May 31, 2010

Israel Receives Overdue Wrath From The World

Previously, many people of the world criticized Israel meekly and softly, afraid of being called antisemitic. But such fears of ridicule don't hold sway over the international community as it once did. After Israel's attack on an unarmed humanitarian ship, the actions of the terrorist state are increasingly regarded as indefensible. Also, Israel's persistent defiance of the rule of the law, and the wishes of the world, are drawing intense anger from all quarters of the globe. People's patience with Israel's brutal behavior towards its neighbors has ended.

In reaction to Israel's attack on a humanitarian ship, which resulted in the death of 19 lives, Professor Norman Finkelstein described Israel as a "lunatic state" in an interview with Russia Today.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Israel's act "state terrorism." At the United Nations, Turkey's Foreign Minister pressured the international community to take strong action against Israel, saying "No state is above the law." Turkey also said that future Gaza humanitarian aid ships will travel with military escorts.

Reactions From Around The Web

Glenn Greenwald:
"On a day when the meaning of "heroism" is often discussed, the people on these ships who tried to deliver aid to Gazans, knowing that they could easily find themselves in a confrontation with the Israeli Navy but doing it anyway in order to bring attention to the extraordinary injustice and cruelty of the blockade, are pure, unadulterated heroes."

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed:
"Under Netanyahu, the IDF has become increasingly unhinged. Utterly incapable of grasping that its war crimes and crimes against humanity can no longer simply be dressed up as a fight against terrorists, when terror itself is a primary instrument of statecraft. Completely incapable of self-reflection or self-critique. Pathetically incapable of putting to rest the 'final solution' of the knee-jerk trigger-finger."

Sean Paul Kelley:

"Israelis were afraid of slingshots and marbles, really? Where are the guns? Where are the knives? This is turning into an outright PR catastrophe for Israel, and deservedly so. What would have happened had the Israelis killed the 86 year-old Holocaust survivor or the Nobel Peace Prize winner in the flotilla?"

Marwan Bishara:

"The emergence of a civic 'international community' committed to taking action to break the siege of Gaza comes as a result of the incapacity of the official 'international community' to do more than issue UN resolutions and condemnations.

Israel's worst nightmare is becoming a reality. The civic 'international community' is organising much as it did against Apartheid South Africa."

Jeffrey Kaye:
"The world should condemn this criminal attack by Israeli commandos on the peace flotilla bringing humanitarian supplies to Gaza, and should defend those who in self-defense protected themselves against the military assault. Israeli must release everyone they are holding in custody from the flotilla now. Let the flotilla be freed to continue its mission."

Paul Craig Roberts:

"No one in the world will believe that Israel attacked ships in international waters carrying Israeli citizens, a Nobel Laureate, elected politicians, and noted humanitarians bringing medicines and building materials to Palestinians in Gaza, who have been living in the rubble of their homes without repairs or medicines since January 2009, without first clearing the crime with its American protector. Without America's protection, Israel, a totally artificial state, could not exist."

Ray McGovern:
"Important players in the Middle East, as well as increasingly assertive countries like Turkey and Brazil, conclude that the policies and behavior of Tel Aviv and Washington are virtually identical.

And then there is the $3 billion or so that the United States gives Israel each year that enables the Israelis to arm themselves to the teeth. It is understandable, then, that many will blame Washington for what happened in the dark of night, on the eve of Memorial Day, on the high seas."

Craig Murray:
"In two and a half hours of coverage BBC News has interviewed the Israeli government spokesman and covered live an Israeli government press conference, while reporters have set out at length the Israeli government view of events nine times. There has been no attempt to interview anyone from the convoy organisers, from the Turkish government, or from the Palestinians, and no expression of scepticism or even reserve by any reporter about the Israeli version of events.

A BBC journalist has stated - quite wrongly - that the blockade of Gaza is legal, and there has been no mention of the fact that it is illegal to board a foreign ship in international waters."

Chris Floyd: Memory, Meaning, Moments and Madness: Wanderers in No Man's Land

Memory, Meaning, Moments and Madness: Wanderers in No Man's Land

By Chris Floyd

Zachary Mason's remarkable new novel, The Lost Books of the Odyssey, is based on a grain of fact. Before the stories of the Iliad and the Odyssey were crystallized and canonized in the books of Homer sometime in the 8th century B.C., various (and often conflicting) tales of the Trojan War and its heroes had floated around in various forms for hundreds of years. Some of these variants survive in fragments of other ancient works, like ghostly echoes of alternative universes. Mason's intriguing fictional conceit is that he is translating one of these: a "pre-Ptolemaic papyrus excavated from the desiccated rubbish mounds of Oxyrhynchus" which "contains forty-four concise variations on Odysseus's story."

And that is what he proceeds to offer us: 44 chapters, 44 alternative (and conflicting) universes, where some tale of Odysseus -- or, occasionally, the whole arc of his life -- is presented in sharply etched, psychologically penetrating modern prose. (No faux-epic stylizations.) Sometimes there are gods and magic; sometimes Odysseus lives in a world of the grimmest realism.

It's not my intention here to give a literary review of the book. I just wanted to highlight two passages which seem to me to have some particular relevance for our current political situation. Both come from a chapter called "The Iliad of Odysseus." This is the longest chapter in the book, and one of the most "realistic." As Odysseus puts it toward the end of the section: "There are, as far as I have seen, and I have seen much, no gods, no spirits and no such thing as witches, but I seem to be the only one who knows it."

Continued. . .

The Common Culture of Turkey, the United States, and Iran

The Common Culture of Turkey, the United States, and Iran

By David Swanson

I’d guess roughly 3% of the Americans who watch the new Disney movie Prince of Persia have any idea that Persia and Iran are the same place. A similar number are probably aware of Iranians’ demonstrations of sympathy following 9-11 and of Iran’s assistance to the United States in Afghanistan in 2001. But surely an even smaller percentage of Americans know that Iran, Turkey, and our own country all fought revolutions against British colonialism, and developed democracies, our own serving as an inspiration for the others, our nation serving as a friend and ally to them. And you could probably fit into one football stadium every American who knows that Turkey’s democratic advance succeeded where Iran’s failed, principally because Teddy Roosevelt’s grandson, working for the CIA, overthrew Iran’s elected leader and installed a dictator, whom the United States proceeded to support and arm for decades.

The people of Iran, despite everything our government has done, are fond of the United States, but I’m not sure the reverse can be said. The people of Turkey want to be partners with western nations, but is the feeling mutual? Any new book by Stephen Kinzer is always worth reading, and his latest is of critical importance. It’s called "Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future." In it, Kinzer argues for partnership and improved relations between the United States and the only two Muslim nations in the Middle East that have significant democratic traditions. And he argues for a reconsideration of the tightness of U.S. relations with two other countries in the region: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Continued. . .

Humanitarian Convoy Attacked Barbarically In International Waters By Israel: 19 killed

Photograph: Reuters TV.

An entire nation defies the world.

The convoy of ships, named the "Freedom Flotilla", represented by 700 people from 50 nations, including the UK, Ireland, Algeria, Greece, and Turkey, was brutally attacked by Israeli forces in international waters. 19 deaths have been confirmed. Israel says they acted out of "self-defense," but the ships were on a humanitarian mission, and peaceful in nature.

Raw Story: UN chief calls for investigation of Gaza aid flotilla raid

KAMPALA — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Monday he was "shocked" by a deadly Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla and demanded a full investigation.

"I am shocked by reports of killings and injuries of people on boats carrying supplies for Gaza," the UN chief said at a press conference following the opening in Uganda of a key conference on the International Criminal Court.

Continued. . .

Al Jazeera: Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet

Israeli forces have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships aiming to break the country's siege on Gaza.

At least 19 people were killed and dozens injured when troops intercepted the convoy of ships dubbed the Freedom Flotilla early on Monday, Israeli radio reported.

The flotilla was attacked in international waters, 65km off the Gaza coast.

Continued. . .

Guardian: Israeli commandos kill activists on flotilla bound for Gaza

At least 10 pro-Palestinian activists were killed and dozens injured in a battle at sea with Israeli naval commandos today, sparking an international diplomatic crisis and the prospect of angry demonstrations across Israel, the Palestinian territories, Turkey and beyond.

Dozens of activists injured during the storming of a Gaza aid flotilla were ferried to hospitals in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Ashkelon. The Israeli military said at least five of its personnel were also injured, at least one seriously.

The incident engulfed Israel in a war of words with its ally Turkey, with whom relations were already stained following the Israelis three-week military assault on the Gaza Strip in 2008-9. Today's deaths and injuries were condemned by the UN, EU and other countries.

Continued. . .

May 30, 2010

Bilderberg 2010

This year's Bilderberg conference will take place from June 3-6 at the Luxury Hotel Dolce Sitges in the south of Barcelona, Spain.

View the list of participants here.

What is the Bilderberg conference?

The best way I can describe the Bilderberg conference, without being melodramatic, is that it is a political symposium for revolutionary oligarchs and globalists, which is held in a different location around the world every year. Essentially, it is a political safe haven for powerful decision-makers in the Euro-American Establishment. The conference's attendees change a little bit on a yearly basis, but the core group of conspirators stay the same, and they include famous men such as David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Other participants range from heads of states, CEOs, high-ranking military officers, industrialists, news and magazine publishers, university presidents, top central bankers, financiers, influential politicians, to basically anyone who harbors an elitist mindset and holds a key post in government, academia, business, and media.

The elect private club has pursued an agenda for political and economic centralization, to be culminated in a global government, ever since its clandestine creation in 1954. Much of it's influence over Western democratic governments and global bodies is an open conspiracy. But because of the high level of secrecy in which the meetings are held, little is factually known of the club's true purpose, ideas, and plan for the world, other than to establish an authoritarian global government. Media and news organizations don't even acknowledge the existence of the Bilderberg group, let alone investigate it's aims and political reach.

Investigative journalist and author Daniel Estulin is one of the few voices who covers the Bilderberg conference from year to year. His book "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" is an international bestseller, and has exposed the existence of the group to a global audience. You can hear his latest information about the Bilderberg's up-coming secret summit at the

Estulin will give a historic speech about the Bilderberg group to the European Parliament this Tuesday June 1st, 2010 in Brussels. Read more about it here.

Naomi Klein On BP Oil Spill Response In The Gulf - "It Really Feels Like The Oil & Gas Industry Owns This Place"

May 29, 2010

Oil Industry Insider Matt Simmons Says BP Should Be Removed From Oil Spill Containment and Clean-Up

Oil industry insider and expert, Matt Simmons, of Simmons & Company, told Bloomberg in an interview on May 28 that BP's handling of the Gulf oil spill has run its course, and should be removed immediately. He says that the Top Kill exercise will not work, and only serves as a distraction.

Simmons: "What we need to do, first of all, in my opinion, is tell BP it's time for them to leave, and bring the military in." Simmons also said that the government should take over clean-up operations.

Meet Alan Hart

Meet Alan Hart. He is a journalist, a former BBC presenter, and an author of several books on Israel and the Middle East. Mr. Hart is a true authoritative voice on the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. During his long career he has made friends in both the Palestinian and the Israeli leadership. He recently broke his silence on 9/11, saying that he was told by sources inside a leading civil engineering company that the two towers were destroyed from the inside, by controlled demolition. Watch his television series entitled "Hart of the Matter", available on Vimeo, and listen to what this great man has to say.

Alan Hart - Hart Of The Matter - Introduction

Hart of the Matter - Introduction from Alan Hart on Vimeo.

Alan Hart on Alex Jones - May 28, 2010, Part 1 of 5

May 28, 2010

Gangsterism 2.0: Global Government Gone Wild At G20 in Toronto

Next month, downtown Toronto will morph into a full-scale battlefield, with the front lines clearly defined, as Canadians hit the streets to protest G8/G20 leaders, and to stand in fellowship with the people of the world in the global war for economic and political justice. It is expected that there will be 11,000 police officers, private security guards, and intelligence agents, to assist and protect the gangsters of governments who pose to the public as statesmen and diplomats. In April, Colin Freeze of The Globe and Mail reported that the country's military will also be on hand to defend so-called world dignitaries, saying "unspecified numbers of Canadian soldiers and spies will also work behind the scenes to help thousands of police safeguard the meetings."

In the middle of a global economic crisis, the origins of which have been attributed to wide-scale banking fraud and corrupt government regulation, it is not at all surprising to see that the protection racket is experiencing growth. All the police pageantry for the G20 summit, which will convene on June 26 and end the following day, is predicted to cost over one billion dollars. But, shockingly, none of that money has been allocated to repair any damage done to businesses and property owners. The Globe and Mail's Anna Mehler Paperny reports:
The federal government won’t compensate property owners in downtown Toronto for damage sustained during next month’s G20 summit.

A May 21 e-mail from a G20 Foreign Affairs liaison says that while businesses can apply for ex-gratia compensation “related to financial loss as a result of the extraordinary security measures” associated with the summit, “if there are losses or damages caused by third parties, including vandalism, payment will not be provided. … These types of damages are insurable under normal insurance coverage.”

The federal government is spending close to $1-billion on summit security, much of it going to protect delegates and maintain order in Toronto’s densely populated downtown core.

The price tag for the much hyped-event isn't the only disconcerting aspect of the government's protection policy. Gwalgen Geordie Dent of the news organization Toronto Media Co-op reported last Sunday May 23 that government forces will not be restrained by the law. If they see fit, they will use agent provocateurs to engage protesters in a violent manner. Toronto Media Co-op:
The RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit (ISU) of the G20 is refusing to rule out the use of Agent Provocateurs to get protesters to commit illegal acts, the Toronto Media Co-op has learned.

During a G20 forum on April 30th held by Toronto City Councilors, Constable George Tucker, a member of the G20 planning team responsible for Public Affairs, Communications & Corporate Relations, was asked if Agent Provocateurs would be used.

He responded: “"I'm not at liberty to discuss security issues in an open format".

Another weapon of attack that will most likely be used on protesters are sound canons, which were present at the G20 protests last September in Pittsburgh. Jennifer Yang of The Toronto Star writes:
Riotous protesters marching at the G20 summit next month may be greeted with ear-splitting “sound cannons,” the latest Toronto police tool for quelling unruly crowds.

Toronto police have purchased four, long-range acoustic devices (LRAD) — often referred to as sound guns or sound cannons — for the upcoming June 26-27 summit, the Star has learned.

The tool is meant to disperse large crowds, and by doing so, it kills free speech and denies concerned citizens the freedom of assembly. If the technology was available to 20th century totalitarian governments, they would have used them regularly, regardless of the pain that it causes in people, because, simply put, governments don't like using excessive force. Blood in the streets is not a pleasing sight. Sound canons are much more reliable and effective. Although such devices are less violent tools than guns and gases, the intent they are used with by anti-democratic governments are the same, which is to discourage people from protesting and voicing their opinions in public.

It remains to be seen if sound canons and other police state weapons will have the desired effect, but the fact that they are being used suggests that Canada is following the same path towards a police state dictatorship as other Western countries. Some people still believe that a dictatorship is not possible in our democratic societies. Such a political development is too haunting. The usual response is that the new world order and the push for an undemocratic global government is all a conspiracy. As leading politicians and propagandists said years ago, "There Is No Alternative" today, they tell us, "There Is No Conspiracy." But it's a public delusion to believe so. There is in fact a worldwide conspiracy by the global elite to establish a private global leviathan to serve the interests of banksters and multinational corporations, and make no mistake, there are alternative political systems that can be realized and developed locally in all regions of the world.

It is my wish that my fellow citizens will completely boycott the G20 summit protests, and deny world leaders their much desired attention. Liberty will be better served if citizens ignore the G20, and instead concentrate their anger on the hidden polis, which are the less publicized and highly secret global meetings, such as the Bilderberg conference, and the annual meetings of the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations. It is in those elitist conferences that key decisions for the world are made, and so, it is there that popular anger must be directed.

If we are diligent and persistent in our non-violent civic resistance, the dictatorial prescriptions for the world's ills by these crooks and clowns will fall flat on the Earth's face. Using violence and terrorism will achieve nothing but position them as the defenders of a new and hostile world. As Dana Gabriel says in 'The Toronto G20 Police State Crackdown,' "Any violence and mayhem before or during the meetings plays right into the globalists hands and will be used to justify a police state crackdown."

Why You Should Boycott G20 Protests

Despite appearances, the G20 summit is more of a cinematic event than a global diplomatic conference. G20 leaders circulate the globe, one year in Pittsburgh, the other in London, the next in Toronto, as traveling salesmen, or members of a political rodeo show. But there are no tickets available to purchase and see them up-close. These clowns juggle and perform tricks only for themselves. Those who are denied participation are forced to attend another show below, one that is less glamorous and more in-your-face, and of course, I'm referring to the much-anticipated 3D clash between real-life stormtroopers and their counterparts, the protesters.

I have nothing against G20 protesters, or any protesters who show up at big political events, but I can't understand why they believe that they will have an impact by marching and shouting slogans at thousands of well-armed troops. It probably has never occurred to them that the best time to protest government policies is not when there are thousands of riot police in the streets, but when there are few to none, and when the government is less well organized to combat popular discontent.

Showing up at G20 protests gives more credibility to the G20 summit than it deserves. The smart thing to do would be to avoid the sideshow all together, leaving thousands of armed troops in riot gear to stand foolishly in empty streets. Such a move may make governments rethink future plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for security on similar feckless events.

Peppering insults at world officials and doing battle against anxious and paranoid cops can't compare to a slap in the face, which a boycott of G20 events would represent. So if protesters are serious about protest, they should boycott the G20 protests.

May 27, 2010

Not A Broken Government, But A Stolen Government

The U.S. Government is broken? Pleaaase.

It works perfectly fine for the special interests, who don't have any trouble in getting Congress and the Senate to pass any law that benefits them at the expense of the country. Any multinational corporation that can muster an army of lobbyists and lawyers can basically achieve what they want, given how corrupt and self-serving professional politicians are in the nation's capital. Also, the Israeli lobby AIPAC seems to have no problem with how business is done. Neither does the Pentagon.

And, of course, there are the Wall St. investment banks. Its practically their government, the American people just pay for it. And that's not an exaggeration. That's a fact. We've learned from Rolling Stones' Matt Taibbi's latest reporting on the ongoing Wall St. robbery that 2,000 banking lobbyists marched into Washington D.C. this year to steamroll the financial reform bill and kill any piece of legislation that blocked their way in any way. In his article "Wall Street's War" Taibbi writes:
The financial-services industry has reportedly flooded the Capitol with more than 2,000 paid lobbyists; even veteran members are stunned by the intensity of the blitz. "They're trying everything," says Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio. Wall Street's army is especially imposing given that the main (really, the only) progressive coalition working the other side of the aisle, Americans for Financial Reform, has been in existence less than a year – and has just 60 unpaid "volunteer" lobbyists working the Senate halls.
After reading Taibbi’s article, you get the impression that Wall St. executed an infantry invasion of Washington, and successfully seized it.

While it’s true that the Hill has been Wall St. territory for many years, they have never before been so brazen about their political victories. As a result of their recent campaign against financial reform, you can clearly see their flag hangs the highest on top of the political rubble that gathered around the capital after the financial earthquake of 2008. And its being waved proudly. But, perhaps, too proudly. The Wall St. mafia are taking Scarface’s motto "The World Is Yours" a little too literally. Unlike the real mafia, they can’t make big deals behind the scenes and get away with it. And they can cloak their dirty work in flowery language and free-market rhetoric only for so long without being found out.

As Taibbi says, the war is not over. Americans will not go down to the Wall St. raiders without a fight. It is highly likely that calls to pull back the drapes on the Federal Reserve, and Wall St, could turn into calls that the entire house of cards be burned down.

A couple of months ago, Time magazine and CNN teamed-up to do a series called "Broken Government." They examined just how broken the Washington political system has become. You can view CNN's coverage on their site. Richard Stengel, the managing editor of Time, wrote:
As part of our discussion of the problems in Washington, we are working with our partner CNN on its timely weeklong series of programming called Broken Government. Its notion is that Republicans, Democrats and independents can agree on one thing: government isn't working. CNN will look at both the frustrating problems and at the possible innovative solutions, and we will partner with it in that effort.

May 26, 2010

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.

“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.

Continued. . .

Sublime Propaganda

The professional idiots and apparatchiks who write for the NY Times are the thought-snatchers for the Empire. In their worldview, America is good, and any people who criticize the American government are insane, and infidels. Even Americans. No, especially Americans. So don't read between their headlines, nor those of any other major newspaper in the country - because the corporate is not interested in reporting the truth but in information warfare.

That's right. Because your opinion matters greatly to the hijackers of the US government. What you think impacts on how they rule. And the hired pens that are stationed throughout the news media don't report facts. If a news story that sheds a negative light on the interests of their owners comes across their lap, they deport it to the the "land of the lost and conspiracy junk." That's because their not in the business of knowledge and information. Instead, they get paid to record official statements. And then fill in the script and call it journalism. They don't feel the need to investigate. Besides, what kind of nut investigates his own paymaster? That's foolish. Their job is not to search for the truth, but to propagate grand lies. They propagandize. And they don't do follow-ups, unless they feel it is required that you be further terrorized about claims like "Iraqi WMDS," or the "Iranian threat." Propping up blatantly false assertions, and selling it to the public as an "exclusive story" is another thing they like to do. But they don't really have a clue. Or a story. Rather, what they have is a well-defined mission. And their mission is to make you believe that America is the land of the free, that its wars are just, and that its secret terrorism policies in other lands are done for the good. But it's not, and no matter how much lies the corporate media in collusion with the CIA spreads for domestic consumption, evil can not be turned into good, not now, not ever. Falsehood cannot be turned into truth, not now, not ever. And history cannot be turned into myth, not now, not ever.


Read this latest jewel of propaganda. The article is called "U.S. Is a Top Villain in Pakistan’s Conspiracy Talk."

There are so many quotes worth mentioning in this piece, but here's my favorite: “People want simple explanations, like evil America, Zionist-Hindu alliance,” said a Pakistani diplomat, who asked not to be named because of the delicate nature of the topic. “It’s gone really deep into the national psyche now.”

This Pakistani diplomat, whoever he is, must also be a Jungian psychologist, or some kind of shrink, since he seems to have such a firm grasp on the national psyche, and what people want. But if you're curious about his abilities, don't press too hard. He obviously has no conception of irony, or any sense of history. He failed to mention to the reporter some important historical parallels that are important to the discussion about myth and politics. It wasn't many years ago that communism was the greatest and most evil force in the history of the world in America, as promoted by the American media and government. The Russian empire was the "evil" empire." Indeed, the anti-freedom chickenshits who run the US government are the most conspiratorial bunch on the planet. The controlled US media makes up more conspiracy theories about America's so-called "enemies" than any other organization in the world.

And times have changed, but the crimes stay the same. Today, Islamic terrorism is the most evil force according to the US government and the New York Times. But that's not an example of a conspiracy belief. Nope. That's sound historical knowledge. But this article is not about the irrationality of US foreign policy, but about how crazy Pakistanis are. And this is propaganda meant for domestic consumption. Facts be damned in information warfare. If the NY Times declares that the people of Pakistan who rebel against foreign occupation are crazy and terrorists, then in the minds of the sheep who read the NY Times, they are crazy and terrorists. And it's important to stay on message. If you draw historical parallels and introduce relevant facts into the article, then the American people could potentially come to agree with the judgment by the people of Pakistan that America is evil. After all, Americans are in the heart of the beast, and they know just how evil the American empire and corporate media is.

But, in the interest of "national security", the NY Times believes its best to describe anybody or any people who views the American government harshly as "conspiracy theorists," and "paranoids." That's just the nature of the job. Propaganda is dirty but somebody's gotta do it. If the NY Times was in print in London in 1775, they would've described the restless American colonists as "conspiracy theorists," "terrorists" and "paranoids." How else could they protect the interests of the elite? By guns? That won't work. Americans have millions of guns, so imposing rule by force is not very effective. Nope. It's much better to describe freedom fighters as terrorists, and rational thinking beings as crazies and paranoids. Information warfare is the new and more efficient way to conquer men and lands, and somebody like Edward Bernays is the Hannibal of this type of warfare. He was the innovator. And the NY Times is the biggest tank on the field. But it's also the most vulnerable for a boycott. You can't avoid getting shot at in warfare, but you can avoid propaganda in information warfare, and that's the best way to defeat it.

If you want a better written and more detailed breakdown of the NY Times article, read Glenn Greenwald's "Those irrational, misled, conspiratorial Muslims." You can't miss it.

May 25, 2010

G20 Police Won’t Rule Out Breaking The Law

G20 Police Won’t Rule Out Breaking The Law

Toronto Media Co-op
by Gwalgen Geordie Dent

Toronto – The RCMP-led Integrated Security Unit (ISU) of the G20 is refusing to rule out the use of Agent Provocateurs to get protesters to commit illegal acts, the Toronto Media Co-op has learned.

During a G20 forum on April 30th held by Toronto City Councilors, Constable George Tucker, a member of the G20 planning team responsible for Public Affairs, Communications & Corporate Relations, was asked if Agent Provocateurs would be used.

He responded: “"I'm not at liberty to discuss security issues in an open format".

However, a question remains that police have not been asked: is the use of Agent Provocateurs legal? If not, why won’t police rule it out?

Continued. . .

60 Minutes on BP Oil Spill: Deepwater Horizon's Blowout

This is best TV journalism about the BP oil spill that I've seen.

60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout, Part I:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

60 Minutes - Deepwater Horizon's Blowout, Part II:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

The Greeks Get it

The Greeks Get it

By Chris Hedges
May 24, 2010

Here’s to the Greeks. They know what to do when corporations pillage and loot their country. They know what to do when Goldman Sachs and international bankers collude with their power elite to falsify economic data and then make billions betting that the Greek economy will collapse. They know what to do when they are told their pensions, benefits and jobs have to be cut to pay corporate banks, which screwed them in the first place. Call a general strike. Riot. Shut down the city centers. Toss the bastards out. Do not be afraid of the language of class warfare—the rich versus the poor, the oligarchs versus the citizens, the capitalists versus the proletariat. The Greeks, unlike most of us, get it.

Continued. . .

May 24, 2010

Rand Paul is Good

I don’t agree with Rand Paul’s assertions that Obama is too hard on BP. If anything, Obama has let BP slide as they have let the oil slide. Nor I do think private businesses are holy and should discriminate based on race if they should choose so. However, I am a rational and thinking man, and the more I read of Rand Paul’s positions, the more I am beginning to like him. He is against the Iraq War. He is against Wall St theft. And he is against corporate crime. His remark that the oil spill was merely an accident can be forgiven because it seems that he is not fully knowledgeable about the whole situation, and of BP’s past transgressions. And his defense of private business is an example of a person being true to a particular philosophy to a fault, but the fact that he is so principled as to jeopardize his entire Senatorial campaign proves that he is not a politician who sticks his finger to the wind. He is a man of ideas, and men of ideas are severely needed in Washington.

Disagreeing with Paul is warranted, but demonizing him and distorting his statements is dishonest. Too often people on both the left and right demand politicians to be perfect across the board, but nothing in politics can be what you want it to be, and besides, it is not desirable to elect politicians who only say what their electorate want to hear. If only the corporate media and people were as critical of other politicians as they are of Rand Paul. But, sadly, the media rarely hold political figures to the same standards, and too often people fall for slogans and the usual cliches.

Barack Obama ran on "hope" and "change", but not only did Obama not deliver on his promises to the American people, he went ahead and endorsed many of the policies of the previous Republican administration, the two most obvious being war, and Wall St. theft. Now, contrast Obama’s run for office with Rand Paul. Paul is not running on slogans, but on well-defined positions. If you disagree with some of his positions, fine, but at least you know what you’re getting, unlike Obama. Also, he is not afraid of having a philosophical debate on a highly sensitive issue with a news pundit on cable television the day AFTER he beat a Republican insider in a landslide. Was it politically smart to do so? No. But "politically smart" has hurt the American people in the past and only benefited the professional political class. Its good and brave that Paul is willing to play ball on a dodgy field, and in an arena where the fans scream insults at him.

But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Robert Scheer. He is very eloquent in his defense of Rand Paul. In his article "Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul?" Scheer writes:

Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his Website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich.


Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime.

It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a "distinctly criminal class" and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.

Scheer echoed his opinion about Paul on KCRW’s Left, Right & Center last Friday, in a panel with Tony Blankley, and Arianna Huffington. You can download and listen to the interview here.

I am not asking you to endorse Paul’s candidacy, or agree with his libertarian creed, but remember to put his comments about the Civil Rights Act into context, and refrain from calling him a "moron" or a "racist." Such smears only makes you look foolish and uneducated. If you do your own research, and not rely on MSNBC or any other cable television outlet, you’ll find out that Paul has never called for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act, and he has not made it his political mission to popularize libertarianism in the mainstream. That’s what his father did so well. Unlike him, Rand seems willing to compromise on legislative questions and do battle with his elected colleagues in the Senate. If you read through his website you’ll see that his top priorities upon taking office are ending bailouts to corrupt Wall St. banks, helping to bring home the troops from Iraq, reversing the unconstitutional policies of the last several years, protecting civil liberties, and reducing the national debt. So there’s more substance under the surface. Sure, he’s not perfect, but he’s a lot better than the many corporate neoliberals and neocons who currently hold high office.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." – Voltaire

Giordano Bruno: World Government: Impractical, Unnecessary, Insane!

World Government: Impractical, Unnecessary, Insane!

By Giordano Bruno

Neithercorp Press – 05/23/2010

Every culture in history has had innumerable difficulties and imbalances, some of them due to a lack of understanding amongst the populace, and many others due to corruption in government. Human beings have been dragging themselves out of the muck over and over again for centuries. The struggle for a better world, a world that meets the standards of our inherent conscience, has always demanded overwhelming labor, bravery, sacrifice, logic, wisdom, and sometimes even genius. And through it all, it has been those men who sought to be truly free that were able to contribute most to the betterment of the human condition. Not just those who are politically free, but also psychologically free.

Continued. . .

May 23, 2010

The Citizen-Philosopher

"Our quest for truth is an endless task, but we must distinguish that clearly from the quest for certainty. . . We want to find truth, but we never are sure whether we have really found it." - Karl Popper in May 1993, speaking to his former student and Professor Dimitris Dimitrakos on Greek television in Delphi, Greece.
In an age of grand political deceptions, media brainwashing, and dumbed-down education, the importance of questioning the claims made by the agents of power has never been greater. But it also has never been more difficult. In his article "Knowledge, Truth and Human Action: America Hits the Wall," John Kozy writes "Americans have a problem with the truth." And indeed they do, but who can blame them? The propaganda streaming out daily from the National Security State, the corporate cable channels, and almost every national newspaper in the country is a gigantic political weapon, used as a check against free thinking. It is hard to develop and sustain any clear analysis of reality when one is kept perpetually in the dark about certain information and facts. The lie that Al Qaeda struck America on 9/11 would've been immediately countered if there was anything akin to a free press in the United States. But sadly, there is none. Post-9/11, the most trusted man in America is arguably radio show host Alex Jones.

But media propaganda is not the only reason why the truth about 9/11 is not more widely accepted in the U.S. population. Propaganda doesn't explain why people are so resistant to certain facts even when they are presented in a rational manner. There are psychological, and even biological explanations. "The source of the denial and resistance," writes Ken Jenkins in his article, The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth, "is FEAR." At bottom, it is the fear of death that keeps people from finding out about the real threat posed to human civilization by psychopaths in power, and the loosed demons of modern society, who are best exemplified by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Jenkins goes on to write in the article:
Given that a part of our government's job description is keeping its citizens safe, it's terrifying to consider that a secret rogue part of our government will do just the opposite -- mass murder those very citizens, in order to advance dark agendas -- like wars for corporate empire. To further consider that associated 'secret teams' would then put out corporate media cover-up stories, in the form of an elaborate fantasy story backed up with planted evidence, and to think that story was nearly universally accepted without question -- this is the stuff of nightmares.
Facing the dark side, as Cheney said America must do (but in a different context), is, like it or not, the best advice given by any modern U.S. political leader. The people of America, and by extension, the people of the world, must face the dark side and confront the evil truths about the American political system, and the psychopathic personalities who currently wield power over it.

Finding out the truth is not a choice we have, but a duty we must commit ourselves to. It is unlikely, however, that we will ever come into possession of the full truth about the crimes that have been committed in America's name. Journalists H.P. Albarelli Jr. and Jeffrey Kaye explain why in their latest article "Cries From the Past: Torture's Ugly Echoes":
Like a modern day Ministry of Truth, U.S. government agencies and their partners are busy trying to erase the evidence of their crimes, whether from sixty years ago, or six.
Tragically, more crimes are being committed as they're erased. The legacy of the Bush administration is still fully intact in summer 2010. Not a single page has been turned; not one finger raised. In fact, the opposite has occurred under the Obama' administration. Obama and company have actively suppressed certain truths about torture, 9/11, and other crimes against humanity, and also, they have engaged in such crimes themselves on a repeated basis. As Arthur Silber wrote in his May 2009 article "Barack Obama, Murderer and War Criminal-in-Chief":
We can now see unequivocally and in full, bloody daylight the nature of the "change" that Obama has brought to the operations of Empire. Obama will alter nothing in those operations, except to expand them and make them still more murderous. But because Obama has been heralded as the exponent of "hope" and "change," and because the majority of Americans exhibit an endless capacity for crediting the most meaningless of slogans, many people will continue to struggle to convince themselves that somehow things might have been worse had he not been elected.
One of the most horrid Obama appointees is Cass Sunstein, who is in charge of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In a paper he co-write with another criminal basterd he called for "cognitive infiltration" by government agents into political groups and blogs that espouse views that are not reflective of the status quo. I wrote about Sunstein's paper and views back in January in an article called "Obama Info Czar Declares War on Free Thought":
Cass Sunstein, who is the head of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama Administration, and is considered as ""the nation's most-cited legal scholar," has officially labeled a wide majority of the American population as 'kooks,' whose mental capacities are insufficiently dangerous, and who require government assistance to see reality "objectively" through "cognitive infiltration." In a paper called "Conspiracy Theories," published in 2008 by the University of Chicago and Harvard University, and which can be viewed here, Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule promote the idea that the US government should actively penetrate groups who voice conspiracy theories about current and past historical events, most famously about the attacks on 9/11, and effectively destabilize their political discussion and potential political activities.
In that article I tried to understand why a lot of people can not stop believing in the the official 9/11 conspiracy theory:
Psychologist Gregory W. Lester explains why human beings have a hard time accepting new realities in any field, whether religion or politics, in a famous article called "Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die." Lester writes that "the biological purpose of beliefs can help skeptics to be far more effective in challenging irrational beliefs and communicating scientific conclusions." When it comes to new conclusions about reality, Lester argues, nothing less than survival is at stake. Beliefs ranging from the insecurity of the outside world to the integrity of public officials play a crucial role in ensuring our survival, and new information that should dispel these worn out beliefs are not unable to because beliefs take a long while to process data that goes against its most basic assumptions, which have developed in cultures over generations. Those of us who question authority are surprised why long-held beliefs are incredibly repellent to new evidence, but Lester says there are very good reasons which can help us understand our human predicament:
Because senses and beliefs are both tools for survival and have evolved to augment one another, our brain considers them to be separate but equally important purveyors of survival information. The loss of either one endangers us. Without our senses we could not know about the world within our perceptual realm. Without our beliefs we could not know about the world outside our senses or about meanings, reasons, or causes.

This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat. A police officer unable to believe in the possibility of a killer lurking behind a harmless appearance could easily get hurt or killed.

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree. They have each evolved to augment and supplement one another by contacting different sections of the world. They are designed to be able to disagree.
This is incredibly enlightening for why many people automatically discount unofficial versions of 9/11, even though there is a sufficient amount of factual data to raise doubts about the original story. People mistakenly believe that their interests are looked after by the government, and so, they follow through with this belief and assume that their survival will also be looked after by the government in the event of an emergency or crisis. But if Katrina and other natural disasters have proved anything, it is that the government is not solely interested in the survival of the general population. Even under a new administration, the US government is not capable to ensure the survival of countless numbers of people. So putting any trust in such a government should be considered suicide at this point. Survival demands that we question authority, and put trust in ourselves and in our communities, not in distant relatives of the human family who mean us harm.
II. Thinking is Resistance.

Lately, I've been reading a lot of Plato's dialogues, both for class, and also to better understand why people do not let go of their opinions in the face of undeniable evidence. Socrates never had that problem. He saw it as his personal mission to prove the judgment of the Oracle at Delphi, that he was the wisest man of all, wrong. He preached ignorance until the end of his days. His constant probing of the citizens of Athens rested on the still unpopular notion that we know less than we think we know.

Like in ancient times, Socratic questioning is available to us today to get at the truth. We must all learn to embrace it once again, as men and women have done in similar periods of confusion and disquiet, and not look back. For too long the example of Socrates has been taken for granted. He was special, sure, but he was human, and every child is naturally just as acquisitive as Socrates. But as people grow up they question less. In our day, there is a belief that it is okay and normal for certain subjects to be tagged as "conspiracy theories" and thus, go unmentioned. But that is not normal or healthy for a free and open society. Truth is hanging in the balance because we have not addressed the "unspeakable" crimes of our age as historian James Douglass describes them in his book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." Certainly, we can't find certain truth, as the philosopher Karl Popper reminded us, but that should not negate an honest pursuit of the truth.

Moreover, people have accepted lies and propaganda too readily. So much so that the modern world has lost Socrates's ancient magic. And with it, gone is the ability to admit ignorance. Too often an admission of ignorance is seen as worse than an admission of guilt. But admitting ignorance should not be looked down upon, rather, it should be encouraged. It is a simple fact that many of us do not know. I have questions about who did 9/11 and why, but I don't honestly know. I thought I knew, but one can only make informed guesses, connect some obvious dots, and leave it there. Until enough evidence is set on the table in a court of law, none of us can come to a definite conclusions about the events that took place on that tragic day in September.

It may feel damning to the ego to declare our ignorance, but not to the spirit, because the spirit walks in truth. So we must learn let go of our previous misconceptions, prejudices and assumptions, and accept the fact that the American and global public have been kept ignorant about the harsh political truths of our lifetime, truths like government-sponsored terrorism, wide-scale banking fraud, and the mass propaganda of the corporate media.

A critical analysis of political phenomena must first begin with us realizing the fact that what we know about our political leaders is absolutely wrong. It is our duty to fess up to our ignorance, and then question, search, dig, and inquire, as some have already done. Besides Socrates's lessons, we should also apply Rumsfeldian logic in our quest for the truth. In case you need to be reminded, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the great villains of modern times, famously said "
there are known "knowns." There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

Let's apply Rumsfeld logic to 9/11:

1) Known "Knowns" - We know that Bin Laden and the so-called Al Qaeda network was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We also know that the Bush administration lied about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, and the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the international community. We also know that the neoconservatives who were members of the the think tank called The Project For a New American Century were adamant about an expanded imperial role for the United States. They wanted to conquer the Middle East, and they were not shy about their intentions.

2) Known Unknowns - We now know that we don't know who were the real individuals and groups behind the 9/11 attacks. Cheney, and Rumsfeld must have had a hand in the crime, but it's better to remain objective until a court date is announced, and evidence is heard. Also, we don't know the precise narrative of that day, nor have all the evidence that can implicate a wide criminal conspiracy.

3) Unknown Unknowns - This pretty much speaks for itself. As the criminal maniac Rumsfeld tells it, "There are things we do not know we don't know."

III. Conclusion

"The US government's response to 9/11, regardless of who is responsible, has altered our country forever. Our civil liberties will never again be as safe as they were. America's financial capability and living standards are forever lower. Our country's prestige and world leadership are forever damaged. The first decade of the 21st century has been squandered in pointless wars, and it appears the second decade will also be squandered in the same pointless and bankrupting pursuit.

The most disturbing fact of all remains: The 9/11 event responsible for these adverse happenings has not been investigated." - Paul Craig Roberts, "Why Propaganda Trumps Truth"
The nations, cultures and societies that triumph when faced with a deep political, religious and spiritual crisis are those who let go of the false popular opinions and prejudices of their time, and their world, and begin to think anew. When presented with contradictory evidence to their time-ingrained beliefs, they accept it, learn from it, and move on to greater discoveries, and live richer lives. But new truths has its inception in a small minority at first, even as low as a few figures. Only then does it get accepted by the wider society. That is certainly true about the 9/11 truth movement. And because of its rapid growth we are now in the middle of major political changes. True, a large majority of people are still immature and are not ready to face up to the full evilness of the 9/11 crime, and the shadow U.S. government, but it is impossible to deny the people the truth in our age, due to the democratic vitality of the internet, and the spirit of inquiry that is present in many of us.

Indeed, politics in America is in the beginning stages of a huge transformation, powered by knowledge and a groundswell of popular discontent. The sham of popular democracy, and the influence of entrenched elites over modern politics is just too big to ignore. Recent results in U.S primary races in states like Kentucky and Pennsylvania reveal widespread citizen disapproval of incumbents in both parties, and points to a possible "Clean House" movement in the future. The roots for a major paradigm shift change in the governance of the country is already visible, but it will take several big trigger events to further shake the people's confidence in the current US government, and get the movement for change completely off the ground and into the halls of Congress.

The growth of the 9/11 truth movement throughout the world is a testament to the bravery and and spirit that is alive and well in the American people, and the people of the world. The movement has re-injected the principle of truth into politics. At a recent CFR meeting in Montreal, former US national security Advisor
Zbigniew Brzezinski gave voice to this new development in global politics: "For the first time in all of human history Mankind is politically awakened." So far, the government leaders of the world have not responded well to this "total new reality," as Mr. Brzezinski describes it. Rather than accept that political evolution is taking place, the entrenched oligarchy in the United States chose instead to consolidate power at the highest of levels in all sectors of society, and arrogantly declare permanent war against any and all in the name of freedom, the rule of law, and security. But permanent war is not possible without permanent stupidity, and permanent stupidity can only exist in a world without permanent questioning. So, let's follow in the footsteps of Socrates, and practice permanent questioning.

If we do, there is nothing that the current psychopaths in power can do to stop us. They can try erasing their crimes, but their traces remain. The tide of truth is rising from the ashes of Ground Zero, and it will rise to the heights of the two towers before it finally makes landfall on the shores of that political island known as Washington D.C. And that day will not arrive until we all realize that the world will not change by philosophers becoming kings, but by citizens becoming philosophers. So stop reading me, or any other blogger, and start re-reading Plato and Socrates.

BS President Calls For An International Order

Just Say No! to the War on Drugs

May 22, 2010

Crashing The War Party

The mega-problem of America’s debt is one of the biggest issues in this election season. Budget cuts are the theme of the hour, and slashing the military budget is being brought up, surprisingly, as a safe political option. At a time of a severe unemployment crisis, poor economic activity, and rising inequality, voters across the political spectrum are reaching a consensus that the pentagon’s reserves can be better used elsewhere in the nation. Asking a military machine to sacrifice its treasure was once politically impossible, but not so anymore.

David Ignatius writes in The Washington Post that calls for fiscal reform are being made from inside the military. In his article “How debt imperils national security,” Ignatius writes:

Several months ago, a group of logistics officers at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces developed a national security strategy as a class exercise. Their No. 1 recommendation for maintaining U.S. global leadership was “restore fiscal responsibility.”

That’s a small illustration of what’s becoming a consensus among national security experts inside and outside the Obama administration: To play an effective role in the world, the United States must rebuild its economic strength at home. After a decade of war and financial crisis, America has run up debts that pose a national security problem, not just an economic one.

Christopher Hellman says in his article “Putting the Pentagon on a Diet” for TomDispatch that the times may in fact be changing, and the congressmen and senators are hearing the call:

Last February, President Obama announced the formation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to advise his new administration on options for addressing the national debt. The commission has just begun its deliberations and already some of its members are stating publicly that, as they consider their options for cutting government spending, “everything is on the table,” including the military budget. In the Washington we’ve known since talk of that “peace dividend” disappeared, this simple fact qualifies as eye-opening.

In response to the formation of the commission, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), long an outspoken opponent of unnecessary military spending, has convened a panel of national security experts, the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Its job is to generate a series of recommendations on how to cut the defense budget while preserving national security. Frank plans to submit these recommendations to the Commission in June.

Two men who have responded the loudest to the political shift are Rep. Alan Grayson and Rep. Ron Paul. Rep. Grayson’s new bill in Congress called “The War is Making You Poor Act”, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Paul, tackles the portions of the Pentagon budget that can be slashed right away. Grayson and Paul cut through the bullshit like no other duo, and they actually care about the interests of the American people, as well as the well-being of the country.

* The proposed cuts are to be made in the “overseas contingency operations funds,” which is estimated at $159 billion dollars. You can find more info about Bill H.R. 5353 – “War Is Making You Poor Act” by clicking here.

TRNN Exclusive: The man that "shoed" Bush

Washington's Blog: The Giant Banks, Federal Reserve and Treasury Have All Blackmailed America

Washington's Blog: The Giant Banks, Federal Reserve and Treasury Have All Blackmailed America

As I wrote last October:

Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn't passed. And Rahm Emanuel famously said:

Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before.

Last year:

  • Senator Leahy said "If we learned anything from 9/11, the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask for just because it's an emergency"

Continued. . .

May 21, 2010

David Corn and His Flawed Article

David Corn of Mother Jones magazine tries to understand the relationship between Kentucky’s Senatorial candidate Rand Paul and the popular national radio show host Alex Jones in his article called "Rand Paul and His 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Friend." I use the word "try" very loosely, because if you read through the piece, you’ll realize very quickly that Corn is not aiming to find out anything informative about the views of either Paul, or Jones, and their dialogues with each other. He’s not writing as an investigative reporter, or as an intelligible commentator. Instead, he demonizes and attacks two political actors whose views he does not share.

Corn presents the views and opinions of Jones with zero context, and then quickly moves on. In Corn’s mind, Alex Jones is a rapid "conspiracy theorist" who has no credibility. For example, he casually highlights a point made by Jones to Paul that the bank bailout of 2008 was a clear symptom of a fascist relationship between Wall St. and Washington D.C. rather than being an example of socialism, and passes over it as though there is no evidence behind the argument, as though it were a political dynamite to avoid at first sight, and not a relevant topic to discuss and expand upon. Corn writes:

During a July 23, 2009 show, Jones, decrying the Wall Street bailout, asked Paul, "This isn’t really socialism….Isn’t this more akin to fascism?" Paul replied, "You’re exactly right." Later on the show,. . ."

Its understandable why Corn would treat that quote in such a hazy manner, because picking up and running with it would take courage and some knowledge of the economic reality that exists in the country. It’s much easier to tackle the relationship between Rand Paul and Alex Jones than it is to tackle the relationship between Wall St. and Washington D.C. The later relationship is by far the one more worth knowing about in a so-called free country, but Corn is not interested in uncovering the odd bedfellows in power, no, because that would make him a "conspiracy theorist," and we all know how much he detests those people.

Washington's Blog: Senate Passes Faux Financial "Reform" Bill

Washington's Blog: Senate Passes Faux Financial "Reform" Bill

The Senate passed a financial "reform" bill today by a 59-39 vote which won't fix any of the core problems in the financial system, and won't prevent the next financial crisis.

The bill doesn't include the Volcker Rule (it wasn't even debated), doesn't break up or even substantially rein in the too big to fails, and doesn't force transparency in the derivatives market.

Continued. . .

May 20, 2010

Supplanting the United States Constitution: War, National Emergency and "Continuity of Government"

Supplanting the United States Constitution: War, National Emergency and "Continuity of Government"

By Prof. Peter Dale Scott (Global Research)

In July 1987, during the Iran-Contra Hearings grilling of Oliver North, the American public got a glimpse of “highly sensitive” emergency planning North had been involved in. Ostensibly these were emergency plans to suspend the American constitution in the event of a nuclear attack (a legitimate concern). But press accounts alleged that the planning was for a more generalized suspension of the constitution.

As part of its routine Iran-contra coverage, the following exchange was printed in the New York Times, but without journalistic comment or follow-up:

[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?

Both North’s attorney and Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Democratic Chair of the Committee, responded in a way that showed they were aware of the issue:

Brendan Sullivan [North's counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?

[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?

Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.

Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.[1]

But we have never heard if there was or was not an executive session, or if the rest of Congress was ever aware of the matter. According to James Bamford, “The existence of the secret government was so closely held that Congress was completely bypassed.”[2] (Key individuals in Congress were almost certainly aware.)

Brooks was responding to a story by Alfonzo Chardy in the Miami Herald. Chardy’s story alleged that Oliver North was involved with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in plans to take over federal, state and local functions during a national emergency. This planning for “Continuity of Government” (COG) called for “suspension of the Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local governments and declaration of martial law.”[3]

To my knowledge no one in the public (including myself) attached enough importance to the Chardy story. Chardy himself suggested that Reagan’s Attorney General, William French Smith, had intervened to stop the COG plan from being presented to the President. Seven years later, in 1994, Tim Weiner reported in the New York Times that what he called “The Doomsday Project” – the search for “ways to keep the Government running after a sustained nuclear attack on Washington” –had “less than six months to live.”[4]

To say that nuclear attack planning was over was correct, But this statement was also very misleading. On the basis of Weiner’s report, the first two books on COG planning, by James Bamford and James Mann, books otherwise excellent and well-informed, reported that COG planning had been abandoned.[5] They were wrong.

Continued. . .