click here
Misunderestimating Ron Paul's Support
by Rick Fisk
by Rick Fisk
DIGG THIS
The media, neoconservatives and some Democrats just don't understand why Ron Paul's supporters are so excited, dedicated and diverse. At the most recent PBS debate in Baltimore, the camera panned to catch the first African-American female fighter pilot in U.S. history applauding enthusiastically when Dr. Paul suggested we should bring the troops home from Iraq and every other country they currently occupy. Neoconservative bloggers are aghast at Ron Paul's increasing success as are the neoconservative gatekeepers. This is a truly satisfying result since it was the neoconservative hijacking of the Republican Party which has helped to further decimate our once-great Republic.
In one comment, written as a response to a post at the quintessential neoconservative and freedom-hating blog, Red State, a reader unsupportive of Paul points out the obvious for most neoconservatives, that Ron Paul's ability to raise a million dollars in seven days is "[expletive deleted] scary."
The neoconservative movement is now officially in its dying throes and yet neoconservatives do not take notice. A good example of this can be witnessed in Newt Gingrich's threat to join the crowded field of GOP Presidential candidates. (Eye of) Newt has been touting his ability to bring together a goodly number of intellectuals who will help solve America's problems. What is at the forefront of those problems? Why, it is the threat of Islamic law being instituted in the United States if we were to pull out of Iraq. Seriously, that is what he's saying.
The neoconservatives are banking on a strategy that has worked for them since 1994 (and all governments since the dawn of civilization). If they just pull the kids 'round the campfire and tell them a scary enough story, the kids will flock to their skirts and demand protection. If the story isn't scary enough, then it has to be modified until it becomes sufficiently scary. But at some point, the story becomes so far-fetched that even the true believers have to scratch their heads.
With Ron Paul's entry into the field of Presidential contenders, that tactic is no longer going to work. Ron Paul's early support was made up of those who were either never fooled by this claptrap or have come to understand that they were being manipulated. It only becomes more apparent to them with every utterance by neoconservatives that the scare stories have no basis in reality. Rather than offer something truly different, the neoconservatives are simply upping the ante and labeling it "different." They have discounted Ron Paul's support by claiming that it is much smaller than it appears. This is just another side of the same reality-denying tactic that is killing their movement. Because they cannot acknowledge reality, their influence will completely wither away, sooner rather than later.
Ron Paul's grass roots support is growing daily. Each time he is given a national forum in which to speak, a new flood of supporters joins the cause and his coffers grow (as opposed to Mitt Romney who's coiffeur's coffers grow). In the spaces between these national appearances, the growing body of supporters reaches out to their neighbors and spreads the word.
The neoconservatives on the other hand, believe that they are the keepers of all intellectual truth and that they have enemies both domestic and foreign. The domestic enemies are "liberals" or those whom they label so. The list of "liberals" keeps growing however and their blindness to reality prevents them from realizing that a list of enemies, increased by spite and action and drawn from a static pool of voters, is causing the number of "allies" to dwindle.
If you are thinking that I'm giving away some secret that will tip off neoconservatives and cause them to mend their ways long enough to torpedo Ron Paul's candidacy, don't worry. As Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (ret.) told the San Diego Tribune recently, "this administration is immune to good advice."
The neoconservatives are immune to good advice. Their arrogance and hubris knows no bounds. Even if they were to read this, they would discount it as irrelevant nonsense from a wacko Paul supporter. Since it is only they who have the answers to America's problems, there are no qualified observers who can offer worthwhile advice. Their inability to give criticism any serious consideration is the source of their failures in every policy. Iraq is a great example of this but there are others that can be pointed out such as FEMA's reaction to hurricane Katrina.
We are at the "fight" stage in Gandhi's oft-quoted statement. The neocons are beginning to fight, but they are using the very tactics that do nothing to diminish support for Ron Paul and everything to decrease their own ranks. They think that non-neoconservative voices emanate from brainless liberals, but this isn't why their ranks dwindle. They are incapable of honest self-assessment – the very thing of which they accuse their enemies – thus, neoconservative influence continues to wane. Their knack for projecting their own problems onto others is similar to their knack for projecting U.S. military power all over the globe. It is not "terrorists" who would convert the U.S. to a nation ruled by draconian dictates but the neoconservatives themselves.
Ron Paul's support grows because he is the anti-neoconservative candidate. Where neoconservatives deride those who don't buy their solutions, Ron Paul always assumes the best of both detractors and the merely ignorant. When Bill Maher asked him "Why are Americans so stupid?" he responded, "We're Americans," to point out that all Americans aren't stupid and his task is to inform and enlighten rather than make enemies. What a concept. The most obvious truism for a politician is that he should be expanding his influence rather than alienating voters. This is lost on neoconservatives.
Ron Paul refuses to convert disagreements into personal arguments which create animosity. His tactic is to merely present his side of the argument while acknowledging that this is part of his core belief system and not an indication that those who disagree are stupid or evil. This has trickled down to his supporters who, for the most part, avoid political arguments and instead implore the uninitiated to simply discover for themselves what Ron Paul is saying. This tactic has worked brilliantly. Ron Paul's message is genuinely compelling and his defense of these views has been consistent and dogged over the past 30 years; no matter what obstacles are thrown before him. That is the basis for his supporter's enthusiasm. He truly means what he is saying. Unlike his counterparts, he does not have to waste any words explaining why his votes do not match his rhetoric. His supporters do not have to suffer the nagging feeling that something different would occur if they were to elect him. He has always voted in a manner that matches his speech.
The neocons have no candidate in the race remotely showing the same level of integrity though they appear to be certain that nobody will notice this. They prove by their actions that any talk of truth, honesty or values is just empty, pandering, rhetoric. The number of Paul supporters is increasing because, contrary to neoconservative belief, Americans are not stupid. They just haven't had a decent alternative in 30 years. Well....now they do.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
talk about corruption
click here
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The State Department's initial report of last month's incident in which Blackwater guards were accused of killing Iraqi civilians was written by a Blackwater contractor working in the embassy security detail, according to government and industry sources.
In this September 24 photo, an Iraqi looks at a car that was destroyed during the September 16 incident.
A source involved in diplomatic security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said a Blackwater contractor, Darren Hanner, drafted the two-page "spot report" on the letterhead of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for the embassy's Tactical Operations Center.
That office -- which tracks and monitors all incidents and movements involving diplomatic security missions -- has outsourced positions to Blackwater and another private firm, the embassy source said.
A highly placed industry source said that Hanner, who was listed on the report as the TOC watch officer, was working for Blackwater at the time the report was written, just after the September 16 incident occurred. He was to rotate out of Iraq this past week, the source said.
The man who approved the report was Ricardo Colon, whom the embassy source identified as the embassy's deputy regional security officer. A State Department source confirmed a Ricardo Colon Cifredo works for the State Department in Iraq.
Don't Miss
• Initial State Department 'spot report' (PDF)
• Lawmaker: Blackwater reports 'troubling'
• Blackwater witness: 'It was hell'
The deadly incident produced an outcry in Iraq and raised questions about the accountability of foreign security contractors in Iraq, who, under an order laid down by the U.S.-led occupation government, are not subject to Iraqi law for actions taken within their contracts.
Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, emphasized that the State Department is doing its own investigation into the incident.
The FBI is sending a team of agents to assist the U.S. investigation at the State Department's request, FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said Monday.
Blackwater -- which provides security to U.S. diplomats -- says its employees responded properly to an insurgent attack on a convoy. The State Department "spot report" underscores that scenario and doesn't mention civilian casualties.
However, those accounts are at odds with what the Iraqis are saying.
A senior Iraqi National Police official participating in the Iraqi governmental probe of the shooting said the Blackwater gunfire was unprovoked and the guards fired randomly, killing several civilians and wounding others. Watch Iraqi police video of the incident aftermath »
Tom Casey, deputy State Department spokesman, noted that a spot report "is a first-blush account of those on the scene" and that the "report has no standing whatsoever."
"It was not intended to be used as an analysis, investigation, review or any detailed assessment of the situation," Casey said. "To assert that (it is) is untrue," Casey said.
The embassy source said after the spot report was completed and approved, a State Department agent took sworn statements from the participants in the shooting.
The senior Iraqi police officer said that Blackwater team members were questioned by Iraqi police immediately after the incident and initially said they opened fire in response to a mortar attack. However, he said, they then changed their story at least twice during the 90 minutes they were held.
Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, was to testify Tuesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The State Department's initial report of last month's incident in which Blackwater guards were accused of killing Iraqi civilians was written by a Blackwater contractor working in the embassy security detail, according to government and industry sources.
In this September 24 photo, an Iraqi looks at a car that was destroyed during the September 16 incident.
A source involved in diplomatic security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad said a Blackwater contractor, Darren Hanner, drafted the two-page "spot report" on the letterhead of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for the embassy's Tactical Operations Center.
That office -- which tracks and monitors all incidents and movements involving diplomatic security missions -- has outsourced positions to Blackwater and another private firm, the embassy source said.
A highly placed industry source said that Hanner, who was listed on the report as the TOC watch officer, was working for Blackwater at the time the report was written, just after the September 16 incident occurred. He was to rotate out of Iraq this past week, the source said.
The man who approved the report was Ricardo Colon, whom the embassy source identified as the embassy's deputy regional security officer. A State Department source confirmed a Ricardo Colon Cifredo works for the State Department in Iraq.
Don't Miss
• Initial State Department 'spot report' (PDF)
• Lawmaker: Blackwater reports 'troubling'
• Blackwater witness: 'It was hell'
The deadly incident produced an outcry in Iraq and raised questions about the accountability of foreign security contractors in Iraq, who, under an order laid down by the U.S.-led occupation government, are not subject to Iraqi law for actions taken within their contracts.
Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater, emphasized that the State Department is doing its own investigation into the incident.
The FBI is sending a team of agents to assist the U.S. investigation at the State Department's request, FBI spokesman Richard Kolko said Monday.
Blackwater -- which provides security to U.S. diplomats -- says its employees responded properly to an insurgent attack on a convoy. The State Department "spot report" underscores that scenario and doesn't mention civilian casualties.
However, those accounts are at odds with what the Iraqis are saying.
A senior Iraqi National Police official participating in the Iraqi governmental probe of the shooting said the Blackwater gunfire was unprovoked and the guards fired randomly, killing several civilians and wounding others. Watch Iraqi police video of the incident aftermath »
Tom Casey, deputy State Department spokesman, noted that a spot report "is a first-blush account of those on the scene" and that the "report has no standing whatsoever."
"It was not intended to be used as an analysis, investigation, review or any detailed assessment of the situation," Casey said. "To assert that (it is) is untrue," Casey said.
The embassy source said after the spot report was completed and approved, a State Department agent took sworn statements from the participants in the shooting.
The senior Iraqi police officer said that Blackwater team members were questioned by Iraqi police immediately after the incident and initially said they opened fire in response to a mortar attack. However, he said, they then changed their story at least twice during the 90 minutes they were held.
Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, was to testify Tuesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
a book review
A review of The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, By Daniel Estulin
It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.
~Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard~
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire?
~Daniel Estulin (P.318)~
Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group, and who offers his findings in The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, recently published by Trine Day. Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). The project lasted fifteen years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media has never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.
What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state." (xv)
The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme with in inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership. Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations mentioned above, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. Of this private club, Estulin says:
This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there: a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions-the kind that can never be exposed.(15)
This world, according to Estulin, is so perverse and evil that "it has left an indelible mark on my soul". (16) How not? Because the Bilderberg Group and its two other triplets, the CFR and the TC have set about to loot the entire planet. Their members run the central banks of the world and are poised to control discount rates, money-supply, interest rates, gold prices, and which countries receive or do not receive loans. Membership is by invitation only, many of the earliest members being handpicked, not from right-wing groups but from among none other than the Fabian Socialists who ultimately supported global government.
Another chilling quote Estulin includes is from William Shannon:
The Bilderbergers are searching for the age of post-nationalism: when we won't have countries, but rather regions of the Earth surrounded by Universal values. That is to say, a global economy; one World government (selected rather than elected) and a universal religion. To assure themselves of reaching these objectives, the Bilderbergers focus on a ‘greater technical approach' and less awareness on behalf of the general public.
THE BILDERBERG BAPTISM OF BILL CLINTON
In 1991 Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden where Estulin asserts that he was "anointed" to the U.S. presidency, and shortly thereafter he took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow. It appears, says Estulin, that he was sent there to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before he announced his candidacy for president which happened some two-and-a-half months later. Today, Clinton is a member of all three groups: Bilderberg, CFR, and TC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Estulin points out that "almost all of the presidential candidates for both parties have belonged to at least one of these organizations, many of the U.S. congressmen and senators, most major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, much of the press, most of the leadership of the CIA, FBI, IRS, and many of the remaining governmental organizations in Washington. CFR members occupy nearly all White House cabinet positions."(80) When one considers that most prominent members of mainstream media are also members of what Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt called "this legitimate Mafia", how can we assert that Americans obtain their news from independent sources?
For example, The News Hour with Jim Leher is the cornerstone of PBS's programming. Leher is a CFR member, and when one examines the funding of the news hour by: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) whose chairman Dwayne Andreas was a member of the Trilateral Commission; Pepsico, whose CEO Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi is a Bilderberger and TC Executive Committee member; and Smith Barney which is interlocked with Citigroup, a global financial services company that is a member of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the TC, what kind of "news" should one expect from Leher's News Hour? Consider also that many of the journalists on the News Hour: Paul Gigot, David Gergen, William Kristol, and William Safire are members of one or more of the three groups. (153)
Likewise, when we consider the membership in one or more of these groups of almost every American president since the inception of these organizations, we can no longer pretend that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate offers the American people an alternative to ruling elite global hegemony.
In fact, Estulin's research reveals that "the Council on Foreign Relations creates and delivers psycho-political operations by manipulating people's reality through a ‘tactic of deception', placing Council members on both sides of an issue. The deception is complete when the public is led to believe that its own best interests are being served while the CFR policy is being carried out."(117)
And what happens if the "anointed ones" become too autonomous? One chapter in the book, "The Watergate Con-Game", answers that question. In it Estulin suggests that Richard Nixon was set up by the Council on Foreign Relations of which he was a member because of his insubordination and unwillingness to submit to the shadow government. Presumably, Nixon's demise was carefully crafted to demonstrate to subsequent Chief Executives the price they would pay for disregarding the agenda of those who anointed them.
THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW
In the book's final pages, Estulin's research waxes increasingly relevant to the present moment in history. He asks: "Why would David Rockefeller and other U.S. Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the CFR members want to dismantle the industrial might of the United States?" (184). He then launches into a summary of the economic history of the twentieth century and makes one of the most powerful statements of the entire book: "What we have witnessed from this ‘cabal' is the gradual collapsing of the U.S. economy that began in the 1980s." (187)
In case you haven't noticed, this "gradual collapse of the U.S. economy" is no longer gradual, and what Estulin is asserting confirms a great deal of the assertions made by Catherine Austin Fitts that the current housing bubble explosion/credit crunch/mortgage meltdown has its roots in the 1980s. James Howard Kunstler has also written recently in his blog entitled "Shock and Awe" that the great American yard sale has begun. In other words, as an engineered economic meltdown drives hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of businesses and individuals into bankruptcy, key players in the Big Three ruling elite organizations can buy up the train wreck left behind for pennies on the dollar-a brilliant fast-track strategy for owning the world.
In the final months of 2007 we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world. It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.
No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs:
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's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.
It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.
~Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard~
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire?
~Daniel Estulin (P.318)~
Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group, and who offers his findings in The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, recently published by Trine Day. Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). The project lasted fifteen years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media has never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.
What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state." (xv)
The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme with in inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership. Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations mentioned above, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter. Of this private club, Estulin says:
This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there: a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions-the kind that can never be exposed.(15)
This world, according to Estulin, is so perverse and evil that "it has left an indelible mark on my soul". (16) How not? Because the Bilderberg Group and its two other triplets, the CFR and the TC have set about to loot the entire planet. Their members run the central banks of the world and are poised to control discount rates, money-supply, interest rates, gold prices, and which countries receive or do not receive loans. Membership is by invitation only, many of the earliest members being handpicked, not from right-wing groups but from among none other than the Fabian Socialists who ultimately supported global government.
Another chilling quote Estulin includes is from William Shannon:
The Bilderbergers are searching for the age of post-nationalism: when we won't have countries, but rather regions of the Earth surrounded by Universal values. That is to say, a global economy; one World government (selected rather than elected) and a universal religion. To assure themselves of reaching these objectives, the Bilderbergers focus on a ‘greater technical approach' and less awareness on behalf of the general public.
THE BILDERBERG BAPTISM OF BILL CLINTON
In 1991 Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden where Estulin asserts that he was "anointed" to the U.S. presidency, and shortly thereafter he took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow. It appears, says Estulin, that he was sent there to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before he announced his candidacy for president which happened some two-and-a-half months later. Today, Clinton is a member of all three groups: Bilderberg, CFR, and TC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Estulin points out that "almost all of the presidential candidates for both parties have belonged to at least one of these organizations, many of the U.S. congressmen and senators, most major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, much of the press, most of the leadership of the CIA, FBI, IRS, and many of the remaining governmental organizations in Washington. CFR members occupy nearly all White House cabinet positions."(80) When one considers that most prominent members of mainstream media are also members of what Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt called "this legitimate Mafia", how can we assert that Americans obtain their news from independent sources?
For example, The News Hour with Jim Leher is the cornerstone of PBS's programming. Leher is a CFR member, and when one examines the funding of the news hour by: Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) whose chairman Dwayne Andreas was a member of the Trilateral Commission; Pepsico, whose CEO Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi is a Bilderberger and TC Executive Committee member; and Smith Barney which is interlocked with Citigroup, a global financial services company that is a member of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the TC, what kind of "news" should one expect from Leher's News Hour? Consider also that many of the journalists on the News Hour: Paul Gigot, David Gergen, William Kristol, and William Safire are members of one or more of the three groups. (153)
Likewise, when we consider the membership in one or more of these groups of almost every American president since the inception of these organizations, we can no longer pretend that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate offers the American people an alternative to ruling elite global hegemony.
In fact, Estulin's research reveals that "the Council on Foreign Relations creates and delivers psycho-political operations by manipulating people's reality through a ‘tactic of deception', placing Council members on both sides of an issue. The deception is complete when the public is led to believe that its own best interests are being served while the CFR policy is being carried out."(117)
And what happens if the "anointed ones" become too autonomous? One chapter in the book, "The Watergate Con-Game", answers that question. In it Estulin suggests that Richard Nixon was set up by the Council on Foreign Relations of which he was a member because of his insubordination and unwillingness to submit to the shadow government. Presumably, Nixon's demise was carefully crafted to demonstrate to subsequent Chief Executives the price they would pay for disregarding the agenda of those who anointed them.
THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW
In the book's final pages, Estulin's research waxes increasingly relevant to the present moment in history. He asks: "Why would David Rockefeller and other U.S. Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the CFR members want to dismantle the industrial might of the United States?" (184). He then launches into a summary of the economic history of the twentieth century and makes one of the most powerful statements of the entire book: "What we have witnessed from this ‘cabal' is the gradual collapsing of the U.S. economy that began in the 1980s." (187)
In case you haven't noticed, this "gradual collapse of the U.S. economy" is no longer gradual, and what Estulin is asserting confirms a great deal of the assertions made by Catherine Austin Fitts that the current housing bubble explosion/credit crunch/mortgage meltdown has its roots in the 1980s. James Howard Kunstler has also written recently in his blog entitled "Shock and Awe" that the great American yard sale has begun. In other words, as an engineered economic meltdown drives hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of businesses and individuals into bankruptcy, key players in the Big Three ruling elite organizations can buy up the train wreck left behind for pennies on the dollar-a brilliant fast-track strategy for owning the world.
In the final months of 2007 we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world. It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.
No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs:
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's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.
al qaeda does not exist
click here
Home-grown terrorism now main threat
By Paul Maley
October 04, 2007 01:00am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
FIVE years ago, the average terrorist was in his mid-20s, married with kids, university-educated, middle-class, psychologically stable and probably an engineer.
Today, he's more likely to be poor, of limited education and a second- or third-generation product of the culture he is attacking.
Former CIA case officer turned psychiatrist Marc Sageman told the Safeguarding Australia Summit in Canberra yesterday the typical profile of a terrorist had changed since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraq invasion.
The well-educated young men who were radicalised while studying in the West (engineering was the most common degree) and who conducted the 9/11 attacks, had been replaced by self-trained, self-recruited and, thanks to the welfare state, self-financed "terrorist wannabes".
Dr Sageman said al-Qaeda's leaders had been all but cut off from the current crop of jihadists and comprised no more than two dozen people.
The threat was now coming from home-grown young men in their early 20s who recruited mostly on the internet.
Dr Sageman said there were "potentially thousands" of these "new" terrorists, although they were incapable of replacing older terror networks because of their self-organising, independent structure. Many were petty criminals or gang members who eventually drifted back to their Islamic roots.
Their actions were inspired by a sense of "moral outrage" at perceived grievances against Muslims, usually focusing on Iraq, reinforced by personal experiences of alienation in their host countries.
Dr Sageman said that well-intentioned attempts by governments to change attitudes within the Muslim community by promoting moderate interpretations of Islam were likely to fail as a result.
"That's not why they join. They join for the glory," he said.
Kinship bonds were the glue that held most terror cells together, rather than ethnicity, religion or ideology, he said.
Home-grown terrorism now main threat
By Paul Maley
October 04, 2007 01:00am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
FIVE years ago, the average terrorist was in his mid-20s, married with kids, university-educated, middle-class, psychologically stable and probably an engineer.
Today, he's more likely to be poor, of limited education and a second- or third-generation product of the culture he is attacking.
Former CIA case officer turned psychiatrist Marc Sageman told the Safeguarding Australia Summit in Canberra yesterday the typical profile of a terrorist had changed since the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the Iraq invasion.
The well-educated young men who were radicalised while studying in the West (engineering was the most common degree) and who conducted the 9/11 attacks, had been replaced by self-trained, self-recruited and, thanks to the welfare state, self-financed "terrorist wannabes".
Dr Sageman said al-Qaeda's leaders had been all but cut off from the current crop of jihadists and comprised no more than two dozen people.
The threat was now coming from home-grown young men in their early 20s who recruited mostly on the internet.
Dr Sageman said there were "potentially thousands" of these "new" terrorists, although they were incapable of replacing older terror networks because of their self-organising, independent structure. Many were petty criminals or gang members who eventually drifted back to their Islamic roots.
Their actions were inspired by a sense of "moral outrage" at perceived grievances against Muslims, usually focusing on Iraq, reinforced by personal experiences of alienation in their host countries.
Dr Sageman said that well-intentioned attempts by governments to change attitudes within the Muslim community by promoting moderate interpretations of Islam were likely to fail as a result.
"That's not why they join. They join for the glory," he said.
Kinship bonds were the glue that held most terror cells together, rather than ethnicity, religion or ideology, he said.
keep kids off (pharmacuetical) drugs!
click here
________________________________________
Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children
This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.
Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.
With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.
Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.
As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.
Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.
We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.
________________________________________
Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children
This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.
Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.
With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.
Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.
As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.
Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.
We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
here is YOUR chance to do something that matters! yes... YOU!!!
This woman needs your help. Call 661-992-7173 to give her your emotional and financial support. All prank calls will be reported to the local police department.
click here for audio
click here for video
click here for audio
click here for video
basing u.s. policy on fictional television characters
click here
Former president Bill Clinton has told NBC's Meet The Press that America needs more intelligence agents who make their own rules and engage in whatever actions are necessary like Jack Bauer from the fictional TV show 24.
"I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror--I mean to torture, and that if you're the Jack Bauer person, you'll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences... And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth." Clinton said.
"If you have any kind of a formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they'll say, 'Well, I thought it was covered by the exception,'" Clinton added.
The question was again raised by host Tim Russert after Clinton told him last year that he would authorize torture in a "ticking bomb 24"-style situation.
Clinton went on to state “If you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better.".
Clinton's comments represent another case of an influential political figure discussing the benefits of torture in the context of a fictional TV show character.
Earlier this year Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia also used the analogy at a panel discussion on torture, stating "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.”
We are more used to this kind of dross from Fox News. For example, Laura Ingraham has previously stated that the average American's love of the show is a referendum for the use of torture against anyone considered to be with "Al Qaeda" whether they be American citizens or not. Watch it:
24 has routinely depicted scenes of detainee torture, as well as plot-lines broaching the issue of the detention of American citizens in a time of crisis.
At a time when legislation such as The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act are setting the precedent for the detention of American citizens, and in the absence of any real terror 24 serves as the perfect dose of fear-mongering propaganda to encourage acceptance of such attacks upon the fabric of freedom.
24, Threat Matrix, Spooks, and other such shows are contributions to a conditioning mechanism that present torture as a reasonable and ethical method. However, in every case of torture that has come to light in the real world there isn't even a basis of "situational ethics" to justify this with.
Click here to watch a video clip in which Alex Jones explains the hypocrisy of torture and why the doublethink of the "it's bad when the enemy does it but good when we do it" mentality is so dangerous.
Finally, should we really have to endure BIll Clinton, an impeached former president who has been accused of rape and molestation, speaking on "facing consequences" for one's actions based on "what turns out to be the truth"?
Former president Bill Clinton has told NBC's Meet The Press that America needs more intelligence agents who make their own rules and engage in whatever actions are necessary like Jack Bauer from the fictional TV show 24.
"I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror--I mean to torture, and that if you're the Jack Bauer person, you'll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences... And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth." Clinton said.
"If you have any kind of a formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they'll say, 'Well, I thought it was covered by the exception,'" Clinton added.
The question was again raised by host Tim Russert after Clinton told him last year that he would authorize torture in a "ticking bomb 24"-style situation.
Clinton went on to state “If you look at the show, every time they get the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better.".
Clinton's comments represent another case of an influential political figure discussing the benefits of torture in the context of a fictional TV show character.
Earlier this year Supreme Court judge Antonin Scalia also used the analogy at a panel discussion on torture, stating "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives... Are you going to convict Jack Bauer? Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.”
We are more used to this kind of dross from Fox News. For example, Laura Ingraham has previously stated that the average American's love of the show is a referendum for the use of torture against anyone considered to be with "Al Qaeda" whether they be American citizens or not. Watch it:
24 has routinely depicted scenes of detainee torture, as well as plot-lines broaching the issue of the detention of American citizens in a time of crisis.
At a time when legislation such as The Patriot Act and The Military Commissions Act are setting the precedent for the detention of American citizens, and in the absence of any real terror 24 serves as the perfect dose of fear-mongering propaganda to encourage acceptance of such attacks upon the fabric of freedom.
24, Threat Matrix, Spooks, and other such shows are contributions to a conditioning mechanism that present torture as a reasonable and ethical method. However, in every case of torture that has come to light in the real world there isn't even a basis of "situational ethics" to justify this with.
Click here to watch a video clip in which Alex Jones explains the hypocrisy of torture and why the doublethink of the "it's bad when the enemy does it but good when we do it" mentality is so dangerous.
Finally, should we really have to endure BIll Clinton, an impeached former president who has been accused of rape and molestation, speaking on "facing consequences" for one's actions based on "what turns out to be the truth"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
