbal remedies and vitamins, are being legislated out of existence. Codex Alimentarius plays a key part in this assault on nutrients, by reclassifying them as toxins and limiting the amount you can get with or without a prescription. Further legislative impediments to nutrition include the American bill H.R. 875 which seriously threatens organic farming and can only result in more ill health. Such a prohibition on nutrients and quality foods will likely result in a resurgence of easily preventable diseases such as scurvy.
For those with a healthy body, the pharmaceutical pushers industry has a drug for you anyway. Got the blues? Got worries? Medicate them away. Even new mothers are a target. The Mothers Act seeks to assess the mental health of women before they can take their babies home. How many will be told they need to take mood altering pills if they wish to retain custody of their children? (Ron Paul has introduced HR 2218, the Parental Consent Act, to battle mandatory mental health screening and forced medicating of children.) The same sort of mood-altering medications are all too often prescribed to foster children. These are also the same type of drugs which are now frequently being connected with cases of suicide and mass violence, including school shootings.
The actions of the pharmaceutical industry are nothing less than criminal. In 2004 a complaint was submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague accusing the major pharmaceutical companies and many of the key government officials they fund of genocide and other crimes against humanity as well as war crimes. Among the accused are: the CEOs of Pfizer, Merck, GalaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly from pharmaceutical industry and George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Ashcroft, and of course Donald Rumsfeld from the political arena.
While the western world is kept busy looking for terrorists in their trash bins, the pharmaceutical corporations continue to endanger the health of billions with impunity. Now is the time to act before Codex Alimentarius comes into full effect, before organic food has been legislated out of existence. Boycott toxic vaccines. Support alternative medical practitioners. Take your health and well being out of the hands of profiteers. {source}
"The SPLC is a racist organization and someone needs to file suit against the hate they preach."
"Another SPLC-written press release, picked up and treated as "news".
Dees doesn't have a license to practice law in Kentucky. The actual suit was filed by two local attorneys based on existing legal precedent. They had to give permission for Dees to come in and take over the case. All Dees brought to the trial was publicity.
Just like the 1987 United Klans case, Dees grandstanded a $7 million award which produced a $50,000 payoff. Any first year lawyer could have filed the papers.
The SPLC has been hawking the Gruver case in its fund raising materials for over a year. One can only imagine how much money it added to the SPLC's $151 million dollar "Endowment Fund". It certainly didn't cost millions of dollars to file the civil suit.
Dees already gets nearly a thousand dollars a day, every day, from the donor pot. One hopes he didn't layer on legal fees to boot. After all, he gave himself a $20,000 donor dollar raise last year and has been a millionaire since 1960. (Page 40 (http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLC990_2007.pdf)
The SPLC has never put a single klansman in prison. In fact, Dees brags in his autobiography, "A Season for Justice", that he made $5,000 dollars for representing Klansman Claude Henley in federal court. Henley was charged with attacking Freedom Riders in Alabama, with photos of his rampage appearing in LIFE magazine, but he had a good lawyer and beat the charges.
Dees claims the event was a turning point in his life, but apparently not to the point of turning the money over to the victims or to charity. He cashed the Klan's check and kept the money.
The one thing the press release does get right is that the thugs of the IKA didn't go away, they merely went underground or joined other groups. The goons who attacked Gruver were already arrested, convicted and serving time before Dees stepped in.
This whole thing was just another SPLC fund raising publicity stunt and this press release is just another part of the campaign."
"So how is this considered a hate group? Please be specific and be careful that you do not appear so unpatriotic that you describe the founding fathers who liberated this country from tyranny. Seems to me like many more of these types of groups are needed to keep the government in check.
So would this guy at http://www.OperationPitchfork.com be considered a hateful person in your eyes? If so, I think you are on the verge of being a hate group yourself…hating patriots who love their country and value the Constitution." "We need to look at certain painful truths. The Waco debacle was actually a scandal. We supposedly were there to HELP children & we burned them to death. It’s also a VERY popular feeling in this country that just like the League of Nations did little to help the world move from war, the UN has been less than successful in it’s most important agenda. The majority of Americans love this country & don’t want to see it changed into a EU model. No matter what one thinks of Randy Weaver, he did not deserve what happened to him; nor did his wife deserve to be shot in cold blood, etc.
These issues had set the stage for the Militia movement & realistically could have been avoided if the government of that time had not circled the wagons & done little than give Weaver a multi-million dollar settlement & apologize to the people at Waco who lost their children.
There are no clear-cut “good guys” on ether side of the political isle when Congress has money on it’s mind. The sooner we learn the painful truths that we all have many painful things to be responsible for, the sooner we can start to communicate in a healthy manner.
I don’t know how many times I’ve read in this blog the accusation that Republicans are racists or that Democrats are appeasers bordering on cowards. Such concepts are political bigotry. They are built on the lie that one group has all the answers. That should be dangerously obvious to need no further commentary."
SPLC: “…the themes that animated those groups — including conspiracy theories about the “New World Order” and fear of the federal government and gun control — have resurfaced across the country.”
"Conspiracy theories? You talk about this as though you live in a vacume. While the SPLC will certainly denounce any knowledge of this New World Order, let me point out that it goes by other names, such as the North American Union (NAU) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership *(SPP).
Mainstream news media have reported on the Amero, on the Trans Texas Corridor, and the secret meetings held by the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States that, it was later leaked, were to go around those countries’ legislative bodies to forge agreements dissolving their national sovereignty. Leave it to the SPLC to give only half (more like a third) of the story to keep donations rolling in based on fear mongering.SPLC: “On his website, Ambrose puts out a special recruiting call to military veterans:”
Does anyone at the SPLC notice the similarity in the words “military” and “militia”? While the SPLC does its best to give militia a bad reputation, there it is right at the front of the Second Amendment of our Constitution. It’s also in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Being America’s last response to tyranny, having members who are ex-military would be obviously beneficial. SPLC: “The website features imagery of the United Nations flag; the burning Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) badge, and the message, ‘I AM THE GOVERNMENT YOUR FOUNDERS WARNED YOU ABOUT.’”
So opposition to the agenda of the United Nations to erase national borders and national sovereignty and impose a socialist form of global governance makes one a far-right terrorist or extremist? Someone who finds the actions of the U.S. government at Waco and Ruby Ridge unconscionable are necessarily far-right wing nuts? I’d say the SPLC’s compliant and unquestioning acceptance of the government position on these events says far more about the SPLC than it does about “scary” militia members. SPLC: “Opposition to the United Nations, government actions in Waco and Rudy Ridge, Idaho, and the ATF were among the defining issues for the 1990s militia movement.” You keep referring to this 1990s militia movement as though that has some foreboding message for us.
Ambrose: “The Militia is in nature a purely defensive force and will take no aggressive action or recklessly plunge Idaho into war,” Ambrose informs potential recruits. “But if events similar to Ruby Ridge should ever again occur in Idaho, our resolve to respond with force in kind cannot be doubted.” So they’re not going to initiate violence. That is in line with the purpose of the militia as defensive only. So what exactly is it that worries the SPLC about this and other militia groups? I was surprised awhile back to discover that a group I belong to is listed by the SPLC as a hate group, which initially made me wonder where the SPLC gets its information.
After reading up on the SPLC, I no longer wonder. The SPLC has no interest in reporting the truth, or at least has an interest in omitting crucial parts of the truth. If the people are not made to fear the militia, the SPLC loses funding. So what’s the group I belong to? It’s the Virginia Citizen Militia, and you can see our website at
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a thriving business. The Alabama-based “nonprofit” firm has become a font of riches for founder Morris Dees and his associates. Its last tax return (2005) showed it took in nearly $111 million in donations the previous four years alone and reported assets of $189.4 million at the end of 2005.
Its business is fundraising, and its success at raking in the cash is based on its ability to sell gullible people on the idea that present-day America is awash in white racism and anti-Semitism, which it will fight tooth-and-nail as the public interest law firm it purports to be. That might lead a skeptic to wonder why it spends little on litigation and why Mr. Dees pockets a lot of money sent in by panicked donors who buy into the smear campaigns against organizations or prominent individuals who question racial preference programs. To me and to other observant conservatives, the Southern Poverty Law Center is a clever scam, relentlessly cultivating for profit the fear that this nation is filled with Klansmen and rife with people eager to perpetrate genocide.
“Hate crimes,” as trumpeted by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center, are a questionable legal construct used almost exclusively against whites. Hateful or not, interracial violent crime is overwhelmingly black on white or black on Asian. The Department of Justice’s figures show that between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse. Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
You won’t hear about that from the Southern Poverty Law Center or see it on the evening newscasts, because the truth is one thing and the liberal agenda is another.
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Harold Koh, a former Dean of the Yale Law School, to be Legal Advisor to the State Department. One of the many concerns with Koh is his belief that international organizations should be empowered to regulate the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.
On April 2, 2002, Koh gave a speech to the Fordham University School of Law titled “A World Drowning in Guns” where he mapped out his vision of global gun control. Koh advocated an international “marking and tracing regime.” He complained that “the United States is now the major supplier of small arms in the world, yet the United States and its allies do not trace their newly manufactured weapons in any consistent way.” Koh advocated a U.N.-governed regime to force the U.S. “to submit information about their small arms production.”
Koh supports the idea that the U.N. should be granted the power “to standardize national laws and procedures with member states of regional organizations.” Koh feels that U.S. should “establish a national firearms control system and a register of manufacturers, traders, importers and exporters” of guns to comply with international obligations. This regulatory regime would allow U.N. members such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Iran to have a say in what type of gun regulations are imposed on American citizens. {source}
The Administration’s nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh, the Dean of Yale Law School, has come under widespread criticism for his advocacy of legal transnationalism. This is the belief that international law should, in Koh’s words, be “brought down” into domestic law around the world.
The problem today, Koh argues, is that a few states – pre-eminently the U.S. – are obstructing this process. Koh’s favorite way to criticize the U.S. for this is by pointing to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the U.S. should pay “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Koh claims that “decent respect” requires supporting anything concerned with human rights that a majority of the world’s states have endorsed, and even requires U.S. courts to draw on the decisions of foreign courts and on treaties the U.S. has not signed.
The next President should recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence to pay ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind’ by supporting, not attacking, the institutions and treaties of international human rights law.
[In] an interdependent world, United States courts should not decide cases without paying ‘a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.’
But here, in words that should be familiar to all Americans, is what the Declaration says:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The Declaration’s purpose was to tell the world the U.S. had a right to independence. The Founders believed it was necessary to pay “decent respect” by explaining why this was so. To transform this reasoned assertion of self-government and sovereignty into an argument that judgments in foreign courts should guide American judges, or that the U.S. should sign treaties simply because other states have done so is, at best, specious and distorted.
Koh has not been shy about expressing his transnationalist convictions. Indeed, one of the most troubling things about him is his willingness to lump “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” together, as though they should be regarded as inseparable and equally authoritative. In his 2002 Robert L. Levine Distinguished Lecture at Fordham University, on “A World Drowning in Guns,” he argued that one of the most pressing issues facing the world is the need for, in his words, “the global regulation of small arms.” Koh is not alone in this belief: it is embodied in the long-running campaign for a U.N. treaty on the subject.
This campaign has recently born fruit. On October 31, 2008, the UN General Assembly voted by 145 to 2 against, with 18 abstentions, in favor of a resolution supporting the negotiation of an arms trade treaty. The U.S. cast one of the negative votes. The passage of the resolution resulted in the creation of a working group charged with the eventual drafting of a treaty to create common standards for the international import, export, and transfer of small arms. Koh’s views on global arms regulation therefore bear directly on a question he will be called to advise the State Department upon if he is confirmed by the Senate.
Koh is strongly in favor of building what he describes as a “global gun control regime.” His starting point is that small arms and light weapons – essentially, any weapon that can be carried – are responsible for most of the deaths in the world’s wars. This is entirely correct. Unfortunately, that is where his realism ends.
Koh believes that small arms are responsible for “dramatically fuel[ing] and inflam[ing] armed conflicts.” This theory has been popular among liberals since the 1920s and the campaign against the ‘Merchants of Death’ who supposedly caused the First World War. But the argument has little to recommend it: wars, and the accumulation of arms, are the product of underlying political rivalries, not their cause. As Koh acknowledges, the Rwandan genocide was carried out with machetes: if the hatreds are there, weapons will be found.
But for Koh, the only relevant question is how to bring global gun control into existence. As throughout his work, he called for aid in 2002 from a “transnational legal process.” This process begins with liberal NGOs who create networks around a problem as they define it, and develop so-called norms of behavior. Governments then create a “law-declaring forum” that embodies these norms and operates at a global level, and a “broader interpretive community” crystallizes to interpret and promote the norms in “a variety of settings.” This “community,” which includes U.S. judges, then draws on the interpretations it has fashioned to remake law and practice in the American setting.
The crucial step in this process is the interpretation of the norms, because it is those interpretations – provided by that supportive “community” – that decide what domestic law means. In this view, international law is not bottom up: it does not reflect what democratic political processes within nations decide to accept. Rather, it is top down: it is born of transnational advocacy, and then “internalized” by “responsible lawyers, scholars, and human rights activists” to refashion domestic society. From this point of view, international law is a set of norms that exists to be interpreted by liberal law school professors in the U.S. This turns international law into an expression of aspirations, not of democratically-sanctioned practice: build it, Koh implies, and the world will be forced to come along.
This is not a vision that pays “due respect” to the right of self-government. On the contrary, it has no patience with the idea that law should be created solely by the duly-elected representatives of the people and interpreted according to the Constitution. As a result, for example, Koh’s claim that the U.S. could support global gun control “without committing itself to a regime that would affront legitimate Second Amendment concerns” is meaningless. Like the rest of the Constitution, the “legitimate” concerns inherent in the Second Amendment are up for transnational redefinition. But Koh is right about one thing: the process he describes has driven the campaign behind the arms trade treaty.
Yet that campaign, for reasons that reveal the practical fallacies of the transnationalist vision, is a dangerous one. The General Assembly’s resolution calls for the treaty to create “common international standards” for the sale, purchase, and transfer of arms. more
Most of the time when Code Pink speaks or interrupts a congressional hearing or in this case the AIPAC conference, it's hard to disagree with what they say. But do they stop short of the bottom line truth? Since the Pinkers always seem to gain access to wherever they want to go and without getting tasered and jailed for a long time as would happen to any of the rest of us, it always brings to mind if they are not part of the controlled opposition. Who funds them? They have a lot of cash. See here and here for a possible money trail.
No offense intended to the many local Code Pink activists, most of whom I think to be sincere. Just questioning the possibility that the funding may influence the national group in their agenda and how far they are allowed to go.
There were several protests during Shimon Peres' speech. In one of them, two people held up banners. CNN
Calls for Ending Occupation, Lifting Siege of Gaza, and Diplomancy with Iran
WASHINGTON - May 4 - During Israeli Pres. Shimon Peres' speech today at the annual AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action Committee) policy conference at the Washington Convention Center, CODEPINK members raised banners saying "Want Peace? End the Occupation," "What About Gaza?," and "No Money for War Crimes."
As the six activists were forcibly dragged away from the stage, they shouted similar phrases including "Tikun olam (Heal the world) for Gaza, too!", all meant to draw attention to widespread opposition to AIPAC's policies lobbied to Congress that include unconditional support and financing for Israel's militaristic policies including the recent devastating invasion of Gaza, building of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the separation wall, refusal to negotiate with the Palestinians' democratically elected representatives, and threats to attack Iran.
"The brutal invasion of Gaza was a breaking point for me and many American Jews," said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, who recently led a 60-person delegation to Gaza. "I was appalled by the devastation and the suffering I saw, particularly among the children. As a mother, I feel compelled to speak out against Israel's bombing of civilians and the ongoing siege that is so devastating to the lives of Gaza's 1.5 million people-most of whom are under 18."
While AIPAC claims to represent the U.S. Jewish community, its wholesale support of the Israel government goes against the majority opinions of the Jewish Americans. According to a recent survey by the Jewish lobby group J Street, 76 percent of American Jews support a two-state solution, 69 percent support negotiating with a Fatah-Hamas unity government, and 59 percent felt the Gaza invasion did not improve Israel's security.
"Like most American Jews, I grew up with a deep appreciation for the state of Israel," said Rae Abileah, a young American Jew of Israeli descent. "After witnessing the attack of Gaza on TV and hearing the calls for crippling sanctions on Iran, I can no longer avert my eyes to the other side of the story most rabbis still aren't talking about. I am joining the dozens of Jewish organizations, and the growing global movement, advocating a change in the Israeli policies of occupation and aggressive violence. It's high time to drop the victim narrative so that we may all survive, and one day thrive as neighbors."
CODEPINK activists inside the AIPAC conference (with its theme "Relationships Matter") were: Medea Benjamin, 56, Rae Abileah, 26, Blaine Clarke, 29, Christianna Reinstein, 21, Desiree Fairooz, 53, and Tighe Barry, 52.
"The most important relationships for Israel to cultivate are not with U.S. Congressional allies but with the Palestinian people," said Christianna Reinstein, a student of Middle Eastern studies who joined the protest inside the AIPAC conference today. "AIPAC's lobbying of Congress has not made Israel more secure and has hurt American efforts to improve relations in the Arab world." {source}
Medea...call AIPAC and those in Congress who support their agenda what they are...traitors to America.
First, the good news: The pro-freedom “movement” is seeing a dramatic growth spurt. All sorts of people, from all walks of life, are coming to realize that our “protector” government is the main thing that we need to be protected from. In fact, by all appearances, the movement is growing by leaps and bounds, especially among the younger generations. However …
What I see in the movement, including what I saw at Saturday’s “End the Fed” event, leaves me with mixed emotions. In my brief comments there, I didn’t want to be too blatant, lest I offend both the organizers and the spectators of the event, but the truth is, most of what the “movement” is focusing on is pointless and doomed to fail. The problem is this: Most people have been trained to view obedience as a virtue and have been taught to take pride in the fact that they are “law-abiding taxpayers” who “play by the rules.” And this is just as true of most of the people in the “movement.” As a direct result, they are focusing all of their energies on electing this or that candidate, or on lobbying for or against this or that legislation. In short, they continue to focus on asking tyrants to please give us permission to be free. And the message that that sends to those in government, more than whatever the people are actually “demanding,” is this: “We agree that we cannot be free without your blessing!”
Throughout most of the world, throughout most of history, saying what you think has been “illegal”; having the means to defend yourself has been “illegal”; in fact, anything other than unquestioning obedience to authority has been “illegal.” The vast majority of oppression and tyranny in history was done “legally.” But what does that even mean? All it means is that, before stomping on the peasants, the tyrants would formally proclaim, “We have the right to do this to you.” Likewise, resisting tyrannical governments has always been “illegal.” In fact, how could it not be? What tyrant would be so stupid as to say, “It’s okay, you’re allowed to disobey me”? But as obvious as that is, most people are still so indoctrinated into the notion that obedience to authority is a moral imperative, that even most of those who claim to be freedom-fighters frequently end their “demands” with “as long as it’s not illegal.” In other words, they will do all manner of noble fighting for justice, as long as they have the tyrants’ permission to do so. Well, duh. What good has that ever accomplished?
Quite a few people have, in the past few years, complained that I have “gone too far” with the whole “anarchy thing.” You see, they want a solution “within the system,” a way to change “the law” to restore our freedoms. They fail to notice the obvious logical contradiction: If you need the permission of “law” to be free, then by definition, you’re not free. It’s classic slave mentality: If you’re waiting around for your master to tell you that you’re allowed to be free (and how likely is that to happen?) then you are accepting your enslavement as just and legitimate. As such, you don’t really believe in freedom; you just want a nicer master.
I can’t decide if it’s encouraging or depressing to watch a room full of people “demanding” that their masters pass a “law” to let the people be free. And, whether out of fear or retaliation, or out of existential fear of not being good, obedient subjects, those people constantly throw in the qualifiers, “not violently, of course,” or “not by doing anything illegal, of course.” Why not? Obtaining freedom from tyranny is always “illegal” and almost always requires either violence or the threat of violence. All so-called “law,” including the heinously oppressive kind, is backed by the threat of violence. Not surprisingly, just about the only time such “legal” injustice is defeated is when its intended victims use defensive force to stop it.
The truth is, most people who say they are pro-freedom are still nowhere near shaking themselves of the slave mindset. They still view “breaking the law” as the most unthinkable sin, even when they acknowledge that the law is oppressive. Need proof? Suppose there were a rash of armed carjackings in some town, and the townsfolk got together to decide what to do about it. How many speeches would end with this? “so we must put an end to this crime … without violence, of course.” I’m guessing no one would say that. Why not? Because they would view the carjackings as entirely evil, and would view the forcible resistance of them as inherently justified. So why don’t they say the same about “government” thefts, frauds, and oppressions?
Because the truth is, as much as they don’t like getting whipped by the master, deep down they still believe that the master has the right to whip them. Why else would they waste time continually asking the master to stop? Why else would they qualify all their “demands” for their master’s kindness with something along the lines of, “but of course I won’t disobey you or lift a hand against you”?
In 1967, American Filmmaker and ONE WORLD conspiracy whistleblower Myron C. Fagan recorded three vinyl recording to warn America of the Illuminati's plan to create the communist threat to control the world political figures, financial combine and corporate media.
::::::::
Myron Coureval Fagan (31 October 1887 - 12 May 1972) was a Jewish American writer, producer and filmmaker. He arrived in New York in 1907, where he quickly became one of the youngest playwrights in American Theater. Over the years, Douglas Fairbanks, John Barrymore, Humphrey Bogart, Brian Donlevy and Robert Ryan were directed or appeared in his plays.
In 1916 Fagan took a break from the theater to served as Director of Public Relations for Republican Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes. When a similar offer was made in 1928 to him by Herbert Hoover he turned it down. He moved to Hollywood in 1930, where he served as a writer and director with Pathe Pictures, Inc., then owned by Joseph P. Kennedy, and also at 20th Century Fox, and other Hollywood Film Studios.
“Fifty men have run America, and that’s a high figure.” -Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, New York Times, July 1936 issue
In the mid 1940's Fagan launched a one-man crusade against what he claimed was a "Red Conspiracy in Hollywood". Out of this crusade would come the Cinema Educational Guild. The culmination of this crusade would be the 1947 congressional hearings where more than 300 famous stars, writers, and directors from Hollywood, Radio, and TV were investigated.
Fagan as a Jew was not privy at the time to what the real goal of Communism was all about. He soon came to know when in 1945, Fagan claimed he saw secret documents of the meetings in Yalta, shown to him by author John T. Flynn, that led him to write the plays 'Red Rainbow', and 'Thieves Paradise.' Written in 1945, 'Red Rainbow' portrays Roosevelt, Stalin and others in Malta plotting to deliver the Balkans, Eastern Europe and Berlin to Stalin. Left-wing groups in the New York opposed the production of the play and Fagan had difficulties getting financial backing to produce it. Fagan took the play to Hollywood were he encountered even more protests against it than he had in New York. "Red Rainbow" It was finally produced and ran for a short period of time at the Royal Theatre.
Written two years later, 'Thieves Paradise' portrays the same group plotting to create the United Nations as a Communist front for one world government. Despite opposition, 'Thieves Paradise' opened at the Las Palmas Theatre in Hollywood on December 26 1947. It starred actor Howard Johnson who was subject to a campaign of harassment so bitter and intense that it sent him to St. Vincent's Hospital with a nervous breakdown after six performances. Johnson's mother was also a subject of this campaign against him. These incidences were investigated and corroborated by both Actors' Equity and the American Board of Arbitration. Johnson, who had appeared in three films, never made another movie in Hollywood. 'Thieves Paradise' was also produced and staged at the El Patio theatre in Hollywood in April, 1948. It opened on April 12th, and, despite protest against it, was able to complete its run. This is also mentioned in an anti-communist speech, Luxurious Hollywood made in the same theater, on December 9, 1948, by an unknown reputed Hollywood insider wearing a black mask and calling himself Mr. X.
From this period onward Fagan did not produce any further work for stage or screen, instead he wrote anti-communist pamphlets, such as Hollywood Reds are On the Run, and bulletins for the remainder of his life.
The Eleventh Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities of the California Legislature said this of Fagan's anti-Communist lists, "But those who realized their mistake and left the front organizations in disgust and disillusionment are often still carried as subversives on the Fagan lists, and therein lies the danger from any unofficial organization that undertakes to publish lists of alleged subversive organizations and individuals. They do not have the facilities, nor the authority, nor the experience to handle these matters in an expert fashion and therefore they produce an enormous amount of harm by falsely accusing individuals who are not only loyal but who have profited greatly by their unfortunate experiences in having been lured into Communist-front groups."
Between 1967 and 1968 Fagan recorded 'The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations', three LP records documenting the activities of a secret society known as The Illuminati. Myron C. Fagan died on 12 May 1972 in Los Angeles, California, USA.
Fagan also goes into the Zionist aspect in the recordings. The term Zionist is discouraged on OpEdNews and the above article doesn't use it. Most of the information is from Wikipedia. The recordings are an interesting historical perspective and worth downloading and burning to CD.
Abraham Lincoln used to ask people: "How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?" They would answer: "Five." Lincoln would respond: "No, four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
Calling Israel and its lobbying arm AIPAC 'friend' instead of traitor does not make it a friend.
Blacks, Latinos, students and Christian Zionists comprise teams of 'useful idiots' in the deception of Israeli influence.
Policy Conference Draws Diverse Crowd
Policy Conference delegates prepare for three days of excitement and learning.
The pro-Israel movement in the United States is growing more diverse each year. Jews and non-Jews, religious and secular, African Americans and Latinos-all of them are here to show their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
At a breakout session called "Emerging Alliance" three African American leaders-a pastor, a business man and a civil rights icon-will explain how African Americans and Jews can unite around their common love of Israel.
In addition, dozens of pastors are attending the conference, which for the third year in a row features programming specifically designed for Christian supporters of the Jewish state. A panel discussion called "Faithful Allies: What Motivates Pro-Israel Christians" will examine the roots of Christian Zionism.
Nearly 200 rabbis and cantors from across the United States are also in attendance. They will be treated to a special track of programming that includes a lunch with renowned historian Dr. Michael Oren and other networking opportunities.
And for the fifth year in a row, the Policy Conference is welcoming more than 100 pro-Israel activists from Europe, Turkey, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Central America.
These delegates from abroad will participate in the International Visitors Program, a track of forums and training sessions designed to help guests hone their ability to advocate for strong relations between their home countries and Israel.
Student Activists Turn Out in Force
Students register for Policy Conference 2009.
On many campuses around the country, May 3-5 is right in the middle of final exams. But more than 1,000 students from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, including a record high number of 193 Student Government Association (SGA) presidents and 200 high-school students, are refusing to let a few tests get in the way of AIPAC Policy Conference 2009. Indeed, they have turned out in force.
The 193 SGA presidents attending are the largest known gathering of student elected officials on any issue this year. The presidents hail from an eclectic array of campuses, including Northwestern, UC San Diego, Tufts, Vanderbilt, Brigham Young, Florida International and Morehouse College.
In addition to joining community delegates for plenaries, breakout sessions and the Gala Banquet, students will participate in a variety of specialized sessions. One highlight is the AIPAC Campus Awards Ceremony, which honors exceptional pro-Israel students and campus professionals from more than a dozen schools and organizations.
Other student-specific events include a lunch forum bringing together African American student activists and community leaders; a campus leadership dinner with College Democrats, College Republicans and SGA presidents; and a reception for high-school delegates. {more}
WASHINGTON (JTA) – U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will close this year’s AIPAC policy conference.
The announcement from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee came Saturday, the day before the start of its signature affair, drawing close to 7,000 delegates and ending in a blockbuster lobbying session on Tuesday afternoon.
Biden will address the closing session on Tuesday morning; that speaker is customarily seen as the motivator who endorses AIPAC’s legislative package and rallies delegates to sell it on Capitol Hill.
Biden, who throughout his long career as a U.S. senator from Delaware was regarded as pro-Israel in principle, has clashed with AIPAC in the past on tactics.
“AIPAC does not speak for the entire American Jewish community,” Biden said during last year’s campaign after Republicans criticized him for bucking AIPAC on Iran sanctions votes. “There’s other organizations as strong and as consequential.”
He later made up with the organization, and has served as one of the Obama administration’s principle emissaries to the organized Jewish community.
President Obama and Michelle come back to the White House via Marine One after the New York date.
