Archive for April 19th, 2009

April 19, 2009

Rachel Maddow Compares Sovereignty Movement to Confederacy

April 19, 2009

“Holy Shit!… Holy Shit! What is going on here? I spend two days in the E.R. and I come home and these people have gone insane. Listen, I’m as liberal as you can get. I’m an artist and a musician and I think anyone should do whatever the fuck they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. That’s (kinda) what this Ron Paul “libertarian” movement is all about. More freedom for all people. We want government to stop meddling in all of our lives. The people I know in this “libertarian” movement are (obviously) more open minded and accepting to all races and sexual orientations than certain types of republicans but I find them to be much more (“smarter!!”) and opened minded than your typical liberal democrat.

I grew up in Boston, Massachusetts… the most goddam liberal democrat epicenter in the country. And I’m fuckin’proud of it. I’m everything you’ll find in a liberal democrat, except that I’m not stupid. Your suppose to evolve the older you get. Get it? The democratic party is as much a circus side-show business as the republican party. You’ve been indoctrinated your whole life on the idea that there are only two choices for a presidential canidate…………*BANG*………and here comes the “Libertarian, Ron Paul, 3rd Parties,” (whatever you want to label it), offering the American people more choice, more diversity. If Rachel Maddow has such a feverish case of white-liberal-guilt I wish she’d used that energy to vote for a real African-American presidential candidate like Cynthia McKinney.

It just goes to show you what a machine our media is for the pentagon. The Limbaugh’s, the Olbermann’s, the Beck’s, it’s a fucking charade to divide the American people. Get it? Did you notice how Olbermann swept in just at the hight of anti-Bushy. Good timing, huh? We all hate Bush. Thats no secret. But… but… let’s bring in the next talking head to adore our in-coming presidential king, Obama. Never in the history of this country was so much positive attention lavished on presidential candidate than Obama. Do you think the real powers that be didn’t have anything to do with that? Are you that fuckin’ naive and blinded by a mans race, liberal democrats? Just because a politician is black doesn’t mean he’s not like the rest of the fat fuckin’ white fat cats stuffing their faces in Washington. You’ve been played like suckers. Just ask this Boston rapper. Ya’all need to stop watching television. Especially, the news. It’s poisoning those sweet little brains of yours. I don’t mean to be condescending but it is really hard to watch this mind-fuck that is being carried out on Obama supporters.

I don’t support or like a guy like Rick Perry, nor do most Ron Paul/Libertarian people. But we sure as flying fuck support a sovereignty movement because our Federal Government is completely out of control. There are no more checks and balances, literally.  They were out of control with Bush & Cheney. And now they are out of control with Obama & Brzezinski. 

So, Rachel Maddow, a Sovereignty Movement would be good for all people, (I hate to use this word but she deserves it here), you dumb broad. It would be a step closer to freedom… away from our every growingly oppressive government… for all American people! Look into what it’s really about before you bring some race-card bullshit into it. She has obviously lost her coffee sippin’ Smith College brain. Or she’s just another agent. An agent for an agenda that does not want you to taste T R U E  F R E E D O M.  The true people in power are scared shitless of the (real) Libertarian movement gaining more momentum and they have basically declared war on it with this fake tea party/ Republicans are Libertarian’s/ weird race-card bullshit. Hey, if you wanna be a codependent to a President who is just as much a fraud as Bush, then stay in your little comfort zones. We’re working on really fixing the fuckin’ problem. 

Ron Paul kinda people have nothing to do with REPUBLICANS, period. Yes, we support the right to bear arms and it’s for all  citizens… white, black, asian, gay, etc. And yes, we support immigration laws, so that our legal ctizens, i.e.-hispanic, white, black, asian, etc), can be taken care of before “criminals” who violate the law by sneaking into this country do.

Look into Ron Paul’s Campaign For Liberty you won’t find any racists red-necks or any self-loathing white liberals… you’ll find some very smart people of all ages, races and sexual orientations that have a real plan for change! And it’s (fuckin’) for the better of all our beautifully diverse American citizens. 

Stop being played. 

-Fred Face  4/18/09



Kurt Nimmo
April 18, 2009


Rachel Maddow, described as Keith Olbermann’s “political soul mate” and “a liberal in the purest, almost mineral sense of the word,” has characterized the states’ rights and sovereignty movement as a modern spin-off of the Confederacy, “except the states aren’t clinging to a slave-based economy.” She claims to be “weirded-out by the Civil War theme” of the Tea Party movement.

Maddow’s comments are part of MSNBC’s nasty campaign to portray the April 15 Tea Party demonstrations held around the country as racist and troglodytic.

Faux conservatives are fond of ranting about the “liberal bias” of MSNBC, owned by the monopolistic software titan Microsoft and NBC. NBC’s parent is General Electric, a multinational corporation that makes a lot of money in the “defense” business (this division generated $3,100,000,000 in 2003), not exactly the sort of business model liberals support.

It is interesting Maddow compares states’ rights advocates to Confederates and then links them to the immorality of slavery. It is rather ironic — if not entirely hypocritical — that this “liberal in the purest, almost mineral sense of the word” works for a corporation that manufactures engines for Black Hawk attack helicopters used in Iraq. Liberals are said to be viscerally opposed to the Iraq invasion and occupation.

In fact, MSNBC is used by our rulers to amplify the false right-left paradigm that serves as a big distraction and keeps the masses squabbling over meaningless issues. Important issues like states’ rights are minimized and excused in the most reprehensible manner (as an example, see the exchange between Keith Olbermann and the disgusting “comedienne” Janeane Garofalo).

Wall Street Journal columnist Thomas Frank is surprised how “mainstream extremism is,” an obvious attempt to link the Tea Party and sovereignty movement to the recently leaked “rightwing extremism” report produced by the Department of Homeland Security. Frank characterizes the “tea-baggers” as a “lunatic fringe” that has allowed itself to be exploited by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Republicans, and “that other network” (Fox News). 

Frank is right to a certain degree — the Tea Party movement, initially created by Libertarians, was co-opted by “mainstream” (establishment) Republicans and Glenn Beck “conservatives” for cynical political reasons. Rick Perry is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist minion groomed by the Bilderbergers and the CFR as a possible presidential selectee and has absolutely no plan to urge Texas secession.

It remains to be seen if Maddow and her guest realize the establishment Republicans are backing states’ rights in order to derail the movement and use it as a tool to attack the left side of the false right-left construct.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies,” wrote Dr. Carroll Quigley.

Republicans are merely preparing to “throw the rascals out” during the next election cycle so a new (or recycled) batch of CFR, Trilateral, and bankster operatives can be installed. The agenda will remaind absolutely the same.

Maddow and her guest are on par with “doctrinaire and academic thinkers” who accept the “foolish idea” that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Maddow’s task is to sell this nonsense to liberals who apparently revel in the soft porn presented on MSNBC and CNN (where crude sexual imagery is employed to describe the Tea Party movement).


Dennis Kucinich: Where Is Osama bin Laden?

April 19, 2009

The Torture Memos, Obama and the Banality of Evil

April 19, 2009

posted by RICHARD KIM on 04/17/2009 @ 2:01pm

The Nation


Even as President Obama acted in the name of transparency and accountabilty in releasing the Bush administration’s OLC’s torture memos, he made assurances that the CIA agents who used the “enhanced interrogation techniques” meticulously detailed within would not be subject to criminal prosecution.Glenn Greenwald at SalonJeremy Scahill on his blog,David Bromwich at Huffington Post and Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic all have good takes on why Obama’s decision is wrong. I concur. However politically expedient, Obama’s nearly carte blanche absolution of torture was morally wrong, and his justification of it, from a professor of constitutional law, is intellectually dishonest.

Obama’s rationalizations were artfully made to the point of being obfuscatory, but they can be boiled down to three points:

1) The strategic issue of national security. “The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world…We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.”

2) The legal-ethical issue of obedience. The CIA agents were only carrying out “their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice.”

3) The political issue of national unity and progress. “This is a time for reflection, not retribution…at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”

The easiest to dismiss of these is the issue of national security. As Bromwich points out, the matter of protecting individual CIA agent’s identities is “a calculated distortion.” Any agent publicly named and prosecuted for torture would, of course, be removed from duty. Their identities no longer need to be protected as a matter of national security because they would no longer be in the business of national security.

As for the question of whether or not prosecutions would undermine intelligence agents’ “confidence that they can do their jobs,” I agree with Obama here. Prosecutions absolutely would undermine the CIA’s confidence, and that is a good thing. No public official, least of all intelligence agents who already operate under cover of secrecy, should be wholly confident of the legality and morality of their actions. To guarantee such confidence would be to guarantee absolute impunity. Indeed, this necessary lack of confidence is precisely why the OLC memos exist in the first place, because interrogators were seeking advice about the legality of certain interrogation techniques. So the question is not whether or not prosecution would undermine the CIA’s confidence, but rather a) how much so? and b) from what source is their confidence derived?

This brings us to the question of obedience. Obama’s argument here is gravely disturbing. He asserts, in essence, that because the OLC says it is right, it is–that CIA agents should have absolute confidence in anything and everything approved by the OLC and/or ordered by the executive branch. Besides the shades of Nixon and Bush II, there are two things wrong with this assertion. First is the sweeping authority given to the OLC to determine wholly, by interpretation and in secrecy, the legality of actions that were known then to have been violations of multiple international and national laws. If the OLC determined tomorrow that rape was an appropriate interrogation technique, should CIA agents behave with confidence that they are acting within legal and moral bounds? I have a hard time believing that Obama, or anyone in his administration, thinks so.

Then there is the matter of culpability and deference to authority. Even if every single national and international law approved of the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, would they be just? Hannah Arendt wrestles famously with a similar question in Eichmann in Jerusalem. Eichmann claimed, as a CIA agent on trial might, that he was merely doing his duty, that he “not only obeyed orders, he also obeyed the law.” Arendt, of course, found Eichmann both banal in his evil and culpable. Perhaps more to the point, she argued that the culpability of countless others (what others did or might have done) did not in any way mitigate Eichmann’s guilt.

The same is true in the case of torture (although needless to say on a vastly different scale and context). Of course, higher-ups who ordered and sanctioned torture should be prosecuted as well, including the authors of the OLC memos. But that does not mean that the actual interrogators should be let off the hook en masse. Whether or not CIA interrogators should have refused orders or should have known that such orders were legally or morally wrong is a matter to be determined in trial, a matter of justice. It is not a question that can be swept away by the claim that they were just doing their jobs, that they were just being obedient subjects.

Because in the final analysis, it is highly likely that the CIA agents were just doing their jobs. And that those jobs were, in fact, criminal in nature. This brings me to Obama’s last argument, that in essence we need to forget the past and move forward for the good of the country. The substitution here of the political necessity of unity for the constitutional and moral imperative of justice is Bushian to say the least. But perhaps what is most troubling is that our new President would calculatedly deploy his public goodwill to effect a kind of national amnesia in which actions he himself and his attorney general have called illegal and wrong are forgotten in the name of progress. Of course, I can see why he would do so, as a matter of political expediency. But political expediency is not justice.

Of Eichmann’s crimes, Arendt wrote, “they were and could only be committed under a criminal law by a criminal state.” That may also be the case with torture under the Bush administration. We owe it to ourselves to find out and that can not happen if we meekly follow Obama’s request to forgive and forget.

Risen: NSA tried to wiretap Congressman without warrant

April 19, 2009

“Wow, what chance does an average American citizen have?”

F.F. 4/17/09




David Edwards and Joe Byrne
Published: Friday April 17, 2009


Broad legal limits set by Congress last year were exceeded in recent months by the National Security Agency, reported James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in Wednesday’sNew York Times

A segment on Keith Olbermann’sCountdown on Thursday featured Risen, who re-stated his claim that the NSA tried to tap the communications of a congressman, but were halted at the last moment from doing so. When Olbermann pressed Risen for more details about the congressman, Risen responded, “A very senior U.S. intelligence official with direct knowledge of this, a person I can‘t identify, gave us this information and unfortunately, we haven‘t been able to identify the congressman yet. But we do know that it occurred overseas and that the NSA had already begun to eavesdrop on someone else who was traveling with the congressman, and then wanted to go up and eavesdrop directly on the congressman, but was blocked at the last minute.” 

The article by Risen and Lichtblau detailed the problems associated with the high-tech surveillance system. “Intelligence officials said that the problems have grown out of changes enacted by Congress last July in the law that regulates the government’s wiretapping powers, and the challenges posed by enacting a new framework for collecting intelligence on suspected terrorists and spies.

“While N.S.A.’s operations in recent months have come under examination, new details are also emerging about earlier domestic surveillance activities, including the agency’s attempt to wiretap a congressman without court approval on an overseas trip, according to interviews with current and former intelligence officials.”

The changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) made by Congress last July had to do with granting immunity to corporations like AT&T who were supplying the data to the government and to extend the legal limit of warrantless wiretapping from 48 hours to a week. After a week, the NSA has to take their case to the FISA court for approval.

Olbermann asked Risen how big he thought the NSA wiretapping program has become. “We’re still trying to figure that out,” Risen responded. “What we do know is over the last few months there has been increasing concern both at the Justice Department and in congress over what appears to be just an inability of the NSA to stay within the legal limits that were established by the new FISA bill last summer. They’re collecting far more domestic e-mail and telephone traffic than they’re supposed to under the — even the very broad and relaxed regulations that were imposed last year. It makes it — it appears to be a problem of the inability of the NSA to distinguish between foreign and domestic communications. but the technical details, we’re still trying to determine.”

Risen closed the segment with a judgment of the Bush administration’s lack of control over the program. “President Bush and other members of his administration kept saying, ‘Trust us, we have very tight controls over this program.’ I think what this shows is that the controls are much more lax than they ever wanted to admit, and that the spying on Americans may have gone far beyond anything we realized before.”

This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast Apr. 16, 2009.


Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout

April 19, 2009

041509_brooksRosa Brooks, adviser to the Pentagon and former L.A. Times columnist.

Rosa Brooks, who has moved from the L.A. Times to the Pentagon, called for more “direct government support for public media” and government licensing of the news, which critics say would destroy the independent media.


Influential Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks has hung up her journalistic hat and joined the Obama administration, but not before penning a public proposal calling for some radical ideas to help bail out the failing news industry.

Brooks, who has taken up a post as an adviser at the Pentagon, advocated upping “direct government support for public media” and creating licenses to govern news operations.

“Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off,” she wrote in her parting column on April 9.

Brooks said this would help rescue the industry from a “death spiral” and left the government unaccountable to the journalists who must keep it honest. “[I] can’t imagine anything more dangerous than a society in which the news industry has more or less collapsed,” she wrote.

But critics say her proposal would spell an end to the independent media and make journalists reliant lapdogs.

“The day that the government gets involved in the news media you see the end of the democratic process, because an independent news media is absolutely essential to the success of a democracy,” said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group.

Bozell said licensing journalists would violate American traditions and was a form of “intellectual prostitution.”

“Since when did our Founding Fathers envision that … you could exercise your right to freedom of speech provided you had a license from the federal government? This is the kind of stuff you have revolutions about,” he told

Attempts to reach Brooks by phone and e-mail were unsuccessful. A columnist for four years at the Times, Brooks this week joined the office of the undersecretary of Defense for policy, the principal adviser to the Pentagon’s top brass. She retains her post as a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and during the Clinton administration served as a senior adviser to the State Department. 

Media experts said it was unlikely her calls for a bailout would be heeded by the government.

“I’m doubtful that one person taking a secondary job in the Pentagon is going to guide the policy on [bailouts],” said John Nichols, a longtime journalist whose own plans to help save newspapers were cited approvingly by Brooks, but who called licensing a “very dangerous move.”

“I would be very surprised if the Obama administration actually proposed something like that,” added Joel Brinkley, a visiting professor of journalism at Stanford University, who said that no one would trust the news industry if it accepted heaps of government money. “It’s the first time I’ve heard this publicly discussed.”

It is unclear whether the Obama administration is considering such assistance. A spokesman for Obama did not respond to questions about Brooks’ statements, which were published after her appointment to the Pentagon.

Some in the government are already looking to assist the industry. Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed legislation in March that would allow newspapers to operate as tax-exempt nonprofits as long as they don’t endorse political candidates. The move was heralded as a positive step toward finding a fix but condemned by critics for potentially making newspapers beholden to the government.

Some scribes are already closely bound to Washington. As jobs are axed and papers felled across the country, many journalists have sought work elsewhere. A number have gone to work for the Obama administration, including Chicago Tribune correspondent Jill Zuckman; Time magazine’s Washington bureau chief, Jay Carney; former L.A. Times reporter Peter Gosselin; and Warren Bass, once the Washington Post’s deputy editor.

Brooks is not the first journalist to support a broadsheet bailout, but she is the first member of the administration to publicly declare her support for the move, which appears to be gaining momentum.

Nichols and Robert McChesney suggested in an April 6 cover piece in The Nation that the government eliminate postal fees for smaller papers and periodicals and offer tax credits for newspaper subscriptions to help save the media. Looking for more direct assistance, the company that owns two Philadelphia papers approached Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in January seeking a $10 million bailout to help cover its massive debts — and it’s not the only conglomerate that’s hurting.

The Tribune Company, which owns many of the nation’s leading papers, including the Los Angeles Times, filed for bankruptcy protection in December. Many more newspapers have closed their doors, like the Rocky Mountain News, or have ended their print editions, like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Brooks worried in her column that the death of such newspapers would spell an end to investigative journalism and leave the country with only “yapping heads” on television and “nothing in our newspapers but ads, entertainment features and crossword puzzles.”

But many media critics say the troubles facing newspapers are of their own making, and that throwing around money won’t fix the problem.

“Licensing is a simplistic solution for historic trends battering the traditional newspaper industry,” said Ken McIntyre, a media and public policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who argued that a bailout would “preserve businesses that free enterprise and competition marked for failure — or a transition into something else.”

Dobbs On Garofalo Tea Party Comments: “She’s Just Nasty — Nasty Piece of Business”

April 19, 2009

Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
April 18, 2009


It was Fox News against the world about tea party coverage, but CNN “Lou Dobbs Tonight” host showed he’s just as disgusted with some of the coverage as many conservatives are.

Dobbs, on his April 17 radio program, criticized comedian Janeane Garofalo on his April 17 radio show for her vitriolic attack against the April 15 tea party protests.

“The national liberal media gets so snarky, it can’t stand itself ,” Dobbs said. “Then all these too cute by half ideologues trying to pose as some sort of objective journalists. You know, these fools, start falling off their little high horses – it’s fun to me. But, I’m pretty sure you’re going to see a lot more snarky little nastiness coming out of the national liberal media.”

Dobbs, in his own brand of populist outrage showed his ire against the media for dismissing the April 15 protest.

“They can’t accept that the American people – that the vast majority of American people are through with the ideological nonsense – whether it’s on the left or the right. And they’re sure through with the national liberal media who think you know they’re just a heck of a lot smarter than everybody else in this country.”

Janeane Garofalo appeared on MSNBC’s April 16 “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” where she unleashed an ugly attack, calling the protesters “a bunch of teabagging rednecks.”Dobbs unleashed his own assault on her commentary, the video of which appeared on the Web site


“Get ready for a lot of vitriol, a lot of pure – I mean, this Janeane Garofalo – who by the way, I don’t know what she does other than appear on left-wing venues and programs like Keith Olbermann’s and then just sort of whine and snark – and she’s a one-woman, you know – hate event. She’s just nasty – nasty piece of business, my Lord. And to be on Keith Olbermann’s show, you know a lot of meds running around there and his bile spewing everywhere.”


Despite some of the disparaging coverage from CNN, including Anderson Cooper, Dobbs explained that the media are determined to prop up the policies of Barack Obama.


“Their responsibility as a media outlet is to be a conduit for the Obama administration,” Dobbs added. “They think they are the bastion of, you know, of the 21st century socialistic thought. They’re as left-wing as it can get and they apparently are hell-bound to be the conduit for the Obama administration – the venue for left-wing politics and zaniness in this country and power to them, because the farther they go in that direction, the more irrelevant – if they’ve been relevant at any point – but the more irrelevant they’ve become.

Obama’s Followers: More Reprehensible than the Neocons

April 19, 2009

“Wow is Ganeane Garofalo that stupid? Does she have any concept that this movement was hijacked by the neo-cons from the libertarians, (Ron Paul), movement? I used to see Garofalo often in NYC playing her part as the good hipster, hanging out at Monna’a Bar in the E.Village. We struck up conversations a few times and she seemed pretty smart but who knows what happened her. Talk about embarrassing herself… she has got to relax with the race stuff. (Even for the idiot Republican/Neo-Con’s that infiltrated this tea-party movement… did they display any opposition to “race” stuff? I don’t know, I’m asking? I don’t watch television).  I think someone’s got the bad case of the white-liberal-guilt. It’s ok to be angry at a “black man” when he is your elected official and is working together with wealthy “white-scum” bankers in destroying your country and the lives of the hard working people who live there, (that means poor black folks too). I just can’t believe who stupid some people have become, really. Really, stupid. Really. Garofalo, good luck with what ever it is that duped you into this Obama hysteria… to become a codependent to a fraud. Umm, take deep breathe, everything is gonna be aright. Keep up your “race-freak-out” it will do wonders for your career.

-Fred Face 4/18/09



Kurt Nimmo
April 17, 2009


It is bad enough that Keith Olbermann has lost any sense of objectivity when it comes to the Tea Parties, but it is far worse that he invited the scurrilous Janeane Garofalo on his show. Garofalo wasted precious little time (at 8.25 into the video here) dismissing millions of people opposed to Obama’s policies (that is to say the policies of Bush continued).

Garofalo called all of us to the man and woman racist. Regrettably, Keith Olbermann agreed with her.

It should be obvious by now these people are worse — more rabid and mean-spirited and pathological — than the Bush neocons who managed to kill more than a million Iraqis and set the stage for what shall come under Obama by the premeditated whacking the underpinnings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Neocons rarely displayed such ugliness. Instead of abusing their enemies with foul epithets, they simply ignored them. Garofalo and Olbermann, however, seem to relish in such despicable attacks. Prior to inviting Garofalo on his show, Olbermann ticked off a series of adolescent insults directed at the “teabaggers” — meant in the pornographic sense, as eluded — that is to say anybody and everybody who believes cranking up the national debt to is a disaster in the making.

Olbermann and Garofalo are cheerleaders for more of the same. In fact, they are enemies of the people who they snidely dismiss as racists.

As John Stauber notes, the Obama administration has done a swell job hijacking the antiwar movement., Americans United for Change, USAction, and other so-called liberal organizations — so vociferous when Bush was running things — have uniformly failed to condemn Obama’s Afghanistan policy. Jon Soltz, the head of VoteVets, went so far as to come out in support of Obama’s Afghan strategy in an Op Ed with The Huffington Post. “Liberal groups don’t want to distract from passing Obama’s enormous domestic agenda,” Soltz declared. “And officials with some of these groups don’t want to lose inside influence with the White House.”

Incidentally, MoveOn, USAction, and VoteVets are all Soros operations.

They are no longer opposed to the slaughter of Afghan children now that the former cigar store Indian George Bush is out of office.

It is no coincidence Olbermann and Garofalo are calling those of us opposed to more of the same as racists at the same time a “leaked” DHS report warns of “rightwing extremism” (categorized by the SPLC and ADL as not merely extremism, but racist and white supremacist extremism).

It is no mistake the elite have decided to play the race card. It is a near perfect way to demonize the opposition and discount their arguments. Few will oppose marching said racists off to FEMA camps where they will be reeducated to accept the global elite’s master plan for worldwide slavery and misery — or short of that done away with.

For now, the fake liberals do not believe in the existence of FEMA camps anymore than the fake conservative Glenn Beck or his friends working in the Hearst empire do.

In the end, though, Olbermann and Garofalo and the foundation supported liberal Reichswehr will fall victim to a Night of the Long Knives because the global elite have about as much use for them as they do for the rest of us.

Our only hope is that we can awaken the American people to the scam in progress and turn the juggernaut around before it ends in disaster and a eugenics nightmare.

In the meantime we have no choice but to endure Olbermann’s smirk and Garofalo’s snide remarks.