Monday, June 30, 2008

war by way of deception trailer

From: Ryantineocons
Added: June 29, 2008

I am so sick of hearing the poisonous disinfo about illuminati/german death cult/black pope/Ashkenazi etc.

911 was a joint US Israeli false flag. But the 911 kook movement makes it so that people will not speak out.


September 11: ANOTHER False Flag Israeli Operation?

More Blood Money from Our Democratic Congress and Democratic Presidential Candidate

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and supplies.

When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.

Iraq Vets, too, should not overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left stranded in battle zones overseas.

It didn’t have to be like this.

For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from workers and the labor movement.

For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.

This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the votes would have been there to override any Bush veto. Neither measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to a war-funding bill.

But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming campaign.

Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all, become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes to pass a bill the second time around.

Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”

Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.” (With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’ time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems. They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.

Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.

And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a $95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel. They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in the summer.

The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.

The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating bills for their families at home.

Equally important, the $162 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global warming.

The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless. It is part of the problem. That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this contemptible funding bill.

The Deafening Silence...

Monday, June 30, 2008

Phaedrus the ever-increasing surge of seriously disturbing accusations being leveled at our old friends, the Jews, it is rather curious indeed that their direct responses have been so remarkably distant and detached. Now please don't misunderstand Phaedrus here. We are all well aware that they're screaming "anti-Semitism!" at the top of their shrill little voices at those of us who seek to expose the truth about them and their very curious history. Nothing too surprising about that, of course. And not only that, but they're lobbying their pet governments in the West to introduce ever more ingeniously-contrived 'Hate Crime' laws to prevent legitimate researchers into the Jewish Problem from communicating their shocking findings to a wider audience. Speaking the truth is becoming increasingly criminalized. Anyone and everyone who speaks in negative terms about the Jews must be trussed-up and gagged by any means possible. Now this situation will strike a lot of people as downright unfair, not least for the reasons I set out below.

It's not odd at all, however, that the Jews would like to see all opposition to them crushed; that's only to be expected. But the really curious thing that is awakening suspicions among even some Liberals, is that these extremely broad, blanket responses are their SOLE weapon of choice against us. This limited technique of theirs works fine when the opposition against them is patchy, insufficiently motivated and improperly informed. They can push for censorship on the grounds that ignorant bigots are spreading lies about them just because they're a minority race of people who are simply misunderstood. And for a long, long time now, that's worked well for them. But lately, things are beginning to change. In the face of a absolute firestorm of lurid accusations swirling around about them on the internet, one thing is increasingly obvious by its total absence: any effort to directly engage their accusers face-to-face.

The Jews simply WILL NOT discuss specific allegations. Curiously, they choose not to defend themselves in the way you or I would INSIST upon, were it we that were on the receiving end of such endless diatribes. Now at first, this could be explained away (and it was) by simply claiming that the Jews didn't want to 'provide a platform for racists.' In the early days (pre-internet) that excuse was widely accepted among the sheeple, who dutifully nodded their heads in unison with this noble sentiment. After all, back then it did seem a perfectly plausible reason. But as time has worn on and the accusations only grow louder and more insistent, to continue to remain silent increasingly seems to imply that they are unable to discuss these matters for the simple reason that they CANNOT counter them; the accusations (crazy sounding that they may be to the uninformed) are NOT baseless. They are grounded in vast stacks of high quality documentary evidence which when put before a Jew would leave him stultified with no answers and nowhere to run. Hence they resort to blanket denials which are not open to cross-examination, and increasing efforts to gag us through the courts.

We see a form of this vigorous avoidance of the pertinent questions every year on Holocau$t Memorial Day. Endlessly we re-live the terrible suffering of the poor Jews at the hands of those terrible Nazis, yet, bizarrely, no mention is EVER made of WHAT precisely it was about the Jews that made Hitler act towards them in such a draconian way. Have you ever heard an old German soldier recounting WHY he was told to seek out Jews? You haven't? Me neither. So we never get to the hear the OTHER side. And this outstanding omission becomes more and more obvious with every Holocau$t retrospective we're forced to endure. Things happen for a REASON, and the Holocau$t was no exception. It takes an enormous amount of pent-up anger and resentment on the part of one set of people to treat another set of people so harshly. What were the underlying resentments behind this antipathy? We are NEVER told. All we ARE told is that the Jews were victims of a terrible program to wipe them all out. No background for this is ever provided by the mainstream media. We are simply expected not to pick-up on this fundamental question.

If you or I were accused of half the things the Jews have been accused of (financing endless wars, corrupting society, sacrificing young children in quasi-satanic ceremonies, drinking the blood of those whom they are about to kill, poisoning the desert wells of their neighbors, murdering Palestinian children for the fun of it, stealing land that doesn't belong to them, being out for their own selfish gain regardless of the consequences to others, false flag attacks against the US to drag us into their never-ending foreign wars to name but a few of their many unique qualities) then I'm damn certain WE would DEMAND the right to confront our accusers so we could PROVE them liars and/or madmen for the entire world to see - and put and end to such 'vile rumors' for ever. It's becoming increasingly odd to folks that the Jews response is simply to try to put these allegations beyond debate by generating taboos around them. One would have thought (if they had nothing to hide) that they would have been only too happy after so many thousands of years of being reviled and persecuted, to avail themselves of a great opportunity to set the record straight. Yet they won't. And I believe now that ordinary people are beginning to wonder - why the deafening silence?

GM Foods: The U.S. Fights Mandatory Labeling in An Untested Human Experiment

Monday, June 30, 2008 by: Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D.

) The U.S. and several other nations recently attended a Codex meeting in Calgary, Canada to discuss food labeling. The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discuss the necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set up mandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (genetically engineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required to undergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market. Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
"FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure the safety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarket approval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used to ensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions of section 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers to ensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and comply with all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a food from the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derived from new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering will be regulated under this authority as well" [1].

Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completely untested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a) the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of its prepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every other nation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are put into the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as "lethal" and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa.

During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codex provide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a 10-page document expressing this view. In this document the following critical points were made:

1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews

a. Corruption of Divine Protection

South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there are various religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes to ingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these "religious and ethical concerns must be noted and respected through global mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering and biotechnology must take into account ethical and religious concerns" [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews and Halal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eating had been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarians would certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animal genes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if this was the case.

B. Moral and Ethical Protection

SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization) assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights of Christian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling is essential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, a Christian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well as all living creatures (including food), then a serious ethical concern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modified foods but had no realistic way to do so.

2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects

a. Psychological and Emotional Health

SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violate the principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protect the health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foods stated that, "some customers may experience strong ethical, religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certain foods. These perceived risks may influence their health. These aspects of health should also be considered when the needs for new standards are discussed"[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foods should be mandatory under such an assumption.

B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods

Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significant concern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoid such food out of legitimate concern for their well-being. Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into the consumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evinced from animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in every organ (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food. Additionally, numerous studies have shown many deleterious short and long-term effects from the consumption of GM/GE foods. For example, spermicide-containing corn, which was developed with funds from the USDA, and results in complete sterility in males has been rampant in the food chain for some time. Without proper labeling of these types of foods, there is no way to protect the fertility of males. Several other recent studies are detailed below:

* In 2005 and 2006, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats who were fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced an excessive number of stunted pups with over 50% of them dying within three weeks. The other half were all sterile. This experiment was repeated several times with the same result [3].

* Between 2005 and 2006 in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradech in India, thousands of sheep died while grazing on residues from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a type of bacteria which is toxic to some types of insects) cotton crops [4].

* In 2003, villagers in the Philippines' south suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower. At least five have died and many villagers tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein while others still remain chronically ill [5].

* Between 2001 and 2002, 12 cows died in Hesse, Germany after consuming Syngenta GM maize (Bt176), while many others had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses [6].

* From 2002 to 2005, researchers from four Italian universities published articles indicating that GM soya adversely affected pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice [5].

* In 2005, Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor-1) caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and elicited increased dietary sensitivities to other proteins when transferred to peas [7].

* In 1998, researchers reported damage to every organ system of young rats who were fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin [8]. In the same year, researchers in Egypt found analogous effects on the guts of mice fed Bt potato [9].

* In 2002, Aventis, later named Cropscience, submitted research to regulators in the U.K. reporting that chicken fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group [10].

C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence

SA contend that plants genetically modified may not be nutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possess toxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information for such foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrient could be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may be present, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concluded that the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm of non-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.

D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling

Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved... All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment" [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA's paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.


1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA's Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: ( .

2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: (( .

3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society, 33: (in press).

4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.

5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.

6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.

7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science in Society, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.

8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish Agricultural College, J.P.F. D'Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International: Edinburgh.

9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.

10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.

11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.

12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.

About the author

Dr. Gregory Damato enjoys a vegan lifestyle while residing in Perth, Western Australia and runs a Quantum Biofeedback clinic treating various clients ranging from autism to cancer. He is currently authoring a book for parents educating on the dangers of vaccines, chemical toxicity in toys, the effects of EMFs and EMRs and other hidden dangers and ways to combat rising childhood illness and neurological disease by naturally building immunity, detoxification, nutrition and energetic medicine. His website is:

Prosecute George Bush for Murder

then Cheney and on down the list including most in Congress and the enablers in the media.
Art by David Dees -,,,,,,Dees Archive

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

Bugliosi: The Prosecution of George W Bush for Murder Pt. 2


Monday, June 30, 2008

Damian Lataan

A website calling itself ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ seems to have certain characteristics that look suspiciously like neoconservative propaganda websites. Even the opening background colour is almost identical to the old Project for the New American Century website indicating, perhaps, that the same webmaster is behind this website.

debunking9/ is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments.

But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

Take, for example, this on the ‘Osama bin Laden’ page of their website:
“Conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off.’ Let's forget for a minute how racist that statement is”.

Firstly, of course, one needs to ask; what conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn't have pulled this off’? Trying to cast those that doubt the US government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as ‘racists’ is a classic neoconservative tactic used because of the connotations of the word ‘racist’ has with ‘anti-Semitism’.

The other classic attribute that gives the website its distinctive neoconservative characteristic is the way it attempts to belittle and demonise those that advocate alternative scenarios to the events of 9/11. The website even has a page dedicated to attacking Professor Steven E. Jones and Professor David Ray Griffin as well as others that have put forward ideas that are not in line with the government’s version of events.

One has to ask who has paid for this professionally put together and very sophisticated yet transparently propagandising website. Only dedicated neoconservatives with a political agenda of trying to prevent the truth of the events of 9/11 being exposed would go to such great lengths as producing such an obvious propaganda website. One can only assume that those seeking the truth must be on to something for the neocons to put this much effort into trying to prevent the truth from being revealed.
posted by Damian Lataan

John McCain is an Unstable, Hot Headed Liar, Unfit to be President

Monday, June 30, 2008

Len Hart

Calling a Republican a liar is redundant. It's known by definition. As Will Rogers said of a New Deal plan to 'teach hogs birth control', it's become a habit with them. McCain's pathology is different. He's thin-skinned, hot-tempered and out of control. McCain cannot be trusted with nukes. In an infantile temper-tantrum, McCain can be trusted to inflame the world at the end of a macho show of penis power!

McCain can't get his stories straight and will throw a temper tantrum at the drop of hat --not to be trusted with nukes! For example, he is quoted on Huffington as favoring letting Wall Street enrich itself with the money's that you pay into Social Security.
Without privitization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.
But for another audience, he told a completely different story:
I'm not for, quote, privatize Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.

--Huffington Post
His careless remarks of political expedience with regard to Social Security reveal him to be a typical 'authoritarian' conservative --a psychopath, in other words. He doesn't really care about how the government misappropriates monies paid into SS of whether or not that money will be there when you are ready to retire. Among his biggest windys are the whoppers he told about Iraq.
The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.

A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.

Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.

The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.

It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”

The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."--McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed
McCain reminds one of Nixon who always like to portray himself has having been abuse by the mean ol' media. I have news for McCAin and address the following observation to him personally: no one asked you to get into politics, unless, of course, it was a lobby group who wanted to own you! No one I know is obligated to you in any way. No one I know has a reason NOT to call you an lyin' asshole if the monicker applies. It does:
During an interview yesterday, Fox News’s Carl Cameron asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if it was a “mistake” for McCain to say he knows little about the economy. But McCain denied that he had made any such suggestion, arguing that his past comments were taken “out of context”:

CAMERON: Realistically, was it a mistake for you to suggest that overall your attentiveness to the economy is subordinated by national security?

MCCAIN: As briefly as possible, when you’re on the back of the bus for hours with the media if they want to take a phrase out of context thats fine, thats one of the penalties you pay.
Watch it (beginning at 1:52):

Taken “out of context?” How many times can McCain be taken out of context? Aside from the fact that when viewed at face value, his comments speak for themselves, McCain has said he knows little about the economy on numerous occasions, as recently as last December:

– Seeking to explain his shift to the left on economic issues, McCain claimed: “I didn’t pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a ’supply-sider’ based on the fact that I really didn’t jump into the issue.” [Jan. 2000]

– “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” [Nov. 2005]

– “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” but “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” [Dec. 2007]

In fact, McCain’s interview with Cameron wasn’t the first time he has denied claiming his economic knowledge is sub-par. NBC’s Tim Russert asked him about his “I still need to be educated” on economics claim last January but McCain dodged, saying “I don’t know where you got that quote.” When Russert asked McCain about the same quote three days later, McCain acknowledged he said it, but never claimed he was taken out of context. McCain simply replied, “Am I, am I smart on economics? Yes.”--McCain Claims Lack Of Economics Knowledge Comments Were Taken ‘Out Of Context’
No one ever called McCain an intellectual. Nevertheless, McCain must feel obliged to subscribe to GOP orthodoxy --'supply side economics'. The GOP and thus GOP Presidential aspirants are always in need of any ideology that will justify the state theft of your money via unfair taxation, most prominently tax cuts which benefit only about ten percent of the population.

'Supply-side' economics is like a vampire. It shows up on the GOP dark side whenever a gopper is desperate to justify transferring your money to rich folk. Supply-side economics, otherwise known as 'trickle down theory', is awaiting someone with a sharp wooden stake who will drive it deep into the very heart of Republican orthodoxy. Thus far, I am reminded of the lyrics from "Hotel California" by the Eagles: "They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can't kill the beast!"
John McCain is a recent convert to supply-side economics and still working on getting the talking points down. Speaking yesterday in South Carolina, the straight talker:
proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues."
What? Every time? Okay, how about we go back and look at the last time taxes were raised -- 1993. It's true that conservatives predicted revenue would fall as a result of the tax hike. (Typical quote: "Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues" -- Newt Gingrich.) But it didn't exactly work out that way ... The amazing thing is that New York Times, which printed McCain's quote, made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the truth of his point. Just the typical, "McCain says earth is flat, and meanwhile in other news..." stuff. I realize that campaign reporting is hard, and reporters don't usually have time to check on the truth of candidate's statements. (And yes, this is a huge flaw with reporting, but that's another story.) But this claim is so obviously false it could have been refuted after maybe thirty seconds of research. Didn't the author (Michael Cooper) realize that tax hikes don't always, or even usually, lead to reduced revenue? Does he remember the 1990s? Is he aware that the federal government raised taxes and started collecting dramatically higher revenues during World War II? (Taxes were raised and revenues quintipled.)--The New Republic
The typical GOPPER will believe that tax cuts raise revenue because it makes them 'feel better' about themselves, phrase heard from the floor of the 1992 GOP National Convention in Houston, TX. Of course, it's not true. The opposite almost always happens; that misses the point. The point is the ideology is not believed because it's true but because: 1) it gives the elite base the cover it needs to escape taxation; 2) it makes crooks feel better about being crooks and liars about being liars; 3) it enriches the elite one percent with pretensions of 'intellectualism' in a party that disdains the intellectual but is in need of one to quote during a debate! Tax revenues will rise over time anyway due to inflation and economic growth. There is no guarantee, of course, that 'economic growth' is, or ever has been, egalitarian. Certainly, when policy favors the nation's elite economic growth, the elite alone will benefit. It's a tautology and the record proves that the transfer of wealth and income upward began with the infamous tax cut of Ronald Reagan in 1982. It continues to this day, made worse, aggravated by Bush's bone-headed 'Presidency'.

Eagles: "Hotel California"
...still trying to stab the beast with their steely knives!

'Because killing people is what we do'

Letter to Joe Bageant

I want to share a chance encounter I had last weekend while visiting my brother in southern Ohio. My trips there invariably involve our stopping at various pubs in several surrounding communities. Late Saturday night we visited the pub whose owner my brother considers to be a good friend -- except for his politics. But the guy has a good heart. And he tells funny stories. And he is a good guitar player. He even supplied and “ran” the fireworks display at our parents’ 50th anniversary party a number of years ago. But this particular evening, I don'’t even remember how my brother and I “got started” with him regarding politics,– the military, the war, blah, blah.

It was an unusual night at that pub because just the three of us were there. Usually, it’'s crowded, the juke box is playing, and guys and gals are playing pool in a back room. A few people eventually wandered in. Our friend, tending bar that night because his “help” didn'’t show up, served them and came back to us to continue our debate that got louder and louder. Mainly because my brother and I had already had a few beers.

After a while, the gentleman sitting next to me (to whom we had not directed any conversation) got up, started walking out, and peered at us saying, "“If we don’t fight them there, we'’ll have to fight them here."” Same old. Same old. I didn’'t reply.

Back to the bartender. Next, the only other two people there, a young couple, walked by to leave the establishment. The bartender was probably figuring at that point that we might be driving business away, but he didn'’t stop arguing with us. The young man looked our way as he was leaving, saying something (I can’'t remember exactly what) about Iraq and his having been in Iraq four times. Although I knew better, I replied with some comment about the immorality of the invasion and occupation. His wife at that point angrily kept repeating the fact that her husband had been in Iraq four times.– I guess she expected that we should thank him for that, and when we didn'’t, she was upset. The couple ended up staying in the pub, and the four of us argued debated.

Now, a few days later, I remember only three things the vet said: The old, "“If you don'’t like it here, just leave."” And, "“I hope you die before I do."” I couldn'’t– and still can'’t figure that one out. If he would have just said "“I hope you die"” I would have “gotten it.” But why is it a good thing that I die before he does?

But, then he said incredible thing and this is really why I am writing this to you. My brother and I kept asking the bartender and the couple, "Why? Why? Why are we there? Why are we doing this?" And, of course, we chimed in oil, empire, Israel. And this is what he said:


I know it’s a cliché to say it, but I almost fell off my bar seat. I told him another cliché, "“You hit the nail on the head. I agree with you completely.”" I didn'’t get the feeling he was mocking us. In fact, he seemed satisfied that he came up with a reason.

He then quizzed me about the number of deaths in Iraq, Vietnam and World War Two. At first I didn'’t understand where this was going, but his point was, "Hey, only 4,000 some Americans have been killed compared to 50,000 in Vietnam." And, of course, there was absolutely no mention of the Vietnamese or Iraqi dead.

I don'’t know why this exchange continues to haunt me. I never really “talk politics” in redneck country. I even hate that we use the word “politics” to describe the concept. As you know, a lot of people like to say, "“Oh, I don'’t do politics.”" To me, that’s like saying “I don’t do life.”

At any rate, that was days ago and I am still thinking about what he said. I'’m not even angry. I never got hateful with him or his wife. I never “attacked” him personally. Maybe this stays with me because I realize my alienation from most Americans (including and especially my "liberal" friends) and my culture has reached grotesque proportions. I had already lost all hope, which I think is rational so I don'’t know why this is staying with me. Do you believe it? THAT’S WHAT WE DO. AMERICA KILLS PEOPLE.

Thanks for listening. I wanted to go to Belize before I die, but now I figure I'’ll be lucky to make it to West Virginia. I need to find a cave near a stream. I love to read emails from your fans. One email from a fan of yours stays with me. This one I have saved:

“"As a weirdo and a life-long contrarian, I can say that it isn't easy to go against the herd, and the pay and hours suck. You lose much of your social interaction since you don't have much to talk about with other people once you stop believing in the collective mass-hypnosis."”

Best to you.


Monkey theories

Written by Andrew Winkler, The Rebel Media Group
Monday, 30 June 2008


The ideology of globalisation is based on the assumption that if every good and service is produced wherever it can be done the cheapest, everybody is better off. The reason provided for that ‘counter-intuitive’ assumption is that this is the most efficient way of producing those goods and services. There is obviously little concern for the livelihood of the workers who – as a consequence of these ‘efficiency gains’ - see their jobs being exported to slave labour countries such as China or India.

By the way, the same monkey promoting the globalisation ideology, head of Harvard Business School Professor Gregory Mankiw, also wants us to believe that safety belts are the cause for the increase in fatal car accidents, because it encourages car drivers to be less careful. Isn’t it far more likely that the increases in number of registered cars, horsepower and speed are the causes for more road accidents? Could it be that Mankiw’s safety seat belt theory has something to do with the regular donations of big corporations such as Ford and General Motors to prestigious universities such as Harvard?

Free Trade

Gregory Mankiw’s ‘globalisation’ is an update on Adam Smith’s ‘free trade’. Both concepts are euphemisms for the ‘rule of the jungle’ or ‘survival of the fittest’. In the past, powerful countries such as Britain, France and the U.S. have been abusing their military power to force weaker countries to provide them with cheap raw materials and open their markets for Western goods, destroying local trade and livelihoods. These days, the same countries are using the impoverished populations of those weaker countries as cheap labour with conditions not unlike those of early 19th century capitalism.

If free trade wasn’t just a disguise for economic plunder, powerful economies such as the U.S. and the E.U. wouldn’t make exemptions wherever it suits them. A lot of third world countries would be much better off if their exports to Western markets wouldn’t be hampered by tariffs and quantitative restrictions.

As long as economic hit men working for the World Bank and regional ‘development’ banks run around giving third world country leaders the choice between a bullet in the head and a Swiss bank account, ‘Free trade’ will always remain a one way street, unless of course the products are made under the brand of a Western multinational.

Slave labour and environmental vandalism

A lot of people think that the motivation behind globalisation was slave labour and environmental vandalism. Both obviously play a major role when justifying to shareholders why moving production of Western manufacturing companies to countries like China, but any second year business school student should know that this is foolish short-sighted thinking. Once one or two major players in an industry have reduced their costs by moving production to a third world country, all its competitors are forced to do the same in order to remain competitive. At the end of the process, all companies are back in the same situation as before, only on a lower price level.

The real motivation behind globalisation

If neither Western shareholders nor workers benefit from globalisation, who benefits from it and what’s their motivation? Unemployment and wage pressure makes Western workers more vulnerable and less likely to rebel against our ruling crime families. One of the biggest hurdles to the role out of the New World Order used to be the level or unionisation and rebelliousness of Western working class people. By moving production to countries where these hurdles don’t exist, Western unions have been reduced to the function of social clubs and have seized to be a political force. If democracy wasn’t the hoax it is, politicians would look first after the interests of their electorates, not that of some supremacist bankers in the cities of London and New York. For our own sake and that of future generations, we have to put an end to this ruse.

Andrew Winkler is the editor/publisher of Sydney based dissident blogs, Jews Anonymous and Power of No . He can be contacted at editor@ziopedia.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . This article is part of a series providing practical suggestions how to effectively fight against the New World Order written for the Power of No site.

Source: Power of No

Isn't it Time that You Joined the Revolution?

Monday, June 30

Les Visible

We don’t have guns. We don’t have banks. We don’t have storm-troopers and we don’t have a powerful media.

What we have is our convictions, our courage and our potential. We’ve done a lot of research and we’ve done a lot of talking and writing. What we have not done is taken the next step toward calculated revolution. A revolution always begins with ideas and ideals. These power the willing and cause the ranks to swell. Sometimes, often… the revolution becomes subverted and when the tables are turned the same people are still sitting there. This is simplistic but most of you have a grasp of the minutiae and some sense of history; real history.

A couple of entries ago I asked for icons and images that could be put on stickers and made available for public viewing. Of course, I would never presume to suggest or encourage anyone to actually become proactive in a way that was illegal according to the laws of the ruling junta of psychopaths who did the dirty deeds and who spread the ugly lies. Let’s just be hypothetical and trust to our individual imaginations. I cannot know what you might imagine. But we shall see.

Some of you have sent in prototypes, which I hope will obtain some further polish if needed and find their way to this blog again where they will be made available to those who might see some further use for them. The dissimilar image was sent in by ‘notamobster’ and the two similar images were sent in by ‘Ang’. Shouldn’t these inspire further efforts? Yes… I think they should.

This is a beginning and it is my hope that this will inspire other creations that will lead to a further exercise of the creative imagination. We hold these truths to be self-evident. We the people are the revolution. We are each of us ‘V’ for Vendetta. We are an army of subversive possibility. One can only imagine the effect of things like this appearing on the backs of bus seats and in subway cars; as bumper stickers on any and all conveyances, as fliers and posters, on store windows and bulletin boards, on military vehicles in Iraq, on the apartheid wall, in national parks, in government buildings, on park benches, as blog icons, as a growing, visible cry for justice and for truth. Only you can know the multiple, byzantine possibilities that wait upon your will.

We have at our disposal a myriad of opportunities to make a difference in every day. What should be the result of seeing these stickers? Of course, the stickers present possibilities but they should also inspire one to imagine other possibilities. There is a wealth of opportunity at our disposal.

Imagine the world awash in images that appear around every corner. Imagine how far beyond this your imagination can take you. Imagine and act. We have nothing to fear but the fearmongers themselves and we don’t have to fear them because their whole house of cards is built on lies.

Let us begin to see ourselves as agents of the truth. It is a country that lives in the mind, which desires to materialize in form and flesh. We are the citizens of that unseen country. We must manifest it out of the wreckage of this vicious fire sale in which we presently reside. We know who the bad guys are.

Begin here. Begin with this and then carry it on into new extrapolations. Every one of us is a leader. Every one of us is an insurgent and a freedom fighter. Every one of us is every one of us. Sticker the world for truth and freedom. Hunger for justice and act accordingly. We have not used our imaginations. We have believed ourselves to be helpless and alone. We cannot conceive of any effort we might make against the appearance of such a pervasive and powerful machine.

Please help with images. Please use your imaginations. Please make one small effort every day to bring the truth before the eyes of the world. We are the real power. We are not meant to be slaves of a conscienceless minority who drinks the blood of children and dances upon the bones of the dead. I will leave you with your imaginations and a quiet moment in which to inquire of yourself… Quo Vadis?

Cave Dei Videt…

My Pickup Truck got Pregnant

Government's Perennial Enemy

by George F. Smith

Exclusive to STR

June 30, 2008

The gold standard, Ludwig von Mises wrote, “requires nothing else than that the government abstain from deliberately sabotaging it.” [p. 421] Much to the detriment of civilization, governments have undermined and debased the gold standard throughout much of history. With the aid of a state-sympathetic class of intellectuals, most educated people now regard monetary gold as a quaint contrivance of a bygone age--to the extent they give the issue any thought at all. Any suggestion that we adopt an authentic gold standard as a permanent solution to financial crises, dollar depreciation, and senseless wars is dismissed by the intelligentsia as hopelessly naive.

Of course we need the Fed, they tell us. Of course we need the power inherent in an instantly “accommodating” currency. That’s why Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act. That’s why we were able to send so many conscripted youths to Churchill in World War parts I & II. That’s why we were able to keep prices from falling and assist the overvalued British pound during the 1920s [pp. 48-49]. That’s why we ultimately outlawed real money in favor of political paper, so government could be unrestrained financially in dealing with any problem anywhere. Funding government through taxation is never enough because the victims might retaliate. What’s needed is what we have: the arcane subterfuge of a cloistered cartel. What’s needed is a central bank quietly mulcting the masses while it feeds the world’s power-holders. That way nobody revolts. Not only don’t they revolt, not only don’t they pick up a $7 book that would explain what the hell’s going on, they take Friedman’s cue that leviathan and its bank will protect us against the horrors of depression. The Fed is simply one of many government mechanisms for making freedom work. Without it we’d be thrown back into the dark ages of the 19th century. That it happens to engage “all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction,” is not a problem for political insiders.

War’s paymaster

The Greek philosopher Heraclitus wrote, “You cannot step into the same river twice.” But then, Heraclitus hadn’t met George W. Bush, who’s itching to step into another calamitous war.

Foreign military adventures are costly in many ways, but the government’s printing press sees to it that Americans don’t get billed for the damages until well after the bombing gets underway. And even then we don’t actually see a bill because the costs have worked their way into the things we buy. The central bank/fiat money combination is an ingenious method of funding wars. Americans find very little troubling about a bloodbath conducted thousands of miles from home that’s promoted as noble and given to them “free.” Later, as the people grouse about higher prices, government can continue to pose as their savior by ordering its helicopter to make a quick pass over Main Street and stringing up a few choice speculators and corporate CEOs.

The Fed is the perfect tool of tyranny, almost.

“Almost,” because there’s a problem, one annoying protestor quietly calling attention to its egregious ways: government’s perennial enemy, gold. Government has banned it, hoarded it, and publicly downplays its significance. But the more money government prints, the more it cheats dollar holders, and the greater the demand for gold on world markets. Prior to FDR’s confiscation order of 1933, twenty dollars (roughly) would buy an ounce of gold. By mid-March of this year, an ounce of gold was selling for over a thousand dollars. Gold dropped in price but has now started to climb again and is currently over $925. Some analysts expect gold to match the Dow, and if the Fed sticks with stagflation rather than deflation or high inflation, the gold price could realistically reach $10,000. In any case, we’re talking about a devastating government crime.

And we’re the ones being devastated. Want to wreck liberty or what little of it exists? Become president, pick a fight, and inflate the currency to pay for it. Gary North:

Barbarism began in the twentieth century when World War I broke out in 1914. Within weeks, the commercial banks suspended redeemability in gold. The governments authorized this, and then had their central banks confiscate the confiscated gold from the commercial banks. The degree of barbarism that the war produced could not have been accomplished had a gold standard been in force. The public would have stripped the banks of the public’s gold. The governments would have had to come to terms with the enemy.

It was the abandonment of the gold standard that made modern barbarism affordable. [Emphasis added]

What did North say? He said this:

It was the abandonment of the gold standard that made modern barbarism affordable.

Remember it, and remember why it’s true. Gold doesn’t emerge from a printing press. Gold cannot be mass produced to fund an “energetic presidency.” That’s why governments have no use for it.

In the case of World War I, the barbarism the gold standard could have prevented to a significant degree amounted to over 40 million casualties, including 19.7 million civilian and military deaths combined. But that, of course, was only the beginning of the blood-soaked twentieth century -- a period in which state funding was and still is unrestrained by the “barbarous relic.”

The combination of war and inflation is the surest way to advance statism, nor was the American Revolution and its inflation one of history’s sterling exceptions. Read the excellent study by Leonard L. Richards, Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle. Inflation led to rebellion, which led to widespread misrepresentation of the rebellion’s cause, which led to the Constitutional Convention to strengthen the central state. (My review of Richards’ book is here.)

Sound money safeguards

It’s very difficult to inflate sound money because sound money, by its nature, is difficult to create. It emerges in trade as a highly marketable commodity, but one that’s also relatively scarce. Sound money starves the state but not the economy as long as prices are allowed to fluctuate. Yet there was once some confusion about gold’s character. As Mises wrote:

When in the 'fifties of the nineteenth century gold production increased considerably in California and Australia, people attacked the gold standard as inflationary. . . But later these criticisms subsided. The gold standard was no longer denounced as inflationary but on the contrary as deflationary. [p. 416]

It was considered insufficiently “elastic” (deflationary) even during the period 1896-1914, when gold discoveries in Alaska and South Africa spurred an annual inflation rate of two percent [see note 1]. But clearly, the objections to a gold standard were not so much based on its alleged inflationary or deflationary tendencies but on the fact that the market controlled its supply, rather than politicians and their pals in the fractional reserve banking racket. Quoting Mises again:

It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of rights. [p. 414]

But constitutions and bills of rights are the products of government and are subject to government’s shifting interpretations. We should never let politicians or central bankers “interpret” anything for us, especially money. An authentic gold standard would be entirely removed from state influence, and for that reason would afford much-needed protection against government assaults on our liberty.


By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
June 30, 2008

[Note: Why would the power elite want Senator Barack Obama rather than Senator Clinton as the Democrat nominee for President? It may be so that Senator McCain will win. Sen. Obama has a tremendous amount of “baggage.” In 1995, there was a fundraiser for Obama held at the home of William Ayers (Chicago Police Department mug shot IR 213710 on August, 27, 1968) and his wife Bernadine Dohrn (Chicago Police Department mug shot IR 246022 on August 26, 1969). Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist and Obama must have known this. One of Obama’s fellow community organizers in Chicago, Mike Kruglik, said Obama was “the undisputed master of agitation” (THE NEW REPUBLIC, March 19, 2007). Relevant to the power elite’s “managers” of Obama, one of his prominent advisors looking for his vice-presidential running mate is Richard Danzig (Rhodes Scholar and former Rockefeller Foundation Fellow, and law clerk for Rhodes Scholar and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White). Danzig was also Secretary of the Navy under President Clinton – so much for Obama’s theme of “change,” about which we constantly hear. It reminds one of Jimmy Carter’s ad in 1976 which said: “In the beginning, Jimmy Carter’s campaign was a lonely one.

But through the months, more and more people recognized him as a new leader, a man who would change the way this country was run – a competent man who can make government open and efficient, but above all an understanding man who can make ours a government of the people once again. Jimmy Carter – a leader for a change.” Since we know the disastrous “change” Carter brought us, the power elite could set up Obama to lose to McCain, who pleased the power elite (PE) on June 20, 2008 while addressing the Economic Club of Toronto by signaling his support for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. He said the next president will add to the “security and prosperity of North American.” He also referred to our “security partnership,” the “integration of our economies,” and our “shared destiny.” He further indicated he would “defend NAFTA without equivocation,” and that the U.S. should “deepen its partnerships throughout the hemisphere and the world.” Because of upcoming national economic difficulties, McCain would serve only one term. Then the power elite could bring Hillary back in 2012. Regarding the future, on ABC News June 19, 2008, was reported that Basra is an Iraq “success story.” This is important because according to H.G. Wells in THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME (1933) Basra, not Baghdad or any other city in the world, is where a global conference will establish a world government.]

In Carroll Quigley’s book TRAGEDY AND HOPE (1966) about Cecil Rhodes and the PE, he expresses his support for the PE and says there really should be no significant differences between the two major political parties. Similarly, Skull & Bones (SB) member William Whitney in the late 19th century developed a plan whereby the PE would finance both major political parties and have them alternate power so the public thinks it has a choice when it really doesn’t.

The first SB member to be elected president was Republican William Howard Taft a century ago in 1908. His opponent, Democrat William Jennings Bryan was also acceptable to the globalist PE because he promised tariff reduction and favored beginning the income tax.

In 1912, SB member Taft ran again, but was defeated by Democrat Woodrow Wilson who was a PE puppet managed by its agent Colonel Edward M. House, a promoter of “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” This is because the PE was interested in establishing a Federal Reserve to get the country in debt.

Wilson was re-elected in 1916 with the theme “He kept us out of war,” although secret plans had already been made to enter World War I on the side of Britain and the Allies. This was discussed by Lord Esher (a member of Cecil Rhodes’ secret Society of the Elect) and a chief Wilson financial backer and PE member, Henry Morgenthau. Wilson’s opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, was guaranteed to lose because he failed to renounce support from German-American and Irish-American groups critical of Wilson’s pro-British policies.

In 1920, Warren Harding was elected president. Although he was a patriotic nationalist opposed to the League of Nations, he was controlled by party bosses “owned” by the PE. His opponent, James Cox, was acceptable to the PE because of his support of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Calvin Coolidge was elected president in 1924 with the support of the PE, who approved his advocacy of a World Court, arms limitation, and international cooperation to maintain peace. His opponent, John Davis, was also acceptable to the PE because he advocated disarmament and the League of Nations.

In 1928, Herbert Hoover was elected president because he continued Coolidge’s foreign policy. His opponent, Al Smith, was also acceptable to the PE because his protégé was PE puppet Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR). Although Hoover was acceptable to the PE, he was defeated in 1932 by FDR who was greatly influenced by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). On November 21, 1933 FDR wrote PE agent Col. House that they both knew the PE “owned” the U.S.

Colonel House’s promotion of socialism fit with FDR’s policies, which were described as socialist by Al Smith in 1936. In that year, FDR won re-election over Alf Landon who proposed no alternatives to FDR’s socialist programs, thus ensuring his defeat during those hard times.

Similarly, in 1940 the PE (J. P. Morgan interests and Lord Lothian of Cecil Rhodes’ secret society) had Wendell Willkie run against FDR so that Roosevelt’s re-election would be assured. After the election, Willkie went on missions for FDR and wrote ONE WORLD (1943) advocating world government.

FDR won re-election again in 1944 after doing the PE’s bidding by making a secret deal with Stalin on December 1, 1943 to give the Soviets Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. after World War II. FDR’s opponent, Thomas Dewey, was also acceptable to the PE because he, like FDR, advocated an international organization (UN) to maintain world peace.

In 1948, Harry Truman was elected president. Though most people remember Truman as an all-American fellow, he was actually a supporter of world government, carrying in his pocket Lord Tennyson’s poem “Locksley Hall” about a “Federation of the World.” This made him acceptable to the PE, as was his 1948 opponent, Thomas Dewey, mentioned already.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was elected president and, like Truman, he is perceived as a strong nationalist. Actually, he was puppet of PE managers and CFR leaders John Foster Dulles and his brother Allen Dulles. “Ike” was chosen by the PE because he was a globalist, advocating a “global flag” according to the July 24, 1951 CHICAGO TRIBUNE. His opponent, CFR member Adlai Stevenson, was also a globalist who wanted to continue FDR’s New Deal programs, thus making him acceptable to the PE.

Eisenhower was re-elected in 1956, later supporting a federal Atlantic Union and an international school “purged of national bias.” His opponent was again Adlai Stevenson.

In 1960, John Kennedy became president and was acceptable to the PE because he was a globalist, advocating complete disarmament, deferring to a new UN peace force. His opponent, Richard Nixon, was also a globalist and CFR member who supported a federal Atlantic Union as desired by the PE. In 1947, Congressman Nixon had introduced a resolution to allow the UN to enact, interpret and enforce world law. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won the presidency, expanding the PE’s no-win Vietnam War that diminished patriotic values among American young adults. His opponent was Barry Goldwater, who was a rarity, not acceptable to the PE, which conducted a major media campaign scaring the public that Goldwater would start a nuclear war if elected.

In 1968, Nixon became president after writing in the CFR’s FOREIGN AFFAIRS of nations’ disposition “to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order,” a key element of Cecil Rhodes’ secret society’s plan “to take the government of the whole world.” Nixon further endeared himself to the PE by telling Rhodes Scholar reporter Howard Smith that he (Nixon) was a Keynesian (socialist) in economics. Nixon’s opponent, Hubert Humphrey, was acceptable to the PE because he had supported FDR and LBJ’s policies regarding the Vietnam War.

Republican Nixon won re-election in 1972 against George McGovern, whom the PE set up to lose overwhelmingly because of his extreme anti-war views. This was necessary at this time because the PE wanted Nixon to open the door to Communist China via PE agent and CFR member Henry Kissinger. In 1976, it was time for the PE’s “alternation of power” mentioned at the first of this article. Democrat Jimmy Carter became president, winning over Republican Gerald Ford who had simply filled out Nixon’s second term and wasn’t very knowledgeable, though he was a CFR member and also acceptable to the PE. The PE had groomed Carter as a globalist, having Trilateral Commission (TC) director and CFR member Zbigniew Brzezenski become his National Security Advisor and many CFR members part of his administration.

Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in 1980 and is perceived as a nationalist. However, the PE “persuaded” him to have globalist and SB member George H.W. Bush (who sponsored a federal Atlantic Union in Congress in 1969) as his vice-president. The PE also knew Reagan had been a member of the World Federalist Association, and during a May 28-30, 1983, G-7 Economic Summit, Reagan pleased the PE by claiming “only a world currency will work.” This assured his re-election the next year (1984) against Walter Mondale, who was also acceptable to the PE because he was a CFR and TC member.

In 1988, globalist George H.W. Bush became president and proclaimed the need for a “new world order.” Once again, the PE provided a soft opponent in Michael Dukakis, whom the PE had surrounded with CFR advisors (seven of his eight foreign policy advisors).

In 1992, it was once again time for the PE’s “alternation of power,” as Republican Bush lost to Democrat Bill Clinton, who was mentored at Georgetown University by Prof. Carroll Quigley mentioned earlier. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar who supported world government. The PE wanted NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization, and Clinton unlike Bush could persuade enough Democrats to vote for them.

Bill Clinton won re-election in 1996 over Bob Dole who was endorsed by Rhodes Scholar and CFR member James Woolsey, former Clinton CIA director. Dole was also acceptable to the PE as he was greatly beholden to globalists such as Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer-Daniels-Midland, which was founded by SB member Thomas Daniels.

Alternating power once again, SB member and globalist George W. Bush became president in 2000, defeating Vice-President Al Gore. Gore’s father was vice-president of Occidental Petroleum under Armand Hammer, who was close to all Soviet dictators. Vice-President Gore was also acceptable to the PE, and on October 12, 1998 announced his globalist “Declaration of Interdependence.”

In 2004, the PE saw to it that Bush’s re-election was assured as his opponent, fellow globalist and SB member John Kerry (CFR member), ran a lack-luster campaign.

Regarding the 2008 presidential election, I have in recent articles already explained how Senators John McCain and Barack Obama are both acceptable to the PE and are surrounded by CFR advisors. The point is that in election after election, the people think they have a choice but they really don’t.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson said: “…We have come to be… one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world – no longer a government of conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men….” The PE have been in control ever since and are currently manipulating events to bring about a world currency. In the June 6, 2008 ASIA TIMES, Hossain Askari and Nourredine Krichene wrote “Time Overdue for a World Currency,” in which they stated: “The world economy is suffering from high inflation stemming from overly expansionary policy in the United States.” Their proposed solution – a world currency! Just what the P.E. wants.

© 2008 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved