"Fear... is the mind killer." -Frank Herbert (Dune)

Obama's Voting Record Is Not Liberal.... at all

2008-07-30T12:05:00.000-07:00

From Creativeyouth.net

Barack Obama has made it clear that he supports a missile strike on Iran. His voting record proves he doesn't want to bring the troops home - despite his rhetoric. In his short time in the Senate, Obama has voted to shaft the poor, blacks, immigrants, the sick and other groups that expect better from a candidate endorsed by Jesse Jackson. Obama has supported nominees (such as through his cloture vote for Priscilla Owen) that make Alberto Gonzales look like a liberal Democrat.

Below is Obama's 2005 and 2006 voting record. This was collected by a national liberal Democratic organizaion. The news team at Creative Youth has thoroughly checked it out in Thomas.loc.gov and found it to be completely accurate. Get out your vomit bags and see who Obama is and what he really stands for.

1/06/05: Obama voted for Bush's Ohio electors. Roll Call 1

1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible for 9/11, the Iraq War, threats of war against Iran, Syria,Venezuela and other nations. and for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars of her making. Roll call 2

2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General). No roll call is available to view but the unanimous consent is noted in Thomas.loc.gov

2/10/05: Obama voted for an act known by liberals as The Class Action Extreme UnFairness Act of 2005 (S 5) that makes it much more difficult, if not impossible, for victims to seek and obtain damages in class action suits filed against wrongdoers who have harmed multiple victims. Roll call 9

2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture, an individual connected to the financing of 9/11 and the man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By confirming him, Obama, in effect, endorsed terrorist attacks on America, water-board torture and racism. One consequence of Obama's' vote to confirm Chertoff was the Katrina disaster. Roll call 10. (In May, 2005, Obama voted to give Chertoff the authority to waive all laws with no judicial review and no relief. See below.)

4/21/05: Obama voted to make John "Death Squad" Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. On 4/17/05, the California Democratic Party unanimously passed a resolution discussing the death squads and calling on Senators to reject the nomination of John Negroponte. Roll call 107

4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion.a bill. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]

5/10/05: Obama voted to give the Secretary of Homeland Security, the power to waive all laws (inclusive of murder, kidnapping and rape and all other heinous crimes) with no judicial review and no relief, and to essentially eliminate the ability of refugees to seek political asylum in the United States. This bill was was a combination of two bills (HR1268/HR418), both of which were harmful to life and freedom. HR 1268 was an appropriations bill which gave profits to contractors who benefitted from wars. HR 418 presumed to override Articles I,II and III of the U.S. Constitution. This bill allowed Chertoff to legally commit any crime he wanted to commit in New Orleans, and elsewhere, with the result being the Katrina disaster. It also set up the basis for a Nazi-style national ID Card, similar to the ones issued by Hitler's Regime. Obama voted for all this in Roll Call 117. [W]

5/24/05: Obama voted for cloture on Priscilla Owen for the 5th Circuit. Torture-proponent Alberto Gonzales even called Owen extreme in her right-wing stances. Her record shows that she is anti-environment, anti-labor, anti-civil rights, anti-human rights, pro-discrimination and pro-polluter. Activists tried to stop cloture as the confirmation vote was a sure thing once the Senate voted for cloture. Roll call 127

6/14/05: Obama further stabbed the women's movement in the back by voting to confirm Thomas B. Griffith to a lifetime appointment as a justice on the DC Circuit, a court often used as a stepping stone for the U.S. Supreme Court. Griffith, who is not licensed to practice law in Utah (his home state), believes that equal opportunity for women violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In February, 2007, thanks to Obama's backing of Griffith, the DC circuit has now ruled that Guantanamo detainees have no right to habeas corpus. Roll call 136

6/23/05: Obama voted for cloture on HR 6, considered by environmental groups to be a sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal and automotive industries. It provides for rewards for unsafe, pollution-ridden fuel sources and car makers who wanted to continue making inefficient cars. It also gave Bush the power to destroy the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Roll call 152

6/28/05: Obama voted to pass HR 6, the sellout of the environment to the nuclear, coal-burning and automotive industries discussed above. Roll call 158

7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed "The Nuclear Bill" by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America.. Roll call 172 [W]

7/20/05: Obama voted to punish countries opposed to the death penalty. Under Roll Call196, funds and assistance would no longer be made available to any country which refused to extradite individuals to the United States because of a moral objection to the use, by the United States, of the death penalty. The United States is essentially alone among Western nations in its use of the death penalty. S. Amdt 1271 to HR 3057.

7/29/05: Obama voted for the conference report on the Energy Bill (HR 6), which was a boon to Halliburton and subjected Americans to the risk of exposure to lethal levels of radiation and mercury poisoning. Roll call 213

9/15/05: Obama voted to allow the use of low-cost foreign labor, in violation of labor laws, in New Orleans following Katrina. He opposed the Dorgan Amendment to the appropriations for science, state, justice and commerce. The amendment attempted to stop the use of appropriated funding for low-cost foreign labor in violation of labor laws to rebuild New Orleans. Obama's vote stabbed American workers in the back and further damaged laborers hurt by the loss of their homes and businesses in New Orleans. Obama's vote resulted in the importation of under-paid foreign laborers to displace American workers. Roll call 232. S Amdt 1665 to HR 2862.

9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees. John Roberts's wife worked for Operation Rescue, an organization that uses extreme measures (including violence) to oppose women's doctors. John Roberts has questioned the Constitutionality of the Violence Against Women Act and of the Endangered Species Act. He has also expressed opposition to equal pay for women. Roberts was responsible for a plan to disenfranchise tens of thousands of African-Americans in Florida in 2000. Roberts was a personal pick of Pat Robertson, a man who has called for the assassination of the first world leader (of all world leaders, including our own) to offer aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. In his confirmation hearings, Roberts refused to say whether he would uphold legislation that overrode a presidential veto. A unanimous consent agreement was necessary to take Roberts's nominatin to the floor, and Obama could have placed a hold on the nomination but would not do so despite the opposition of over 80% of the American public to the Roberts nomination.

10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W]

10/27/05: Obama voted to confirm Susan Blake Neilson for the Sixth Circuit. She had a history of being a judicial activist against plaintiffs in civil rights, employment, personal injury and government negligence cases and a tendency to dismiss claims that present triable issues of fact. Both of her state Senators felt she was so extreme that they blue-slipped her. Roll call 277

10/27/05: Obama voted to slash funding for health care, education and other programs., such as those to help the uninsured by backing cloture on HR 3010 and then voted for the bill . Roll calls 275 and 281

11/14/05: Obama voted again for "The Nuclear Bill" in Roll Call 321. This was the vote on the Conference Report on the Nuclear Bill (HR 2419). As the House had already approved the Conference Report, this was the last opportunity for anyone in Congress to say "no" to this disastrous bill which threatened California's water and food supply and provides billions of dollars for the kind of nuclear weapons activities violative of international law. [W]
11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W]

12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]

2/2/06: Obama voted to extend the USA-PATRIOT's attack on the Constitution for five weeks to allow Congress time to put together the support to adopt the renewal of USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 11

2/16/06: Obama voted for cloture on "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006," S2271. The USA PATRIOT Act The act still contained the most objectionable provisions from 2001 and had a new provision allowing the government to collect lists of people and kids suffering from colds and allergies. The renewal still allowed the government to do all the other really bad stuff it had been doing under the PATRIOT Act and it could still obtain library records (even though the public was misled into believing otherwise). Those voting on the bill knew that it was worse than the original but worked to deceive the public about how much more freedom had been taken away. This cloture vote guaranteed passage. Roll call 22

3/1/06: Obama voted to pass S2271, the USA PATRIOT Act. Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, which strengthened and made worse the original USA-PATRIOT Act. Roll call 25

3/1/06: Obama voted for cloture on the USA-PATRIOT Act (HR 3199), Conference Report. This was the last real chance to stop the Act. It was known that there would not be enough votes to stop the act and so stopping cloture was the most important issue. Obama voted for this. Roll call 28

3/2/06: Obama voted for the conference report on USA-PATRIOT, itself, made worse than the original by changes that removed more freedom from the American people and gave more power to agencies trying to deprive Americans of their Constitutional Rights and making most of the most intrusive provisions permanent. This was the last chance to stop USA-PATRIOT. Roll call 29.

3/27/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-nuclear war profiteer Dennis Spurgeon as Assistant Secretary of Energy. Spurgeon's appointment will likely lead to Chernobyls in the U.S. and to more wars. Roll call 76.

5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W]

5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939 the emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112. [W]

5/8/06: Obama didn't care enough about the sick to show up to vote on the cloture vote on S. 22, AKA the Legalize Medical Murder by Capping the Malpractice Damages Bill. Roll call 115

5/16/06: Obama voted to confirm Milan D. Smith to the 9th Circuit. The appointment was part of an Bush's effort to turn the 9th Circuit from moderate to extreme right wing by adding justices to the Circuit who would support the Bush Agenda. This directly damaged the chances of getting a fair trial on the West Coast. Roll call 120

5/25/06: Obama voted against immigrants by backing S 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, which was less fair to immigrants than the previous system or no bill at all.. Roll call 157.

5/25/06: Obama voted for cloture on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be a justice on the D.C.Circuit, placing him in line for a future Supreme Court nomination. The trouble is that he is another right-wing extremist who will undercut human rights on the cases he judges. A result of his confirmation is the recent decision to deny Guantanamo detainees the right of habeas corpus. Roll call 158

5/26/06: Obama, again, opposed environmentalists in voting for the cloture on anti-environmentalist Dirk Kempthorne, who was nominated for Secretary of the Interior Roll Call 161

6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a person unlikely ever to have existed and who was reported killed three times previously. Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W]

6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W]

6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766). The result of Obama's vote is that the reported US death toll is now over 3000 and the reported civilian death toll is about 700,000. Families of those who have died in Iraq since 6/15/06 can send their bills for the funeral expenses to Barack Obama. Roll Call 174 [W]

6/19/06: Obama voted to confirm Sandra Segal Ikutu, another opponent of human rights, to the 9th Circuit. This was part of Bush's stacking of the 9th Circuit in a seeming effort to turn the 9th circuit from moderate to right-wing. Roll call 175

6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home, ended the fighting and forced the Iraqi people to take charge of their security. Roll Call 181 [W]

6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183 [W]

6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W]

6/29/06: Obama voted to adopt the United States - Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (S. 3569), which gave American jobs to foreign child slave laborers and eliminated environmental requirements for industries. Roll call 190

8/2/06: Obama voted to use $1.8 billion to guild a fence along the Mexican border to satisfy a group of anti-immigrant racists. Roll call 220

8/3/06: Obama voted to gut pensions of American workers in voting for HR4, AKA the Pension Destruction Act. Roll Call 230

9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). . Roll Call 239 [W]

9/19/06: Voted for United States-Oman Cut Jobs for American Workers and Send them to India Trade Implementation Act (H. R. 5684). This and similar bills perpetuate the use of child slave labor and undercutting the environment while sending US jobs to foreign low-cost labor. Roll Call 250

9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W]

11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W]

12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272
12/07/06: Obama voted for cloture and confirmation of the confirmation of Andrew Von Eschenbach to be Commissioner of the FDA. Eschenbach favors unlabeled use of genetically-modified and cloned food products, Obama voted for cloture and confirmation (Roll Call 274). Roll Call 273 and 274.

12/8/06: In Roll Calls 275 and 276, Obama voted for cloture and confirmation of another of Bush's right wing Circuit Court nominees, Kent A. Jordan
(A note about cloture: often, with the Republicans in a majority in 2005 and 2006, the only way to stop nominees or bills was through opposing cloture. This frequently made Obama's votes for cloture worse than his vote for the bill itself . In some cases there was no role call on cloture and only the roll call to confirm or adopt the bill or nominee is available. Opposing cloture allows a minority party to stop a bill.)

Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126.

Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes. After voting 20 times for war, how dishonest is Obama when he claims to be for peace?

Barack Obama has been vetted and approved by the Bilderbergs and AIPAC, in part because of his strong stance in support of a military strike on Iran.

A Great Comment On Blind Faith in Party Politics

2008-07-14T12:48:00.000-07:00

Obama himself said that dissent was perhaps the truest form of patriotism, yet I made a remark earlier today and received a reply asking if my check from McCain had cleared.

In my view, much of the division in the Democratic Party has come from supporters of the candidate, many who participate here, that stresses unity and change and to leave small politics behind. Perhaps some of these people should look in the mirror.

As a lifelong Democrat and activist who was involved when many here were in need of diaper changes, I am sick of the intolerance to dissenting views.

I vote Democratic, yet I am free to voice my views about my party. Just as I am free to dissent about my country. It makes me no less a Democrat or an American.

Some of these people should wake and stop expecting that to be a good Democrat means to follow the leader in lockstep or be impugned for not doing so. That is the way the other side does things. It reminds me more of Bushies for us or against us mentality, and I find that distressing.

Democrats are known for being able to have far reaching and diverse views, yet still be Democrats. Where that went, especially around here, I don't know.

by citizen53 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM PDT

McCain Issues Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians

2008-07-09T11:55:00.000-07:00

Titled "John McCain's Top Ten Funniest Ways to Kill Iranians," the list was published on his official campaign website at

www.JohnMcCain.com/funnywaystokilliranians.

Speaking in a video on the site, a smiling Sen. McCain says, "My friends, in these trying times in which we live, there's one thing all Americans can agree on: killing Iranians is hilarious."

The list ends with what Sen. McCain dubs the number one funniest way to kill Iranians: "Vote for me."

Full Story here....

Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity

2008-07-08T22:27:00.000-07:00

'Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.'

For fuck's sake! If they're mad at this, wait till Mr. Switch, or Brzezinski's child, really gets going. As I have said from the start - Obama is a blatant fraud with strings attached to every limb.

Obama The Dummy - Brzezinski The Ventriloquist

2008-05-29T17:52:00.000-07:00

Rense.com

WASHINGTON, DC -- In my book Obama The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate, I argue that presidential candidate Barack Obama is a wholly owned puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and his associates of the Trilateral Commission, founded by David Rockefeller. As some have noted, Brzezinski has been attempting to conceal his actual domination of the Obama campaign, for which he is the chief guru and controller. Now a rhetorical outburst by Obama on the campaign trail in Oregon has once again pointed to the reality that Obama is a ventriloquist's dummy, with the Russia-hating fanatic Brzezinski, a barbarous relic of the Cold War, acting as the ventriloquist.

At a recent campaign stop in Oregon, Obama stated:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)

This remarkable statement reveals the true program of a future Obama administration: savage austerity, brutal economic sacrifice, and a massive further reduction in the standard of living of the depleted and exhausted US population as demanded by David Rockefeller, George Soros, and Obama's Wall Street backers. This will be done under left cover through a global warming tax, a third world solidarity tax, and other demagogic frauds, with the revenue going to bail out Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase. The tired, discredited post-9/11 "war on terror" slogans will be dumped. Most interesting is that Obama's sound bytes are actually a sloganized version of a key passage from Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower (New York: Basic Books, 2007), pp. 198-199. This book contains Zbig's desperate strategy for preserving the crisis-ridden US-UK world empire, including by making the US "social model" more attractive to developing sector publics. Zbig writes:

"In mutually compounding ways, material self-indulgence, persistent social shortcomings, and public ignorance about the world increase the difficulty the American democracy faces in formulating a globally appealing platform for effective world leadership. Americans must recognize that their patterns of consumption will soon collide head-on with increasingly impatient egalitarian aspirations. Whether through the exploitation of natural resources, excessive energy consumption, indifference to global ecology, or the exorbitant size of houses for the well-to-do, indulgent self-gratification at home conveys indifference to the persisting deprivations of much of the world. (Just try to imagine a world in which 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians consume as much energy per capita as Americans do.) That reality the American public has yet to assimilate. To lead, America must not only be sensitive to global realities. It must also be socially attractive. That calls for a broader national consensus in favor of correcting the key failings of the American social model."

Obama has thus unmasked himself as the exterminating angel of super-austerity dictated by the elitist Trilateral bankers' clique. Will he cut the current US standard of living by 40%? By 50%? When he does, will he still call it the politics of hope? Obama has been trained to hate the American people through two decades of association with hate-mongers like Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Brzezinski himself. For Rockefeller and Soros, Obama's hatred of the American people is a positive guarantee that he will enforce Wall Street's austerity decrees with a vengeance. Forget the utopian platitudes and the messianic rhetoric: Obama's real economic program is now clear for all to see. It is a path that leads to genocide against the US population, among others.

Obama's Oregon outburst needs to be read in the light of earlier unguarded statements by Michelle Obama, who has said at various times in her stump speech: "before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation. If we can't see ourselves in one another, we will never make those sacrifices.We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired...to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place. The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don't get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." Here the theme of purification and redemption by means of sacrifice and economic austerity is clearly conveyed. Now Barack has begun to fill in the details.

Insiders have long recognized that Zbigniew Brzezinski (helped by his son Mark) owns and runs Obama. David Ignatius has pointed to Second Chance as a scenario for a future Obama administration. Ignatius commented over a year ago: "Zbigniew Brzezinski has written a new book that might be a foreign policy manifesto for Barack Obama The most intriguing part of Brzezinski's book is what I would describe as the Obama manifesto. (David Ignatius, "A Manifesto for the Next President," Washington Post, March 14, 2007) It has also long been known that Zbig does the thinking for Obama; the London Economist last year hailed "a new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter." ("A New Brain for Barack Obama, Economist.com, March 14, 2007)

Obama's campaign has long been attacking Bush from the right, criticizing the current regime for not exploiting 9/11 to impose savage economic austerity, as seen in Samantha Power's "monster" interview. We now have good evidence that Obama will flay the American people alive with his elitist economic policies. Obama has committed a major error by showing his hand. Will voters react in time to stop him?

In Obama We Trust -The Myth of "Democratic" Elections In America

2008-05-12T01:04:00.000-07:00

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-George Orwell

The 2008 election; faker than pro-wrestling

I'm going mad..... All I hear are catchy statements. Hypnotizing speeches. The word "Change" repeated over and over again. His face on every magazine I come across. But the one thing I wait for never comes. Substance. A deeper explanation of actual policy. Any depth whatsoever. Is it all being whitewashed? Are voters being hypnotized, or better yet, hyped up by someone who's policies are really not that different at all? We experience hype on a constant basis with every upcoming blockbuster hollywood film, is this hype also experienced in politics? What kind of change are we looking at here? I wanted to know more, so I dug a little deeper. By the end of this post, you should understand my underlying skepticism. This man needs to be examined deeper.

This is the end all be all compilation of all Obama related facts and statements and policy plans.

"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008

This is the view that many in the public share of him. But let us take a second look, beyond the statements of a political campaign, to study what he has actually done. Read on so I may show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

THE IRAQ WAR

-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.

-In April 2007, Obama voted “Yes” for a $104 billion appropriations bill for the War in Iraq.

-And “Yes” again in November 2007 for another $50 billion. Since then, he hasn’t voted on any bills related to the non-funding of the war.

-He has never voted to NOT fund the war.

-He was absent for a bill that would set the budget for the next fiscal year for the war and was absent from a vote for troop withdrawal.

Why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?

-He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various fabricated justifications for going to war in Iraq.

- In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

-He has repeatedly stated his desire to add 92,000 combat troops to the military. 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.

Regarding Pakistan and Iran

-’If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’. -Barack Obama -August 1, 2007

That’s exactly what Bush said, and DID, when he made the ’actionable intelligence’ fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The "intelligence", was flat out wrong. Keep in mind, this is a country that might actually fight back with nuclear weapons. This psychotic proposal makes Obama the most explicit and outspoken warmonger in the democratic field.

He advocates re-deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight ’terrorists’ and he says of Iran: ’We should take no option, including military action, off the table’. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.

From the Obama website under the Foreign Policy section...

"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust."

This is basically, the same exact line used by the hawks and hardliners within the Bush Administration in order to whip up a hysteria against Iran. They have never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, never denied the Holocaust having happened, and there is no evidence proving that Iran is building or trying to build nuclear weapons. Also, there is no evidence of Iran supporting "militias inside iraq". Those are all LIES being pushed by the mainstream media on a continual repetitive basis and Obama is complicit in pushing these lies. Repeating an untruth over and over again does not make it the truth. Obama is being duped by the same hawks who told us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. More from the Iran section of his website, diplomatically...

"Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its (non-existent) nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

Thats some "choice" there, a nice ultimatum, submit to our will or suffer and die. This sounds very similar to John McCain's stance on Iran.

"John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.... The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country."

Furthermore....

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.

"The United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran"

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point" -September 2004 Chicago Tribune

Authors Update: June 17, 2008 -Video

Barack Obama's Speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, DC June 4, 2008 (About 12 hours after winning the Democratic party nomination). This is the section dealing with Obama's position on Iran. Here he uses ALL of the neo-con talking points on Iran. All of these points have been proven to be nothing more than thin propaganda. All of them are lies. This speech confirms what I have been saying about him all along.

-Iran has a Nuclear program that MUST be stopped
-The Iranian President denies the Holocaust
-Iran supports terrorism and violent extremists who challenge us across the region
-Raises the prospect of a transfer of "nuclear know-how to terrorists"
-The Iranian President has threatened to "Wipe Israel off the map"
-His goal will be to "eliminate this threat"

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon - everything," he said to a standing ovation.

Well that about clears that up!

On Policing The Globe...

"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world." -Barack Obama - August 01, 2007

This is hardly a position to get excited about. Its no different from the neoconservative philosophy of the past 8 years. He is talking about an interventionist, pre-emptive war, aggressive strategy of continued warfare.

People love to compare Barack Obama to Martin Luther King Jr. I see that as an insult to what he stood for. And here’s why...

"Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name."

-Martin Luther King Jr. "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967

Also see - The Neo-Con Philosophy

"After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent [by the Bush administration]," Obama writes, "many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America." -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership - (CFR Publication) Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

Zbigniew Brezezinski - The Man In The Shadows

The elementary principle of all deception is to attract the enemy’s attention to what you wish him to see & to distract his attention from what you so not wish him to see - General Sir Archibald Wavel

The true face of Obama.

Then there’s Zbigniew Brezezinski (pictured above), who in his 1997 book wrote...

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct and external threat." (p.211)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space (Eurasia, The Middle East) and that the global community (America) has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (That is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." -The Grand Chessboard (Pg. 35-36)

IMPERIAL Mobilization?

This is the man responsible, without regret either, for the creation of the Mujahadeen resistance in Afghanistan. This assemblage of religious fanatics was used by Brzezinski to attack the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Brzezinski and the CIA worked together with the Pakistani military dictator Zia ul-Haq to spread Wahabi fundamentalism all across Central Asia and the Middle East. They had a preference for demented religious fanatics over the less mentally unstable. This is the same movement which spawned Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Norm Dixon writes:

Washington’s favored mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West’s distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar’s forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

"Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" -Zbigniew Brzezinski quoted in the Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76

"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008

He's only anti-war when it comes to Iraq? Oh, the irony.....

Some background on Brezezinski....

-Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81).

-Co-Chair of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

-Board of Directors, The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) 1988

-Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defence Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy.

-Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

-Associate of Henry Kissinger.

-Brzezinski was the foreign policy adviser for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 1999-2000.

-Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.

-Brezezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group. A non partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

Take a deep breathe.... He is now advising Obama on foreign policy. His primary agenda is maintaining control over the geopolitical space of Eurasia to maintain America's status as the world's preeminent superpower. He is another Henry Kissinger. So you can forget about bringing the troops home. That's nothing more than empty political rhetoric thrown around to sway voters. He is just telling people what they want to hear. We should know how this game is played by now.

Again, from the horse's mouth....

"It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time [if the Iraqi government fulfills a number of conditions, including disbanding militias and moving toward political reconciliation.] Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region."
-Barack Obama November 2006 at the Chicago Council On Global Affairs

Youtube - More of Obama's advisers exposed

Update - June 17, 2008 -What Does a Future Brzezinski Administration hold in store for us?

See latest blog....

Obama's Plan to Expand the Eurasia War and Remain Engaged in the Region

On Obama's webpage, under the section Issues – Iraq , scroll down to the sub title “Bring our troops home”. That’s a misleading statement that should not even be there. Read the paragraph, it does not say that the troops will come home.

He talks about removing "combat brigades". According to the Pentagon ,they make up about 23% of the troops currently assigned to the Iraq mission. So, he’s actually talking about a sub section of the troops.

So where will these "combat brigades" go when they are removed from Iraq? Lets look at Obama's plan entitled, “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”.

Under Section 4 – "Redeployment" – it states...

"(e) Sense of Congress on Location of Redeployment- It is the sense of Congress that, in redeploying the Armed Forces from Iraq under this section, appropriate units of the Armed Forces should be redeployed--

1. to the United States.
2. to Afghanistan, to enhance US military operations in that country;
3. elsewhere in the region, to serve as an over-the-horizon force to prevent the conflict in Iraq from becoming a wider war, to reassure allies of the United States of the commitment of the United States to remain engaged in the region to, and to position troops to strike directly at al-Qaeda, and
4. elsewhere, to meet urgent United States security needs."

So they aren't coming home, they're just going to be shuffled around from one point on the map to another. And again, we hear of his commitment to "remain engaged in the region".

Obama also claims that he will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. This is an empty statement. It’s empty because the Pentagon does not call the bases it builds in Iraq “permanent bases”, but “enduring bases”. The Pentagon has stated many times that it doesn’t plan on building “permanent bases” in Iraq, but to build “Enduring bases”. Orwellian double-speak at its finest.

CIVIL RIGHTS

-Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties and the Bill Of Rights in the last half-century. It expands governmental powers for wholesale eavesdropping on American Citizens under the ruse of "fighting terrorism."

-Obama supports hate crimes legislation which would brand certain types of free speech a federal offense. This will allow federal "thought police" to enforce "anti-hate" laws, making it a federal crime to express bias against specifically protected groups. The First amendment, reason, and rationality are flushed in favor of political correctness.

“I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire

-Obama voted in favor of the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005". Under this act, citizens are denied the right to bring class actions against corporations by moving these state law cases into federal court. This will delay, and likely deny justice altogether for working men and women who are victims of discrimination. The federal courts are already overburdened, and are less likely to provide relief for violations of state law. This bill which dramatically impaired labor rights, consumer rights and civil rights involved years of pressure from 100 corporations, 475 lobbyists, tens of millions of dollars buying influence in government, and the active participation of the Wall St. firms now funding the Obama campaign.

FOREIGN AIDE

-Obama says he wants to double foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012, and focus on the world’s "weakest states" to improve health, education and business opportunities.

Meanwhile 28 million Americans are on food stamps and poverty is rampant. We should focus solely on improving the situation at home first before attempting to "save the world." You can't cleanup the world when your own home is THIS dirty...

Conclusion

Obama - (CFR member) Neoconservative Zbigniew Brzezinski backed "Soft-Imperialist"
McCain - (CFR member) Neoconservative Henry Kissinger backed hardline Imperialist

This choice is akin to whether or not I should eat chicken tenders, or chicken fries. Coke or Diet Coke? In essence, they are the same fucking thing! One may be just a little bit sweeter than the other. Therefore, I'm with George Carlin on this one, "Fuck em"!

Why did I preface this article by saying that the 2008 election is faker than pro-wrestling? What Presidential Candidates are part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

John McCain
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

I knew this thing was a set-up job from the very first day they announced the candidates. The CFR is the elite ruling class of America. ONLY establishment (that ol' status-quo Obama pretends to fight against) pre-approved candidates get to run for President in America.

"It's a big club and you ain't in it! You and I are not in the Big Club." -George Carlin on the American Dream

Who Opposes the CFR, the "Big Club?"

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul …just look at how he was treated in the media.

What is the CFR?

There is a political solution to the American caused aggressive wars in the middle-east, although its seen as an extremely radical or "fringe" view by both parties and the forces controlling them, Get out NOW! This is not our war. Redeployment and intensifying the war in Afghanistan are not viable options in this stage of the game. We cannot afford to maintain this global empire. The British, followed by the Soviets, found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. Only an immediate withdrawal can save us and our economy from imploding the same way the Soviets did. Ending oil dependency can be done, but it will take tremendous personal changes in the lives of individual Americans. I for one am willing to make that change.

All of the candidates cling to the "They hate us because of our freedoms" line; which is an absolute laugh. They hate us because of what we do to them, not because we're free and rich and wonderful. We are not free! According to the prison studies center, America's incarceration rate is 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. The highest in the world! England's rate is 151 prisoners per 100,000. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

Watch video - Machine Gun Toting guards in the NYC subway.

We need candidates who have the balls to question the legitimacy of this "War on Terror" idea. The current front-runners do not have any balls at all from what I've seen. A person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than from terrorism. Drunk drivers cause 1,000 times more deaths than terrorists, yet no one has claimed that these drivers threaten international peace and security. Terrorism only appears as a global threat because governments say so and because the mainstream media have amplified this phenomenon beyond reasonable proportions. By painting terrorism as a global conspiracy threatening to attack anyone, anywhere and at any time, whole populations are terrorized to fear the unknown and consent to increased surveillance, security measures and restrictions of liberties. It is a deceptive concept, an oxymoron. With no clearly defined enemy how could it ever be declared "Won"? How can you fight a "War on Terror" when war IS terror? Remember the "Shock and Awe" bombings?

Would you be terrified if you saw that outside your window?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

And we have....

As Ron Paul has stated....

"According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States. As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States . Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives."

The mainstream media has a preference for hooplah and sensationalism in relation to this election season. They focus solely on personality differences between the candidates. Small time little scuffles that happen back and forth between them. Hillary called Obama an "elitist" and now he's firing back. Stuff like that. Who gives a fuck? Its all diversion and distraction. Its all completely irrelevant. Lets focus on whats really happening, policy and the men behind the curtains of this stageplay. If we refuse to use our intelligence, then we are no better than animals who have no intelligence and we will be controlled by those who WILL use it. That is what is happening to us. And that is why it is happening to us. Our own willful ignorance. These elites have stepped in to fill in for our own weaknesses, lack of intelligence, and lack of personal responsibility for our own actions.

The Problem

Man has turned himself, willingly and by choice, into an automaton and is afraid of asking original questions to come to genuine answers. People are more than happy to stay silent about the things that really matter. Nobody questions anything anymore out of a sort of groupthink and political correctness. And for most people, the real truth is too scary to even contemplate looking into.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

The Solution

Face and overcome your fears and personal insecurities. Gain a deeper sense of self, insight, and intuition. And most importantly....

Leave your own conclusions on this in the comments section for discussion.....

Related Links, Info, and Videos..... Credit goes to Ry of Anti-neo-cons for providing most of these links....

-December 26, 2007 Obama would not vote against HR 2764 which gave Bush $555 Billion more for the War.
Obama never gives any oposition to any part of the Iraq war in the senate. He either votes for it, or he doesn't vote. He talks about opposing the Iraq War, even though he supports every other war, yet in practice he has done NOTHING to oppose any aspect of the Iraq War.
-Anti-War.com - Can Obama Save Us? Messiah or Snake Oil Salesman?
-Anti-War.com - O-bomb-a and the War Party - Barack Obama: He's more of the same…
-Obama Voted to Give Bush Money for the war three times
- Obama supports war with Iran
-Obama said 'no' to Iraq money in theory, 'yes' in reality
-Obama votes with Israel on Lebanese invasion
-Obama support for Israel
-Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran and Pakistan
-Obama, Brzezinski, and the Neolib-Neocon Family Feud
-Barack Obama is a Neocon In Disguise
-Youtube - Obama on Iran
-CNN - Obama on Iran
-Obama still believes Iran is building a nuclear program
-Mike Gravel & Ron Paul educate others on Iran. Obama uses the same talking points on Iran that Bush uses.
Obama's Globalist, Neoconservative Foreign Policy
CFR Publication Foreign Affairs -Barack Obama - Renewing American Leadership
Obama is in Bed With The Globalists

"Though I would certainly like to vote for a black president, Obama’s clear intention to extend the sphere of America’s preemptive wars and terrorist hunts shows that he is in bed with the globalists and cannot be trusted. "

How Barack Obama Fronted for the Most Vicious Predators on Wall Street

2008-05-11T22:53:00.000-07:00

Should there be any doubt left as to who owns our government?

Senator Obama has become the inspiration and role model to millions of children and young people in this country. He has only two paths now: to be a dream maker or a dream killer. But be assured of one thing: this country will not countenance any more grand illusions.

full article here...

Hypocrisy Alert: Tiny tribe thorn in Gore's side

2008-05-11T10:49:00.000-07:00

Tom Carver
BBC News
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06 EDT

U'wa people: Trying to defend sacred land

US presidential candidate Al Gore has carefully cultivated his image as an environmentalist.

But now he is under fire over his close links to the oil company, Occidental Petroleum, which has begun looking for oil in the Amazon against the wishes of a tiny local tribe called the U'wa.

The tribe is threatening to commit mass suicide if the drilling goes ahead.

The U'wa tribe is trying to stop Occidental Petroleum, from drilling on its sacred land.

But Occidental is undeterred. It has started moving its heavy equipment in, backed by the Colombian Government.

Last year, three American environmental activists were killed by guerrillas while trying to defend the U'wa. They included Terence Freitas. During an interview in March 1998, he explained what was at stake for the U'wa people. "The struggle now is simply life or death," he explained at the time.

"It's not whether they will lose 100 hectares or 10 hectares. It's whether or not the blood of Mother Earth or the U'wa is going to be taken out from under their territory and used in a way that they feel is wrong."

Gore reputation at stake

This dispute is threatening Al Gore's reputation as an environmentalist.

He has close ties and a large financial stake in Occidental Petroleum, despite its poor environmental image.

His father, Al Gore senior, was on Occidental's board for three decades.

As vice president of the United States, his son helped the company win drilling concessions.

Charles Lewis, of the Center for Public Integrity, has examined the ties between Al Gore and Occidental. "We have looked at the records for 25 years around Al Gore," he says. "We've followed every penny he has ever received and I'm telling you that the company he is beholden to, the one company that has helped make him financially whole and has helped him politically is Occidental Petroleum."

Environmentalists accuse Mr Gore of a major conflict of interest. Al Gore refuses even to speak about the U'wa's plight.

Colombia needs oil

Some say that without oil, Colombia would not be able to survive.

According to Lowell Fleischer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, money from companies like Occidental provide much needed foreign earnings. "It's going to take more than money to solve all of Colombia's problems, but without the money they can't go forward at all," he says.

"Oil is extremely important to the Colombian economy and I think without it they would be in very serious difficulties."

The US Government is pouring troops and equipment into Colombia to help the fight against drugs and guerrillas. It is a controversial policy, now complicated even further by Al Gore's financial dealings.

Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts

2008-05-07T15:04:00.000-07:00

Government Apologists Keep Moving the Goal Posts

The people defending the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:

Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11

Then, when the family members of the victims and everyday Americans started to publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"

Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, air traffic controllers, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"

Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"

Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .

They keep moving the goal posts, which is a sign of dishonesty. Its the old bait-and-switch ... come up with one argument, and when it is shot down as false, make up a new one.

Indeed, if Bush, Cheney, and Rummie all confessed under oath that they carried out 9/11, the defenders of the official version would probably try to move the goal posts yet again:

"true, but no one checked to see if they had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.

And they've been under alot of stress recently. Maybe they've suffered from short-term memory loss.

And you don't have any video actually showing them ordering the stand down, do you?! Why should we believe you if you don't have video of them doing it?!"

If you have questioned 9/11 for a couple of years as I have, you'll know that the above-described history of goalpost-moving is accurate. If you haven't, google around and you'll probably see what I mean.

Posted by George Washington at 12:28 PM

Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

2008-05-07T14:57:00.000-07:00

Government Itself Won't Swear To Official Theory of 9/11

Original link and recommended resource - http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/government-itself-cant-swear-by.html

While many people question the government's conclusions about 9/11, rest assured that the government agencies tasked with investigating 9/11 are confident that the government's answer to the following questions is correct:

(1) How could a rag-tag bunch of hijackers penetrate the strongest military in history and disable normal defensive procedures?

(2) How could 3 super-strong, over-engineered buildings collapse due to fire, falling at virtually free-fall speed, and exhibiting many other indications normally associated with controlled demolition?

At least the government itself is confident about the answers to these questions, right?

Well, actually:

Bush, Cheney and all other key officials refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney would not even speak to the 9/11 Commission unless they did so together

The 9/11 Commission admits that the U.S. military intentionally lied about what happened that day, the Commission reached conclusions based on political considerations, and that its conclusions were largely based on third-hand information conveyed through military spokespeople about what severley tortured, crazy people supposedly said

NIST admits "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", even though no modern steel-frame building has ever before or since totally collapsed due to fire, even with much hotter and longer-burning fires

FEMA admits that its best hypothesis for why WTC 7 collapsed has only "a low probability of occurring"

It is not very reassuring when the professional whitewashers tasked with defending the government's version of what happened on 9/11 are themselves unwilling to swear to that version.

Posted by George Washington at 10:50 AM

Comment - For those who still defend the official conspiracy theory and think that we already know everything about what happened that day, I have one question. Do you believe in it enough to fight and die for it? To go to war fighting in its name? And if so, why haven't you enlisted yet? They NEED soldiers

Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

2008-05-07T14:48:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Neocons Admit that "War On Terror" Is a Hoax

Key war on terror architect Douglas Feith has now confirmed Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Wesley Clark in admitting that the so-called War on Terror is a hoax.

In fact, starting right after 9/11 -- at the latest -- the goal has always been to create "regime change" and instability in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Lebanon so as to protect Israel. And the goal was never really to destroy Al Qaeda.

As reported in a new article in Asia Times:

Three weeks after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of not only removing the Saddam Hussein regime by force but overturning the regime in Iran, as well as in Syria and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted extensively in then-under secretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith's recently published account of the Iraq war decisions. Feith's account further indicates that this aggressive aim of remaking the map of the Middle East by military force and the threat of force was supported explicitly by the country's top military leaders.

Feith's book, War and Decision, released last month, provides excerpts of the paper Rumsfeld sent to President George W Bush on September 30, 2001, calling for the administration to focus not on taking down Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network but on the aim of establishing "new regimes" in a series of states...

***

General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia [and Lebanon].

***

When this writer asked Feith . . . which of the six regimes on the Clark list were included in the Rumsfeld paper, he replied, "All of them."

***

The Defense Department guidance document made it clear that US military aims in regard to those states would go well beyond any ties to terrorism. The document said the Defense Department would also seek to isolate and weaken those states and to "disrupt, damage or destroy" their military capacities - not necessarily limited to weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Where does Israel come in?

Well, the Asia Times article continues:

Rumsfeld's paper was given to the White House only two weeks after Bush had approved a US military operation in Afghanistan directed against bin Laden and the Taliban regime. Despite that decision, Rumsfeld's proposal called explicitly for postponing indefinitely US airstrikes and the use of ground forces in support of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in order to try to catch bin Laden.

Instead, the Rumsfeld paper argued that the US should target states that had supported anti-Israel forces such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

***
After the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa [in 1988] by al-Qaeda operatives, State Department counter-terrorism official Michael Sheehan proposed supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in Afghanistan against bin Laden's sponsor, the Taliban regime. However, senior US military leaders "refused to consider it", according to a 2004 account by Richard H Shultz, Junior, a military specialist at Tufts University.

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a "small price to pay for being a superpower".

And if "terrorist strikes" were a "small price to pay for being a superpower"- and that is the reason that the U.S. government refused to disrupt the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks - doesn't that add weight to the claim that the U.S. government intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur? In other words, doesn't this statement by a senior officer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tend to prove that 9/11 was intentionally allowed to occur as the "New Pearl Harbor" which would allow America to act like "a superpower" and re-make the Middle East in its own (and Israel's) image?

This is not an unreasonable question, especially given that Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and most of the other key architects of the "war on terror" were part of the Project for a New American Century and its plea for a "New Pearl Harbor" to justify expansion of American militarism and regime change in the Middle East.

And remember that many of the key members of PNAC and architects of the "war on terror" had previously created the "Clean Break" strategy for Israel, which called for a policy of war and regime change against Israel's enemies.

The war on terror was never intended to be about fighting terrorism. As even Newsweek has now admitted, the war on terror is a hoax.

Posted by George Washington at 7:39 AM

Related - Newsweek -

Terrorist Triage

Why are the presidential candidates—and so many counterterrorism experts—afraid to say that the Al Qaeda threat is overrated?

The Most Important Video You May Ever See

2008-04-30T16:27:00.000-07:00

In Lies We Trust: The CIA, Hollywood and Bioterrorism - FULL VERSION

Bill Hicks - You are free to do as we tell you.

2008-04-28T22:47:00.001-07:00

Obama - The Urban Legend Exposed

2008-04-27T09:53:00.000-07:00

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
-George Orwell

The 2008 election; faker than pro-wrestling

I'm going mad..... All I hear are catchy statements. Hypnotizing speeches. The word "Change" repeated over and over again. His face on every magazine I come across. But the one thing I wait for never comes. Substance. A deeper explanation of actual policy. Any depth whatsoever. Is it all being whitewashed? Are voters being hypnotized into a trance-like state by someone who's policies are really not that different at all? What kind of change are we looking at here? I wanted to know more, so I dug a little deeper. By the end of this post, you should understand my underlying skepticism. Merely making a good speech or two in these perilous times is simply not gonna cut it. This man needs to be examined deeper.

"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008

This is the view that many in the public share of him. But let us take a second look, beyond the statements of a political campaign, to study what he has actually done. Take the red pill with me and continue on, so I may show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

THE IRAQ WAR

-At first, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. When he began running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

-Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion.

-In April 2007, Obama voted “Yes” for a $104 billion appropriations bill for the War in Iraq.

-And “Yes” again in November 2007 for another $50 billion. Since then, he hasn’t voted on any bills related to the non-funding of the war.

-He has never voted to NOT fund the war.

-Jamie Rubin, a former Clinton State Department spokesman has said that when it comes to funding votes, Obama's and Clinton's Senate records are "virtually identical." He went on to say, "There is nothing unique about his Iraq war position except a speech he made that he never followed through on."

-He was absent for a bill that would set the budget for the next fiscal year for the war and was absent from a vote for troop withdrawal.

Why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war?

-He voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various fabricated justifications for going to war in Iraq.

- In March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge from anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

-He has repeatedly stated his desire to add 92,000 combat troops to the military. 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

-Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress.

Bottom line, he has not done ANYTHING good or anti-war in the Senate. He votes to fund the war, he votes for Israel when they invade Lebanon, he votes to reauthorize the Patriot Act, and he simply doesn't show up when an important vote comes around. He's all talk, no action. You have to look at what they DO, not what they SAY. Watch what happens when an Obama supporter gets questioned on Hardball on his accomplishments in the Senate.

Regarding Pakistan and Iran

-’If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will’. -Barack Obama -August 1, 2007

That’s exactly what Bush said, and DID, when he made the ’actionable intelligence’ fit the agenda for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. The "intelligence", was flat out wrong. Keep in mind, this is a country that might actually fight back with nuclear weapons. This psychotic proposal makes Obama the most explicit and outspoken warmonger in the democratic field.

He advocates re-deploying troops in Iraq to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight ’terrorists’ and he says of Iran: ’We should take no option, including military action, off the table’. So he is not against war, which appears to be his image for many, he is against one war.

From the Obama website under the Foreign Policy section...

"The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust."

This is basically, the same exact line used by the hawks and hardliners within the Bush Administration in order to whip up a hysteria against Iran. They have never threatened to wipe Israel off the map, never denied the Holocaust having happened, and there is no evidence proving that Iran is building or trying to build nuclear weapons. Those are all falsehoods being pushed by the mainstream media on a continual basis. Constant repetition does not make it the truth. Obama is being duped by the same hawks who told us about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. More from the Iran section of his website, diplomatically...

"Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its (non-existent) nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

Thats some "choice" there, a nice ultimatum, submit to our will or suffer and die. This sounds very similar to John McCain's stance on Iran.

"John McCain believes Syria and Iran have aided and abetted the violence in Iraq for too long. Syria has refused to crack down on Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists operating from within its territory. Iran has aided the most extreme and violent Shia militias, providing them with training, weapons, and technology that they have used to kill American troops.... The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces in Iraq and to deter Iranian intervention in that country."

On Policing The Globe...

"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world." -Barack Obama - August 01, 2007

This is hardly a position to get excited about. Its no different from the neoconservative philosophy of the past 8 years. He is talking about an interventionist, pre-emptive war, aggressive strategy of continued warfare.

People love to compare Barack Obama to Martin Luther King Jr. I see that as an insult to what he stood for. And here’s why...

"Don’t let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You’re too arrogant! And if you don’t change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I’ll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn’t even know my name."

-Martin Luther King Jr. "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967

Also see - The Neo-Con Philosophy

Zbigniew Brezezinski - The Man In The Shadows

Norm Dixon writes:

Washington’s favored mujaheddin faction was one of the most extreme, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The West’s distaste for terrorism did not apply to this unsavory “freedom fighter”. Hekmatyar was notorious in the 1970s for throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.
After the mujaheddin took Kabul in 1992, Hekmatyar’s forces rained US-supplied missiles and rockets on that city — killing at least 2000 civilians — until the new government agreed to give him the post of prime minister. Osama bin Laden was a close associate of Hekmatyar and his faction.

"Regret what? That secret operation (the CIA backing of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists) was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?"

"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" -Zbigniew Brzezinski quoted in the Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76

"Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq." -Antiwar.com, March 17, 2008

He's only anti-war when it comes to Iraq? Oh, the irony.....

Some background on Brezezinski....

-Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81).

-Co-Chair of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

-Board of Directors, The Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) 1988

-Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defence Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy.

-Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

-Associate of Henry Kissinger.

-Brzezinski was the foreign policy adviser for John McCain’s presidential campaign in 1999-2000.

-Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller.

-Brezezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group. A non partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

Take a deep breathe.... He is now advising Obama on foreign policy. His primary agenda is maintaining control over the geopolitical space of Eurasia to maintain America's status as the world's preeminent superpower. He is another Henry Kissinger. So you can forget about bringing the troops home. That's nothing more than empty political rhetoric thrown around to sway voters. He is just telling people what they want to hear. We should know how this game is played by now.

Again, from the horse's mouth....

"It is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time [if the Iraqi government fulfills a number of conditions, including disbanding militias and moving toward political reconciliation.] Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region."
-Barack Obama November 2006 at the Chicago Council On Global Affairs

Youtube - More of Obama's advisers exposed

Obama's Plan to Expand the Eurasia War and Remain Engaged in the Region

On Obama's webpage, under the section Issues – Iraq , scroll down to the sub title “Bring our troops home”. That’s a misleading statement that should not even be there. Read the paragraph, it does not say that the troops will come home.

So where will these "combat brigades" go when they are removed from Iraq? Lets look at Obama's plan entitled, “Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007”.

Under Section 4 – "Redeployment" – it states...

So they aren't coming home, they're just going to be shuffled around from one point on the map to another. And again, we hear of his commitment to "remain engaged in the region".

Why did I preface this article by saying that the 2008 election is faker than pro-wrestling? What Presidential Candidates are part of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

John McCain
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Chris Dodd
Bill Richardson

"It's a big club and you ain't in it! You and I are not in the Big Club." -George Carlin on the American Dream

Who Opposes the CFR, the "Big Club?"

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul …just look at how he was treated in the media.

What is the CFR?

There is a political solution to the American caused aggressive wars in the middle-east, although its seen as an extremely radical or "fringe" view by both parties and the forces controlling them, Get out NOW! This is not our war. Redeployment and intensifying the war in Afghanistan are not viable options in this stage of the game. We cannot afford to maintain this global empire. The British, followed by the Soviets, found it impossible to maintain control in Afghanistan. And having all of our troops abroad leaves us completely defenseless here at home against an invasion.

All of the candidates cling to the "They hate us because of our freedoms" line; which is an absolute laugh. They hate us because of what we do to them, not because we're free and rich and wonderful. We are not free! According to the prison studies center, America's incarceration rate is 751 people in prison for every 100,000 in the population. The highest in the world! England's rate is 151 prisoners per 100,000. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

Watch video - Machine Gun Toting guards in the NYC subway.

We need candidates who have the balls to question the legitimacy of this "War on Terror" idea. The current front-runners do not have any balls at all from what I've seen. A person is more likely to die from a lightning strike than from terrorism. Drunk drivers cause 1,000 times more deaths than terrorists, yet no one has claimed that these drivers threaten international peace and security. Terrorism only appears as a global threat because governments say so and because the mainstream media have amplified this phenomenon beyond reasonable proportions. By painting terrorism as a global conspiracy threatening to attack anyone, anywhere and at any time, whole populations are terrorized to fear the unknown and consent to increased surveillance, security measures and restrictions of liberties. It is a deceptive concept, an oxymoron. With no clearly defined enemy how could it ever be declared "Won"? How can you fight a "War on Terror" when war IS terror? Remember the "Shock and Awe" bombings?

Would you be terrified if you saw that outside your window?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire

And we have....

As Ron Paul has stated....

“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq ”

Quote:

"U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs.

"But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran", Obama said.

"'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?' Obama asked.

"Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point"

All You Should Know For The Presidential Election 2008

2008-04-26T22:27:00.000-07:00

11,000 US Soldiers Dead from DU Poisoning

2008-04-26T21:00:00.000-07:00

11,000 US Soldiers Dead from DU Poisoning

Bob Nichols - S.F. Bay View February 23, 2005

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, "The real reason for Mr. Principi's departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the 'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military."

Bernklau continued, "This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."

He added, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of 'Disabled Vets' means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!" The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

"The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000," wrote Bernklau. "He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret's report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!"

"Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that 'Gulf Era Veterans' now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans," said Berklau.

"The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence," stated Berklau. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as 'spectacular -- and a matter of concern!'"

When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for "destroying things and killing people," Fulk was more specific: "I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!"

Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline.

References

1. Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad" by Leuren Moret, www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml

2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968.

3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with Subscribe" in the subject line.

This is disgusting. Our troops are being betrayed and sacrificed.

The Assassination of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer

2008-04-26T20:49:00.001-07:00

Who's Advising Your Candidate? (You better know...)

2008-04-26T00:16:00.001-07:00

Al-Qaeda Lifts Propaganda From Spoof News Website

2008-04-25T17:07:00.000-07:00

Al-Zawahiri's annoyance at 9/11 conspiracy theorists apes The Onion satire

Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, April 24, 2008

If you thought the twilight zone insanity of the propaganda being desperately spewed forth in order to prolong the "war on terror" wasn't ludicrous enough, this week it got worse, after Ayman al-Zawahiri, or whoever is using him as their personal sock puppet, directly lifted a spoof news satire piece and incorporated it into his diatribe.

A few weeks ago popular news satire website The Onion ran a spoof video interview skit wherein an Al-Qaeda operative appears with a 9/11 conspiracy researcher to express his frustration about other parties being given credit for carrying out the terrorist attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

Watch the video.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

"How would you like it if you spent two months in a mountain cave, sleeping on rocks, planning something really special, only to have someone take the credit away from you," laments "Omar Al-Farouq".

Many in the 9/11 Truth Movement took this as a sneering send-up of researchers who question the official story while others just found it funny.

Either way you look at it, the significance of this video has now taken on a new perspective after what we're assured is the real "Al-Qaeda" number two - Ayman al-Zawahri - followed suit and threw a hissy fit aimed at 9/11 conspiracy theorists this week, who he claimed were based in Iran.

Perhaps people should be worried that CENTCOM is spending more time surfing around satirical news websites than worrying about America's supposed enemies. The fact that they would lift a skit from a comedy video and incorporate it within an "Al-Zawahiri" speech just shows how dumb they think the American people are and the extremities of what they think they can get away with.

Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld did promise the 'WoT' would be fought with a heavy emphasis on propaganda, online, as well in the front lines. How much of what we see supposedly flowing from the Al Qaeda publicity bunker is information warfare? You don't need much footage to work with.

The reality is staring us in the face - the Neo-Cons are manufacturing or doctoring so-called "Al-Qaeda" tapes and using the phony terrorists' rhetoric to demonize their political enemies - and 9/11 truthers are their latest target.

Death of the US Dollar

2008-04-17T16:23:00.001-07:00

What is D.U?

2008-04-15T20:45:00.000-07:00

Kill Your TV

2008-04-15T20:36:00.000-07:00

The Neo-Con Philosophy

2008-04-15T19:46:00.000-07:00

Since all of the major choices for President in 2008 are of the neoconservative slant, including Obama, what does that mean exactly?

Remember the Clintons?

2008-04-05T00:03:00.000-07:00

Giuliani EXPOSED. The Pictures They Dont Want You To See!

2008-04-03T12:03:00.000-07:00

I know its a little late for this, but still, it is just too fucking funny!!

Journalism In America

2008-04-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given to him by the leaders of his profession. Someone offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by remarking:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.


"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone.


"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?


"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

(Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.)

-Alternatives are needed as a solution to this problem. The American people are so used to receiving so little information that they never know the bigger picture. WE are the alternative. WE are the new media. But we need to leave our obsession with greed and material acquisition at the door. Speaking truth to power is not a task that pays handsomely. It must be done purely out of a passionate desire for truth and clarity. Climbing that mountain may be hard, but nothing is better than the view you have when you reach the top.

Project Censored - No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”

2008-04-03T00:06:00.000-07:00

#1 No Habeas Corpus for “Any Person”

in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2008

Sources:
Consortium, October 19, 2006
Title: “Who Is ‘Any Person’ in Tribunal Law?”
Author: Robert Parry
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/101906.html

Consortium, February 3, 2007
Title: “Still No Habeas Rights for You”
Author: Robert Parry
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/020307.html

Common Dreams, February 2, 2007
Title: “Repeal the Military Commissions Act and Restore the Most
American Human Right”
Author: Thom Hartmann
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0212-24.htm

Student Researchers: Bryce Cook and Julie Bickel
Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.

With the approval of Congress and no outcry from corporate media, the Military Commissions Act (MCA) signed by Bush on October 17, 2006, ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. While media, including a lead editorial in the New York Times October 19, have given false comfort that we, as American citizens, will not be the victims of the draconian measures legalized by this Act—such as military roundups and life-long detention with no rights or constitutional protections—Robert Parry points to text in the MCA that allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for “any person” regardless of American citizenship. The MCA effectively does away with habeas corpus rights for “any person” arbitrarily deemed to be an “enemy of the state.” The judgment on who is deemed an “enemy combatant” is solely at the discretion of President Bush.

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge governmental power of arrest and detention through the use of habeas corpus laws, considered to be the most critical parts of the Magna Carta which was signed by King John in 1215.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84 in August of 1788:

The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British eighteenth-century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:

“To bereave a man of life” says he, “or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

While it is true that some parts of the MCA target non-citizens, other sections clearly apply to US citizens as well, putting citizens inside the same tribunal system with non-citizen residents and foreigners.

Section 950q of the MCA states that, “Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter [of the MCA] who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission.”1
Section 950v. “Crimes Triable by Military Commissions” (26) of the MCA seems to specifically target American citizens by stating that, “Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States, or one of the co-belligerents of the enemy, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”1 “Who,” warns Parry, “has ‘an allegiance or duty to the United States’ if not an American citizen?”

Besides allowing “any person” to be swallowed up by Bush’s system, the law prohibits detainees once inside from appealing to the traditional American courts until after prosecution and sentencing, which could translate into an indefinite imprisonment since there are no timetables for Bush’s tribunal process to play out.

Section 950j of the law further states that once a person is detained, “ not withstanding any other provision of law (including section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision) no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission under this chapter, including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions.”1
Other constitutional protections in the Bill of Rights, such as a speedy trial, the right to reasonable bail, and the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment,” would seem to be beyond a detainee’s reach as well.

Parry warns that, “In effect, what the new law appears to do is to create a parallel ‘star chamber’ system for the prosecution, imprisonment, and possible execution of enemies of the state, whether those enemies are foreign or domestic.

“Under the cloak of setting up military tribunals to try al-Qaeda suspects and other so-called unlawful enemy combatants, Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress effectively created a parallel legal system for ‘any person’—American citizen or otherwise—who crosses some ill-defined line.”

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a US Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales opined at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, 2007, “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended.”
More important than its sophomoric nature, Parry warns, is that Gonzales’s statement suggests he is still searching for arguments to make habeas corpus optional, subordinate to the President’s executive powers that Bush’s neoconservative legal advisers claim are virtually unlimited during “time of war.”

Citation
1. “Military Commissions Act of 2006” Public Law 109-366, 109th Congress. See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f ubl366.109.

UPDATE BY ROBERT PARRY
The Consortium series on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 pointed out that the law’s broad language seems to apply to both US citizens and non-citizens, contrary to some reassuring comments in the major news media that the law only denies habeas corpus rights to non-citizens. The law’s application to “any person” who aids and abets a wide variety of crimes related to terrorism—and the law’s provisions stripping away the jurisdiction of civilian courts—could apparently thrust anyone into the legal limbo of the military commissions where their rights are tightly constrained and their cases could languish indefinitely.

Despite the widespread distribution of our articles on the Internet, the major US news media continues to ignore the troubling “any person” language tucked in toward the end of the statute. To my knowledge, for instance, no major news organization has explained why, if the law is supposed to apply only to non-citizens, one section specifically targets “any person [who] in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States.” Indeed, the “any person” language in sections dealing with a wide array of crimes, including traditional offenses such as spying, suggests that a parallel legal system has been created outside the parameters of the US Constitution.

Since publication of the articles, the Democrats won control of both the House and Senate—and some prominent Democrats, such as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, have voiced their intent to revise the law with the goal of restoring habeas corpus and other rights. However, other Democrats appear hesitant, fearing that any attempt to change the law would open them to charges that they are “soft on terrorism” and that Republicans would torpedo the reform legislation anyway. Outside of Congress, pro-Constitution groups have made reform of the Military Commissions Act a high priority. For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union organized a national protest rally against the law. But the public’s lack of a clear understanding of the law’s scope has undercut efforts to build a popular movement for repeal or revision of the law.

To learn more about the movement to rewrite the Military Commissions Act, readers can contact the ACLU at https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DOA_learn
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DOA_learn.

Comment
On June 8, 2007 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act on an 11-8 vote. If approved, the bipartisan bill, authored by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Senator Arlen Specter (Mr. Magic Bullet himself, remember the Warren Commission?) of Pennsylvania, will restore habeas rights that were taken away last year by the Military Commissions Act. The bill will move to the full Senate for vote late June 2007.

Comment by Orlando

"The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization" has now been effectively chipped away by the Bush Administration. This is old news of course since it happened back in 2006. But no one seems to know or care about this. I find that to be very odd. And none of the current Presidential candidates ever talk about this, or any civil rights issue for that matter. What gets me the most is, all this happened while everyone in America was busy focusing on Mark Foley's resignation and the sex scandal surrounding it. The American public, obviously, would not stand for this destruction of their civil liberties if they had been fully informed on the facts. So they had to be distracted while this subversion process took place. And nothing works better than a good old-fashioned sex scandal involving pedophilia, homosexuality, and a Republican congressman to boot! Because of this sleight of hand, we now have the kind of Military tribunal law, torture, and indefinete detention that was used by the Church to oppress millions during the 600+ years of the Inquisition. Have you learned yet how the media keeps you distracted from real issues?

We need to take our power of intellect back and stop giving it away to the hypnotist in the corner (TV) on a daily basis. These so called "News" broadcasters continue to deceive and mislead the American people, even after being caught red-handed lying us into the Iraq war. As I've said before, we're better and we're smarter than this. "We don't need no education, We don't need no thought control."

INFRAGARD: Govt Gives Citizens Permission To Shoot To Kill

2008-04-02T22:38:00.001-07:00