Archive for June, 2009
Thank you for all of your encouragement. The outpouring of time and resources from the grassroots has been an inspiration for me to continue in this fight for liberty. It is clear that We Texans are hungry for the right type of change in Austin. Thanks to your help we have achieved great things in a few short months. We had volunteer Medina teams at 45 Tea Parties on April 15th. You have passed out over 20,000 pieces of literature across Texas and the nation. I have had the opportunity to visit with many like-minded Conservatives at over 50 Republican and non-partisan events, organizations, radio interviews, Meet-Ups, protests, and Meet & Greets (and thanks to your efforts, we have booked many more engagements over the coming months). One thousand cars are sporting Medina for Texas window stickers, and I am honored that 1,500 of you are looking good in Medina for Governor T-shirts. Finally, with your financial support, we have been able to launch a top notch campaign site
But liberty hasn’t been secured yet, and the battle continues. Just as we saw this past week, the Federal Government in Washington is determined to infringe upon our liberties and to cripple the economy in our state by passing the unpopular Cap and Trade bill. Texans and Americans from all over the country continue to voice opposition to socialism, and this opposition continues to go unheeded by current elected officials. It is time to stand in Texas and elect a Governor who will stand for you against the encroachment of Washington.
Make no mistake, many resources are urgently needed to wage the battle and win the war. Be encouraged that our forces are growing every day but we need *YOUR* help!
We have much to accomplish but we know the torch of freedom, once rekindled in Texas will sweep across our nation and true liberty will again reign supreme.
The quarterly filing period is coming to a close, and we want to show that We Texans are ready for liberty with a strong end-of-quarter report. Supporting a challenger candidate such as me will require courage and sacrifice. I need your financial help. Can you please give $10, $100 or even $1,000 by Tuesday, June 30th, 2009?
I want to close by echoing the words of Col. William B. Travis:
– “I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch”.
Thank you for your continued fight for liberty. You are the best campaign team any candidate could hope for — this campaign would not have been possible without you.
P.S. Our Issue Section will be out shortly, so be sure to check back often and subscribe to: *www.MedinaforTexas.com* http://www.medinafortexas.com/
“Well of course! Or connections with an outside country are much more vital interests to our criminal government than families who live in American and relatives were murdered by them. Duh?”
-Fred Face 6/29/09
The Supreme Court has rejected a class-action lawsuit against Saudi Arabia brought by 9/11 survivors and relatives of those killed in the attacks.
The court’s decision Monday not to allow an appeal of the case to go forward effectively ends an effort by some 6,000 9/11 relatives and survivors to sue the government of Saudi Arabia and several members of the Saudi royal family over the country’s alleged behind-the-scenes role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Citing the 9/11 Commission report and numerous other documents, the plaintiffs had argued that Saudi royals were among the largest contributors to charities that funneled money to Al Qaeda, AP reported Monday.
In its decision, the Supreme Court let stand a federal appeals court’s ruling that “sovereign immunity” — the notion that a country can’t be sued in another country’s courts — means that the lawsuit cannot go forward.
That was more or less the position of the Obama administration as well, which sided with the defendants and urged the courts to dismiss the lawsuit.
Lawyers for the 9/11 families argued in a brief submitted to the court this month that the White House’s desire to end the lawsuit was an “apparent effort to appease a sometime ally” that is important to the U.S.’s energy security.
Last week, the New York Times ran a story outlining the evidence the 9/11 families had put forward, evidence the paper said showed “extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.”
Among the documents were a statement from an Al Qaeda operative in Bosnia who said the Saudi High Commission had funded the terrorist group in the 1990s, and evidence from the U.S. Treasury Department that a Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, had been financially supporting Al Qaeda as recently as 2006.
As is typical when the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal, the court did not give reasons for its decision, Reuters reports.
The media are far more powerful than we want to admit,
but we are far from powerless to control the effects.
Douglas A. Gentile, Ph.D.
Developmental psychologist Douglas Gentile is a research scientist, author, educator, and one of the world’s leading experts on the effects of mass media on children, adolescents, and adults.
Dr. Gentile conducts scientific research on the positive and negative effects of media on children and adults, including such topics as media violence, video games, advertising, media ratings, and video game “addiction.”
By studying the effects of media scientifically, he helps to provide parents, educators, and policy makers with data that can help improve children’s outcomes.
The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century
What happens when science fiction becomes battlefield reality?
An amazing revolution is taking place on the battlefield, starting to change not just how wars are fought, but also the politics, economics, laws, and ethics that surround war itself. This upheaval is already afoot — remote-controlled drones take out terrorists in Afghanistan, while the number of unmanned systems on the ground in Iraq has gone from zero to 12,000 over the last five years. But it is only the start. Military officers quietly acknowledge that new prototypes will soon make human fighter pilots obsolete, while the Pentagon researches tiny robots the size of flies to carry out reconnaissance work now handled by elite Special Forces troops.
Wired for War takes the reader on a journey to meet all the various players in this strange new world of war: odd-ball roboticists working in latter-day “skunk works” in the midst of suburbia; military pilots flying combat mission from their office cubicles outside Las Vegas; the Iraqi insurgents who are their targets; journalists trying to figure out just how to cover robots at war; and human rights activists wrestling with what is right and wrong in a world where our wars are increasingly being handed over to machines.
If issues like these sound like science fiction, that’s because many of the new technologies were actually inspired by some of the great sci-fi of our time from Terminator and Star Trek to the works of Asimov and Heinlein. In fact, Singer reveals how the people who develop new technologies consciously draw on such sci-fiction when pitching them to the Pentagon, and he even introduces the sci-fi authors who quietly consult for the military.
But, whatever its origins, our new machines will profoundly alter warfare, from the frontlines to the home front. When planes can be flown into battle from an office 10,000 miles away (or even fly themselves, like the newest models), the experiences of war and the very profile of a warrior change dramatically. Singer draws from historical precedent and the latest Pentagon research to argue that wars will become easier to start, that the traditional moral and psychological barriers to killing will fall, and that the “warrior ethos” the code of honor and loyalty which unites soldiers will erode.
Paradoxically, these new unmanned technologies will also seemingly bring war closer to our doorsteps, including even with videos of battles downloaded for entertainment. But Singer also proves that our enemies will not settle for fighting our high-tech proxies on their own turf. He documents, for instance, how Hezbollah deployed unmanned aircraft in the Lebanese war of 2006, and how America may even fall behind in this revolution, as its adversaries gain knockoffs of our own technology, or even develop better tech of their own invention.
While his predictions are unnerving, there’s an irresistible gee-whiz quality to what Singer uncovers and the people he meets along the way. It is packed with cutting edge research and hard to get interviews of everyone from four star Army generals and Middle East leaders to reclusive science fiction authors. Yet it also seamlessly weaves in pop culture and illuminating anecdotes to create a book that is both highly readable and accessible. In laying out where our technologies are taking us to next, WIRED FOR WAR is as fascinating as it is frightening.
This is not your parents’ YouTube.
This is VideoBay, a YouTube-like service without the worries and hassles of those annoying copyright takedown notices.
And if you haven’t guessed by now, behind the service is The Pirate Bay. The new site, according to its operators, is in “beta extreme.”
“Don’t expect anything to work at all,” a message on the site reads.
The announcement of the “beta extreme” version of VideoBay comes as the four founders of the Pirate Bay face a year in prison following their April convictions for facilitating copyright infringement at the world’s most notorious BitTorrent tracker. The Pirate Bay told TorrentFreak “that there is still a lot of work to do behind the scenes. The encoder is not finished yet and the design is also a work in progress.”
Notwithstanding the convictions and likely appeals, The Pirate Bay site continues to operate with more than 20 million users. Instead of licking their wounds, the operators instead are flipping a bird of sorts to prosecutors and the content industry.
Two weeks ago, they launched a VPN service promising to make file sharers and other internet users more anonymous online. About 180,000 people have signed up for the $7 monthly service.
In addition to jail time, the defendants in April were ordered to pay damages of 30 million kronor ($3.6 million) to a handful of entertainment companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Bros, EMI and Columbia Pictures for facilitating copyright infringement.
Pirate Bay administrators Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde were found guilty in April, along with Carl Lundström, who was accused of funding the five-year-old operation.
The April verdicts were on appeal amid allegations the judge who presided over the case was biased because he was a member of pro-copyright groups. That appeal was rejected, however, and the operators are expected to appeal the case on a host of other grounds.
The biggest contention concerns claims by the site’s operators that they cannot be guilty of infringement because Pirate Bay points the way to where copyrighted music, movies, games and software can be had for free, but does not physically host the content.
By Ron Paul
In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration’s health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.
The Cap and Trade Bill HR 2454 was voted on last Friday. Proponents claim this bill will help the environment, but what it really does is put another nail in the economy’s coffin. The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners. HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.
The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!
The real inconvenient truth is that the cost of government regulations, taxes, fees, red tape and bureaucracy is a considerable expense that has to be considered when companies decide where to do business and how many people they can afford to hire. Increasing governmental burden directly causes capital flight and job losses, as Spain has learned. In this global economy its easy enough for businesses to relocate to countries that are more politically friendly to economic growth. If our government continues to kick the economy while its down, it will be a long time before it gets back up. In fact, jobs are much more likely to go overseas, compounding our problems.
And for what? Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based. Legitimate environmental claims should instead be directed towards the public sector. The government, especially the military, is the most serious polluter in the country, and is exempt from most EPA regulations. Meanwhile Washington bureaucrats have classified the very air we exhale as a pollutant and have gone unchallenged in this incredible assertion. The logical consequence is that there will come a time when we will have to buy a government permit just to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from our own lungs!
The events on Capitol Hill last week just demonstrate Washington’s audacity in manufacturing problems just so they can expand government power to solve them.
WASHINGTON – The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.
White House adviser David Axelrod said the administration wouldn’t rule out taxing some employees’ benefits to fund a health care agenda that has yet to take final form. The move would be a compromise with fellow Democrats, who are pushing the proposal as a way to pay for the massive undertaking without ballooning the federal deficit.
“There are a number of formulations and we’ll wait and see. The important thing at this point is to keep the process moving, to keep people at the table, to the keep the discussions going,” Axelrod said. “We’ve gotten a long way down the road and we want to finish that journey.”
But if President Barack Obama compromises on that point, it would reverse a campaign tax promise.
“I pledge that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year. “Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax.”
At the time, his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was proposing a tax on health benefits similar to the plan Obama is now considering. Just a year ago, Obama spent millions on campaign commercials attacking the idea.
One ad accused McCain of favoring “taxing health benefits for the first time ever … taxing health care instead of fixing it. We can’t afford John McCain.”
A second Obama ad called McCain’s approach “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Driving the point home, it contended the “McCain tax could cost your family thousands. Can you afford it?”
Under the current proposals, a tax on health benefits would affect only those with pricey health plans. The idea would be to tax as income the portion of health benefits worth more than a specified limit. Officials are considering several options, including one that would set the limit at $17,240 for family coverage and $6,800 for individuals.
Plans worth more than that would be taxed; those worth less would see no increase.
Obama has faced similar criticism before. When he increased taxes on tobacco to pay for a children’s health bill, his critics said he was raising taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year.
Obama left open the possibility of a tax during interviews last week, insisting he wasn’t taking any option off the table despite his personal opposition. But two of his high-profile advisers — budget chief Peter Orszag and economic adviser Jason Furman — both have indicated they support some taxes on health benefits to pay for the overhaul.
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said that Obama should step in an oppose the tax if he’s truly against it. Otherwise, he faces a loss to his own Democratic Party and his own campaign credibility.
“I think it’s going to take presidential leadership to get people of his party to see that we shouldn’t be subsidizing high-end health insurance policies that drive up inflation in health insurance,” said Grassley, the top Republican on the powerful finance committee.
Grassley — and, to be sure, other Republicans — remember Obama’s scathing criticism of their GOP presidential nominee.
“Since the president denigrated John McCain’s effort to move in this direction during the campaign, it’s going to take, in order to win over Republicans, presidential leadership in that direction,” Grassley said.
To help sell his plan, Obama scheduled a town hall-style meeting this week in Annandale, Va., a Washington suburb. He plans to take questions Wednesday from the audience and from online sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter.
Axelrod insisted that the White House has made progress on a health care plan and is working with Congress. Even so, the emerging legislation is hardly the bipartisan collaboration Obama’s top advisers had sought.
“One of the problems we’ve had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other,” Axelrod said. “And you don’t get anything done. That’s not the way the president approaches us.”
Axelrod appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Grassley appeared on “This Week.”
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Jury for the Ed and Elaine Browns’ trial to be selected . They face 11 felonies from their standoff . If found guilty, they face virtual life sentences for their crimesJune 30, 2009
By Margot Sanger-Katz
For nearly nine months, Ed and Elaine Brown holed up in their fortified concrete Plainfield home, surrounded by supporters and supplies, and railed against the federal government.
They threatened law enforcement officials and accumulated weapons and bombs. They spoke frequently with news reporters and nearly daily on a radio show about an apocalyptic confrontation and possible revenge killings.
But the Browns were arrested bloodlessly by an undercover team of U.S. marshals who won their trust and brought them pizza.
Today, jury selection begins in a trial for 11 felonies the Browns are accused of committing during their standoff. If found guilty, they face virtual life sentences for their crimes.
The couple are accused of conspiring to impede federal officials, obstructing justice, failing to appear in court, and illegally possessing firearms and bombs. They have already been found guilty of a series of tax related crimes and are serving 63-month prison sentences.
The Browns were longtime anti-government activists and ran the New Hamsphire Defense Militia in the 1990s. Ed Brown, who became a prominent spokesman for the militia movement after the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing, later founded another political organization, the UnAmerican Activities Investigations Committee, and became the national leader of Constitution Rangers of the Continental Congress of 1777, an antigovernment group with chapters throughout the country.
The couple clashed with the law when they decided to test their long-held view that no law requires them to pay federal income taxes. When they were charged with tax evasion in 2006, they had already begun extensive renovations on their hilltop home, fortified with 8-inch-thick concrete walls, an underground bunker and a four-story watchtower.
At trial, the Browns represented themselves, contending that government officials had conspired to conceal the truth about income tax law. When they decided the case was unlikely to go their way, they fled to their home, and Ed Brown began sending e-mails to supporters and right-wing radio hosts, asking them to join him and warning them that his situation might turn into “another Waco.”
Elaine Brown ultimately returned to court and put on an unsuccessful defense; the couple were convicted of all charges. She joined her husband in Plainfield several weeks later after being freed on bail.
Both Browns promised violence if law enforcement agents tried to arrest them, and they made additional threats against the judge and prosecutor involved in their tax case.
“We don’t know how this will end. But there are only two ways we are coming out of here. Either as a free man and as a free woman or in body bags,” Elaine Brown said in a March 2007 radio broadcast. “That has not changed, and that’s the stand that everyone must take. Because if we come out in body bags, there’s going to be a few more, too.”
Their statements attracted broad publicity and supporters, who brought food, tactical supplies, communications devices and weapons to the Browns. The supporters comprised a motley crew of militiamen, anti-war demonstrators, anarchists and members of New Hampshire’s Free State Project, all attracted to the couple’s public attention and their willingness to resist the federal government.
Four of those supporters were found guilty last year of conspiring with the Browns to prevent their arrest. According to testimony at trial, investigators found the Browns’ home stuffed with bombs and guns, including 21 pipe bombs in the Browns’ bedroom closet, gunpowder grenades, exploding rifle targets hung from trees around the house and .50-caliber rifles positioned near upstairs windows. A forensic expert from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified that she found Ed Brown’s fingerprints on several pipe bombs and gunpowder grenades.
Lawyers for both sides have been barred from making any public statements about the case.
Defense filings suggest the Browns plan to argue that they assembled this arsenal because they feared federal marshals planned to kill them. During the standoff, the Browns made frequent mention of standoffs at Ruby Ridge, in Idaho, and Waco, Texas, where confrontations between extremists and federal agents resulted in multiple deaths. Randy Weaver, a Ruby Ridge survivor, visited Plainfield in June 2007 and told news reporters, “I ain’t afraid of dying no more.” Weaver is listed as a possible witness by Ed Brown’s lawyer, Michael Iacopino.
It appears the Browns will focus on an aborted attempt to arrest the couple earlier that month. Dozens of federal and local law enforcement agents swarmed around the property in tanks, helicopters and patrol cars, and a Brown supporter who encountered a hidden team of marshals was apprehended and questioned. That supporter, who was recently sentenced to 36 years in prison for his participation in the standoff, is currently listed as a possible prosecution witness.
“Now that we knew they were intent on killing us, we began to accept the offers of munitions in various places, in order that we may be able to defend ourselves,” the Browns wrote in a recent 38-page appellate filing, titled “Saga of Edward and Elaine.” “We knew conflict was imminent.”
In one recent filing, Bjorn Lange, Elaine Brown’s lawyer, asked the court to allow her to argue that “she came to believe that she faced serious bodily injury or death from officers and agents of the government,” and her subsequent possession of firearms was “justified by a well-founded fear that the government was prepared to use excessive, unlawful force against her.”
Ed Brown’s lawyer has filed motions making similar arguments.
The Browns’ cooperation with lawyers is new. Since their arraignments in February, they have filed repeated motions with the court challenging its authority, questioning the ethics of the U.S. attorney and demanding to be freed in exchange for promised bonds allegedly worth billions of dollars. They told the judge that they did not wish to attend their trial, rejected their court-appointed attorneys and refused to accept any prosecution discovery materials. But this month, after Judge George Singal described their legal strategy as “almost a suicide pact,” they reversed course and agreed to allow Iacopino and Lange to help them.
Jury selection will involve about 230 possible jurors, nearly triple the usual number for a trial with two defendants, the court’s clerk said. The large jury pool was arranged because of the heightened publicity surrounding the case and the large number of witnesses, he said.
The trial is expected to run 10 days and will begin Tuesday with summary testimony by U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier, who oversaw the investigation, a prosecution filing says. Monier won a national award from the U.S. Department of Justice for his handling of the case.
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, June 29, 2009
The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny.
We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed.
RED ALERT 1
The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning ofnightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction – all based on the manufactured threat of global warming.
This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax.
This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining – this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system.
As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.
We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level.
RED ALERT 2
The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went.
Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.
We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny.
RED ALERT 3
Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)”
In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.
If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.
RED ALERT 4
The Senate bill S.787, otherwise known as the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA), would replace language in the regulatory act currently using “navigable waters” with “waters of the United States.”
What this means is that “the government would essentially be able to regulate everything from standing water in floodplains to creeks that run behind business and residences,” according to anEnvironmental Leader report.
This represents a complete takeover of private land and waterways by the federal government, a total assault on private property rights and a complete federalization of America’s land and water.
“In a letter to Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe, the American Farm Bureau Federation said that the proposed law would “extend to all water — anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater,” stated the letter. “For the first time in the 36-year history of the act, activities that have no impact on actual rivers and lakes would be subject to full federal regulation.”
If this bill becomes law, it will empower the federal government to seize private property on a whim, using similar powers that Communist China employed during Chairman Mao’s “great leap forward,” where landowners had their property violently confiscated and stolen by the government.
If this bill passes the Senate, private property rights in the United States are effectively null and void and the federal government would legally have the power to bulldoze families from their homes as routinely happens in Communist China.
RED ALERT 5
Amongst the myriad of assaults on the Second Amendment rights of American citizens undertaken by the Obama administration during the course of its first year in office, the one that stands out as the most alarming is the attempt to ban people who appear on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.
But isn’t stopping terrorists from buying guns surely a sensible measure to take? The problem is that the terrorist watch list, sometimes called the no fly list, is not a list of likely terrorists, it is a sprawling database of of innocent people that contains the names of over one million Americans. This is a rise of 32% since 2007 alone.
Members of Congress, nuns, war heroes, reverends, the former assistant attorney general, toddlers and children, the ACLU administrator, people with difficult names and all American names like Robert Johnson and Gary Smith, have become caught in the vast tentacle of this list, documents the ACLU.
Moreover, once a person is included on the terrorist watch list it is virtually impossible to get off it.
The terrorist watch list is an ever-expanding tool with which to deny Americans basic rights as well as to strip them completely of the Fourth Amendment.
Now it is being used to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms. Legislation sponsored by the The Government Accountability Office seeks to “close the gap” and prevent victims of the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase firearms.
This represents a new end run around the Second Amendment and a concerted effort on behalf of the federal government to classify millions of innocent Americans as potential terrorists, thus stripping them of their Constitutional right to own firearms.
RED ALERT 6
Our right to protest against any of the egregious assaults on the Constitution that are listed above is itself being removed by new law enforcement and Pentagon training manuals and guidelines that define protesting as domestic terrorism.
Current Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.
Over the last few years we have documented countless examples of security assessment reports from the likes of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, which state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, Ron Paul supporters and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.
The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.
No one can claim now that this is merely a paranoid delusion – the government itself is training its law enforcement and military arms that protesters and people who use their First Amendment rights are domestic terrorists. The last time this happened was under King George shortly before the American Revolution.
ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT
If we don’t stand up in unison and exercise our right to protest and free speech now more than ever before, while pointing out that the real terrorists are those who would seek to destroy the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, then we may find ourselves doing our protesting behind the barbed wires and the concrete blocks of an internment camp.
The hour is late, the clock stands at one minute to midnight, and the federal government, through all the examples documented above, is on the verge of implementing nothing less than a total environmental, financial and societal dictatorship and killing what once was the United States of America.
Almost identical programs of total enslavement are also being pushed through in almost every other major western country at the same time.
If we don’t stop obsessing about the minutia of life and actually concentrate on the imminent destruction of the very principles of our livelihoods, the bedrock freedoms that allow us to operate in relative comfort on a daily basis and be reasonably secure in our own homes, being able to pay our bills, put food on the table, earn money, and air our grievances when government threatens to impinge on those basic freedoms, then there will be nothing left but a rotten hollow carcass and a memory of what America once strived to be – land of the free, home of the brave – not land of the thief, home of the slave.
June 29, 2009
“Well besides Global Warming.”
April 29, 2009 12:00am
IT’S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
Doubt it? Then here’s a test.
Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?
So let’s see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.
THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week “temperatures have dropped” since – “both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites”. In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man’s rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that’s all theory. The question I’ve asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?
THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again.
The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn’t had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.
WE’VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we’ve had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by “global warming”, whether man-made or not.
As the university’s press release says: “The causes of southeastern Australia’s longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
“A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole – a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water – dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia.”
OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged “record” temperature Melbourne set in January – 46.4 degrees – was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here’s another curious thing: Despite all this warming we’re alleged to have caused, Victoria’s highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia’s hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW’s high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What’s more, not one of the world’s seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe’s high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.
THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.
Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: “There has been a very slight cooling . . .”
THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.
That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.
But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.
Venice is still above water.
by Daniel Volman
With the Obama administration set to oversee significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries, Daniel Volman examines the US government’s plans for its military operations on the African continent over the coming financial year. Stressing that the US president is essentially continuing the policies outlined under his predecessor George W. Bush, the author considers the proposed funding increases for initiatives like the Foreign Military Financing programme and the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programme. Pointing out that the administration is yet to offer any public explanation of its policy, Volman concludes that it would be a mistake to assume that there will be no US military action if the situation in Somalia deteriorates.
At the beginning of May 2009, President Obama submitted his first budget request to Congress. The Obama administration’s budget for the 2010 financial year proposes significant increases in US security assistance programmes for African countries and for the operations of the new US Africa Command (AFRICOM). This shows that – at least initially – the administration is following the course laid down for AFRICOM by the Bush administration, rather than putting these programmes on hold until it can conduct a serious review of US security policy towards Africa. This article outlines the administration’s plans for Africa in the coming year and the money it intends to spend on military operations on the continent.
FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING
The Obama administration proposes maintaining or significantly increasing funding for the Foreign Military Financing programme, which provides loans for the sale of weaponry and other military equipment to a number of African countries. The administration’s request raises the total funding for arms sales to Africa from $8.3 million in financial year (FY) 2009 to $25.6 million in FY 2010. The new funding includes funding for arms sales to Chad ($500,000), the Democratic Republic of Congo ($2.5 million), Djibouti ($2.5 million), Ethiopia ($3 million), Kenya ($1 million), Liberia ($9 million), Nigeria ($1.4 million), South Africa ($800,000) and African regional programmes ($2.8 million).
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The Obama administration proposes small increases in the International Military Education and Training (IMET) programmes for African counties, raising the total funding for this programme from $13.8 million in FY 2009 to $16 million in FY 2010. Significant increases in funding are requested for Chad ($400,000), Djibouti ($350,000), Ethiopia ($775,000), Ghana ($850,000), Kenya ($1,050,000), Liberia ($525,000), Mali ($350,000), Niger ($250,000), Nigeria ($1,100,000), Rwanda ($500,000), Senegal ($1,100,000), South Africa ($900,000) and Uganda ($550,000). The United States will continue its major IMET programme in the Democratic Republic of Congo ($500,000), and the Obama administration is proposing to start new IMET programmes in Equatorial Guinea ($40,000), Somalia ($40,000) and Zimbabwe ($40,000).
The Obama administration proposes major new funding for security assistance provided through the Peacekeeping Operations programme. The FY 2010 budget proposal includes increasing funding for the Trans-Sahara Counter-Terrorism Partnership – from $15 million in FY 2009 to $20 million in FY 2010 – and for the East Africa Regional Strategic Initiative – from $5 million in FY 2009 to $10 million in FY 2010. It also includes $42 million to continue operations in support of the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Accords in southern Sudan, $10 million to continue operations to create a professional 2,000-member armed force in Liberia, $21 million to continue operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo to reform the military (including the creation of rapid reaction force for the eastern Congo), and $3.6 million for the Africa Conflict Stabilization and Border Security Program, which will be used to support monitoring teams, advisory assistance, training, infrastructure enhancements, and equipment in the Great Lakes region, the Mano River region, the Horn of Africa, Chad, and the Central African Republic. The budget request also includes $67 million to support the African Union Mission in Somalia. And it contains a request for $96.8 million for the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI). The request for GPOI includes funding for the African Contingency Operations and Training Assistance Program (ACOTA) – which provides training and equipment to African military forces to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities – although the specific amount requested for ACOTA is not provided in the budget summary.
“Ummm… cap & trade boy. We got to put the finishing touches on bankrupting the American people. Good boy.”
Posted June 27th, 2009 by photoshopwiz
You have 4 Days left to call your representative!
8 Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade
The following republicans voted FOR the largest tax bill ever passed by a session of Congress.
Any good work they have done has been for naught. Unless they change their votes by the deadline, Wed, July 2nd, they will for ever be a member of the Cap and Tr8tors.
HR 2454 RECORDED VOTE 26-Jun-2009 7:17 PM
BILL TITLE: American Clean Energy and Security Act
#capandtr8tors is the Twitter tag to use on this topic.
1) Click on their link.
2) Select the ‘Contact’ tab.
Contact their local office as they are not in DC and home on vacation.
Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)
Time left for the Cap and Tr8tors to change their vote …
04 Days, 05 Hours, 03 Minutes, 42 Seconds.
Thank you for all of your encouragement. The outpouring of time and resources from the grassroots has been an inspiration for me to continue in this fight for liberty. It is clear that We Texans are hungry for the right type of change in Austin. Thanks to your help we have achieved great things in a few short months. We had volunteer Medina teams at 45 Tea Parties on April 15th. You have passed out over 20,000 pieces of literature across Texas and the nation. I have had the opportunity to visit with many like-minded Conservatives at over 50 Republican and non-partisan events, organizations,
radio interviews, Meet-Ups, protests, and Meet & Greets (and thanks to your efforts, we have booked many more engagements over the coming months). One thousand cars are sporting Medina for Texas window stickers, and I am honored that 1,500 of you are looking good in Medina for Governor T-shirts. Finally, with your financial support, we have been able to launch a top notch campaign site www.MedinaforTexas.com
But liberty hasn?t been secured yet, and the battle continues. Just as we saw this past week, the Federal Government in Washington is determined to infringe upon our liberties and to cripple the economy in our state by passing the unpopular Cap and Trade bill. Texans and Americans from all over the country continue to voice opposition to socialism, and this opposition continues to go unheeded by current elected officials. It is time to stand in Texas and elect a Governor who will stand for you against the encroachment of Washington.
Make no mistake, many resources are urgently needed to wage the battle and win the war. Be encouraged that our forces are growing every day but we need YOUR help!
We have much to accomplish but we know the torch of freedom, once rekindled in Texas will sweep across our nation and true liberty will again reign supreme.
The quarterly filing period is coming to a close, and we want to show that We Texans are ready for liberty with a strong end-of-quarter report. Supporting a challenger candidate such as me will require courage and sacrifice. I need your financial help. Can you please give $10, $100 or even $1,000 by Tuesday, June 30th, 2009?
I want to close by echoing the words of Col. William B. Travis:
?I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism and everything dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch?.
Thank you for your continued fight for liberty. You are the best campaign team any candidate could hope for — this campaign would not have been possible without you.
P.S. Our Issue Section will be out shortly, so be sure to check back often and subscribe to: www.MedinaforTexas.com
“If anyone gives back evil for good, evil will never go away from his house.” Proverbs 17:13
With a subtitle like “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression – and they’re about to do it again” run, don’t walk, to your nearest kiosk and buy Matt Taibbi’s latest piece in Rolling Stone magazine. One of the best comprehensive profiles of Government Sachs done to date. Speaking of GS, they sure must be busy today, now that Bernanke is about to be impeached and take the fall for all their machinations.
(Soldiers are) dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy. – Henry Kissinger (as quoted in Woodward and Bernstein’s “The Final Days”, ch. 14)
“Awesome! Obama’s wicked cool. Hey turd herds, this is Natzi Germany type legislation. But fuck it… there’s a big game on the tube tonight, it’s called your life. Yeeee-haw, for conformity and stupidity, woooo000…ahh?..ooo!
At Guantanamo Bay’s Camp 5 detention center, a guard stands near the shadow of a detainee. The Obama administration plans to bypass Congress with an executive order allowing indefinite detention, according to government officials. (Photo: Getty Images)
The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, is drafting an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate suspected terrorists indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.
Such an order would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.
After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president’s January 2010 deadline.
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner “consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”
One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.
“Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order can be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.
The Justice Department has declined comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.
In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the Executive Branch decide alone,” the president said.
Some of Obama’s top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a “national security court” to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.
“Here’s a couple of funky PDF’s you can sink your teeth in if your bored.”
Zachary T Baker
June 27, 2009
The U.S. House of Representatives are nothing more than prostitutes for the international banking cartel. Brothels in Washington D.C. were packed Friday afternoon with eager congressman who sold Americans out 219-212 in favor of The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). Also dubbed “Waxman- Markey” the bill will implement the infamous cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions, signaling the NWO’s final moves towards total financial bondage.
Under the guise of philanthropic style environmentalism, the New World Order is blasting forward with draconian legislation every week it seems. Using thuggish tactics such as switching bill numbers & phone numbers to DC representatives and of course, good old fashion disinofo bombs got the job done. Cap and trade sets a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a factory, business, utility, or other energy producer is allowed to emit The goal of the Waxman- Markey bill is to cut CO2 emissions by 17 percent by 2020.
Most energy producers and manufactures will be severely affected by these caps, bu the increase cost will be passed onto their customers through higher prices. Companies will purchase permits that will allow them to exceed the “cap” These permits will be issued by our gangster government, and then be auctioned off to the same companies participating in the cap-and trade system. The theory is to create a free market for carbon permits where the price is set by those being forced to participate in the new system.
Consumers will be affected the most by this these new caps on energy. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Commission Budget Office testified before the Committee on Finance in May. He says a cap-and trade system would be devastating to the working poor. According to Elmendorf, the cost to for an average American household would be $1,600 a year, with low-income households carrying a heavier burden because they spend more of their income on energy than higher-income households.
Remaining scraps from revenue created by the auctioning off of carbon permits will go to the families with lower incomes such as a whopping $161 per year tax credit for single persons and $359 for 5-person families. Here’s the rub. According to Elmendorf, “such price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households were encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2.”
The federal government will have an annual allowance of almost a trillion dollars worth of grants/ bribe money to use as they seem fit.. Much like the mafia acting as a middleman between people and businesses, the EPA will create a list of companies who are “trade sensitive” or rely on imports.
With General Electric’s smart grid technology in place, energy companies along with their customers will have no other choice but to convert to the communist style system of rationing vital utilities. What smart grid visionaries foresee are home thermostats and appliances that adjust automatically depending on the cost of power.
The availability of $4.5 billion in federal economic recovery money for smart grid technology gives incentives for companies to convert over to the new digitalized grid.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu says, “If you want to create mischief one very good way to create a great deal of mischief is to actually bring down a smart grid system. This system has to be incredibly secure.”
“Is the average consumer willing to pay the upfront costs of a new system and then respond appropriately to price signals? Or will people view a utility’s ability to reach inside a home to turn down a thermostat as Orwellian?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said at a recent hearing on smart grid.
Lastly, there is the option for companies to avoid a cap on their CO2 emissions by offsetting them. Al Gore, part owner of carbon offset company Generation Investment Management testified in front of a congressional committee that a cap-and trade system along with a direct carbon tax would be ideal.
Limiting the amount of CO2 will do nothing to help make the planet less warm, make us energy independent or create millions of jobs. It will on the other hand destroy whatever is left of our industry here in the North American Union by leaving companies no choice but to move offshore. Some of the biggest oil reserves in the world are here in North America, yet we rely on foreign oil. The elites indirectly control every facet our life.
Citizens will never be energy independent until every home is off the grid. Green jobs will include heavily fluoridated drones enforcing new EPA laws/codes. Besides, the amount of jobs that will be lost due to companies either moving offshore orgoing bankrupt will certainly be higher than the millions created by our fuhrer. With the hookers in Washington granting dictatorial powers to the Federal Reserve last week, it seems as though HR 2998 is part a two prong attack. The New World Order is moving fast, and there is really only two more obstacles in their way: our right to speak freely and our right to protect ourselves.
2) “Smart grid” — power lines move into digital age By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 6, 6:04 pm ET
“I’ve posted this before but it speaks volumes on the human mentality in America and the system that we’re under and the system that needs to be fought by all means necessary by allllll of the diverse people in America. We’ve all had it… and we know the enemy.”
-Fred Face 6/27/09
“Holy Suspicious Story Batman!
“Hey, lets create a violent atmosphere in the ghetto’s of America by giving them inadequate living conditions, poorly run and underfunded schools, funnel in drugs and weapons, and when the time is right we’ll place an inadequate black president in office that we can play like a puppet and prop him up as the superman who stops the inner-city violence by banning all guns from the criminals, (who exist because of this system), and while were at it we’ll just ban weapons from all the law abiding gun owners in America. It might be the only way we can get away with disarming the U.S. public. And if were feeling really good we’ll go with the Marshall Law.” -Some conversation somewhere in Satan’s asshole, (the pentagon), in the 1940’s, 50’s, whatever.
“You need to fight the system that creates this violent mentality in our inner-cities. Not the punks who got plaid by it. It’s just another form of slavery straight from the minds of the racist elite who run this country. Be very suspicious of groups like NAACP. They don’t make a peep about the real reasons why some black folks are still living in bondage. Front organization etc…etc…etc.”
-Fred Face 6/27/09
by STEVEN FARLEY Of The Patriot-News
Thursday June 25, 2009, 9:24 PM
“Two of my heros.”
July, 1962; NYC
Probably the most talented, surely the most ambitious, and absolutely the youngest full-fledged film-maker on the American scene today, is Stanley Kubrick — who, at only 33, has created a body of work (six features and two documentaries) as richly diverse as it is substantial.
Paths Of Glory, acclaimed by critics throughout the world as one of the best war pictures ever filmed was made when he was 28 years old — certainly as remarkable a cinematic achievement as that of any contemporary American.
At 30, he was given the singular distinction (if not exactly honor) of directing the super production, Spartacus, with a budget of ten million dollars. Aware, intuitive, and deeply attuned to his times, Kubrick is a chess-playing poet and extremely articulate, speaking in visual metaphor, with the kind of relentless honesty of principle and direction that is a rare felicity indeed.
The following interview took place in the New York office of Harris-Kubrick Productions, and is a transcript of the taped recording.
Southern: What was it mainly that appealed to you in the novel, Lolita?
Kubrick: Well it’s certainly one of the great love stories, isn’t it? I think Lionel Trilling’s piece in Encounter is very much to the point when he speaks of it as “the first great love story of the 20t century.” And he uses as his criteria the total shock and estrangement which the lovers, in all the great love stories of the past have produced on the people around them. If you consider Romeo and Juliet, Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, The Red and the Black, they all had this one thing in common, this element of the illicit, or at least what was considered illicit at the time, and in each case it caused their complete alienation from society.
But then in the 20th century, with the disintegration of moral and spiritual values, it became increasingly difficult, and finally impossible, for an author to credibly create that kind of situation, to-to conceive of a relationship which would produce this shock and estrangement — so that what was resorted to achieve the shock value, was erotic description. Whereas Trilling felt that Lolita somehow did succeed, in the classic tradition, having all the stormy passion and tenderness of the great love story as well as this element of the lovers being estranged from everyone around them. And, of course, Nabokov was brilliant in withholding any indication of the author’s approval of the relationship. In fact, it isn’t until the very end, when Humbert sees her again four years later, and she’s no longer by any-stretch of the definition a nymphet, that the really genuine and selfless love he has for her is revealed. In other words, this element of their estrangement, even from the author — and certainly, from the reader–is accomplished, and sustained, almost through the very end.
Southern: I want to ask you some questions more about the actual filming of Lolita, but first I’d like to go back for a moment–to the time when you were 21, working as a Look photographer, and ask you how you got started as a filmmaker.
Kubrick: I just rented a camera and made a movie–a 28 minute documentary–Day of the Fight was the name of it, a day in the life of a boxer, from the time he wakes in the morning until he steps in the ring that night.
Southern: I understand you made the film entirely by yourself–did you also finance it?
Kubrick: Well, it didn’t cost much–I think the camera was ten bucks a day–and film, developed and printed, is ten cents a foot. The most expensive thing was the music…the whole film cost 3900 dollars, and I think about 2900 of it was for the music, having it sync’d in.
Southern: Your first feature was Fear and Desire?
Kubrick: Yes, a pretentious, inept and boring film–a youthful mistake costing about 50,000 dollars–but it was distributed by Joseph Burstyn, in the art houses and caused a little ripple of publicity and attention. ..I mean there were people around who found some good things in it, and on the strength of that I was able to raise private financing to make a second feature-length film, Killer’s Kiss. And that was a silly story too, but my concern was still in getting experience and simply functioning in the medium, so the content of a story seemed secondary to me. I just took the line of least resistance, whatever story came to hand. And for another thing I had no money to live on at the time, much less to buy good story material with–nor did I have the time to work it into shape–and I didn’t want to take a job, and get off the track, so I had to keep moving. Fortunately too, I wasn’t offered any jobs during this period–I mean perhaps if I had been offered some half-assed TV job of something I wouldn’t have had the sense to turn it down and would have been thrown off the track of what I really wanted to do, but it didn’t happen that way. In any case, I made that picture Killer’s Kiss, and United Artists saw it and bought it.
Southern: It was about that time, wasn’t it, that you met James Harris and formed your own company?
Kubrick: That’s right. He was running a television distribution company at the time…together we made The Killing. That’s the first film I made with decent actors, a professional crew, and under the proper circumstances. It was the first really good film I made, and it got a certain amount of attention…then we bought the rights to Paths of Glory. That was a book I had read when I was about fourteen, and one day I suddenly remembered it.
Southern: I understand there was some controversy over the ending of the film–where the French soldiers are executed for desertion–that you asked to change it so that the men would not be shot at the end of the film.
Kubrick: It wasn’t a controversy–I mean there were some people who said you’ve got to save the men, but, of course, it was out of the question. That would have been like making a film about capital punishment in which the executed man was innocent–it would just be pointless. And also, of course, it actually happened–the French Army mutinies of 1917 were fairly extensive, whole regiments marched out of the trenches, and men were executed, by lot.
Southern: Is Paths of Glory still banned in France?
Kubrick: Yes–it’s also banned in Switzerland, Spain, and Israel, because of reciprocal agreements these countries have with France.
Southern: Did the film in fact, make any money?
Kubrick: It’s probably made some money by now. But what you have to realize is that the period of movies, starting from about the middle fifties, began to decline in terms of box-office, right down to where it is now, which is about 40% of what it was before television. Television, you know, was a big threat in the beginning because it was free, but then they ran out of things to show and it started to get boring — and at that point the major studios, in order to show better balance sheet, very unwisely began unloading their pictures, selling them to TV, which then gave the networks something at least as good and sometimes better than what could be seen in the theatres. Now Paths of Glory was made about the middle of this period of decline in movie business, and by comparison to the average ‘A’ picture during that time it did average business. So it wasn’t exactly a smash success, and I suppose there are a lot of films which can’t be expected to be, but which are still worth making — if you feel like making them.
Southern: There are always a few films which, after their initial round of distribution, start being recalled — and this seems to be happening to Paths of Glory, as though it were becoming a sort of cinema-club classic.
Kubrick: Well, the owner of the New Yorker theatre called me the other day, for example, and said they didn’t want to give him a print of the film. You see, the distributor gets about fifty bucks for renting a print, and so he doesn’t even want to bother dragging it out of the vault. I mean they’ve got so many other things working for them they just don’t want to be bothered.
BY JOHN BYRNE
The healthcare industry is spending upwards of $1.4 million each day on average to lobby members of Congress on health care legislation, a report issued by Common Cause this week reveals.
Industry spending has nearly doubled since 2000. Healthcare interests contributed $94 million to Congress members during the 2008 election cycle alone — up from $40 million in 2000.
Common Cause’s report has received almost no treatment in the press — with a single article in Bloomberg News and one in the National Journal.
The industry is attempting to alter the course of Democrats’ plans to provide universal health coverage for most Americans.
“The top recipients of health industry campaign contributions from 2000 to 2008 are new Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) at $7.3 million and $6.3 million respectively,” National Journal reports. “All of the campaign finance data used in the report came from the Center for Responsive Politics.
“The report concludes that members of Congress face a disheartening conflict of interest: side with their large campaign donors or back reform measures that have support from the public, like the public plan option which would create a publicly-funded health insurance entity to compete with private insurers,” the site adds.
The full Common Cause report is available here.
“My concern about that legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of our programs and the details of the programs, but is making judgments about our policy decisions, that would effectively be a takeover of monetary policy by the Congress, a repudiation of the independence of the Federal Reserve, which would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the Dollar and our national economic situation.”
Panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Obama’s modern healthcare through the denial of care to millions who would be judged ‘not fit to live’, just as in Nazi Germany.
Historian Anton Chaitkin also alleges that Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, in working with Obama, has also called for the Hippocratic oath to be ‘junked.’
A federal appeals court, in the first decision of its kind, said Thursday that companies providing malware, spyware and adware blocking services are immunized by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from lawsuits claiming unfair business practices.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the CDA treats security software makers the same as internet service providers when they block material they find objectionable, granting them so-called “good Samaritan” immunity from civil lawsuits. Like an ISP, such companies provide an “interactive computer service” because they pull updates from a central server, the San Francisco-based appeals court said.
“We conclude that a provider of access tools that filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that a provider or user considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable is protected from liability,” the court ruled. (.pdf)
The case concerned adware-maker Zango, which provided access to online videos, games, music, tools and utilities to web surfers who agreed to view advertisements while surfing the internet. Among other charges, the Washington State company accused Kaspersky Lab of illegally blocking a toolbar program that displayed links to advertisers.
Zango also said Kaspersky users were prevented from installing Zango software altogether, if Kaspersky was already on the computer -– a situation that did not occur with other security software programs.
The court noted that Kaspersky, of Russia, had a good faith belief that it was blocking adware, and that its users could allow pop-ads if they wanted or unlock the toolbar. The court noted that Zango was fined $3 million in 2006 for deceiving web surfers into installing its pop-up software.
Zango contended that immunity was meant to cover only internet service providers, not companies that provide access to tools for filtering content.
But the law, the court noted, “does not limit the definition of ‘interactive computer service’ to services that provide access to the internet.” Rather, the court said, “its singular requirement is for access by multiple users of a computer server.”
Security software is covered because it ” enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server by providing its customers with online access to its update servers,” the court said.
The ruling could have a dark side, however, potentially opening the door for anti-competitive practices. A browser-maker, for example, could choose to block access to competing websites, or filter out search engine results critical of the company.
That danger was not lost on the court, which wrote that “extending immunity beyond the facts of this case could pose serious problems if providers of blocking software were to be given free license to unilaterally block the dissemination of material by content providers under the literal terms” of the law.
The law might empower a software company to “abuse immunity to block content for anti-competitive purposes or merely at a malicious whim.”
The court urged Congress to clarify the statute.
by Barbara-Anne Steegmuller
“A comprehensive film that asks tough questions and goes behind the scenes of America’s national security apparatus and military actions.”
Superpower: Far from a conspiracy film about the dangers of government secrets and regime change, this well-balanced film straddles the philosophical divide and allows viewers to understand the US quest for global dominance through economic and military strategy that is exposed through review of historical events, personal interviews, and analysis of US foreign policy.
The heart of Superpower lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history through a series of interviews with historians, documentarians, and academians such as Bill Blum, Chalmers Johnson, Michael Chossudovsky, and Noam Chomsky, and others with expertise in this subject such as the Executive Producer of The Unit, Command Sergeant (Ret.) Eric Haney; former Chief Economist for the US Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds; three-time Noble Peace Prize nominee, Kathy Kelly; and Lt. Col. (Ret) Karen Kwiatkowski. Examining key moments in America’s history elicits a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions guided by global expansion and military dominance, rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.
Should citizens trust that their government will keep them safe, a government that keeps secrets, and lies, in the name of national security? Does the simple act of withholding information lead to a world of eroding civil liberties and corruption? Superpower presents a view of US foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world. Superpower illustrates how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue a grand strategy which will ensure itself unilateral world domination through absolute economic and military superiority. It shows a consistent pattern of government deception.
The United States emerged from World War II with its industrial base still intact and the only nation with the atomic bomb. It was without question the most powerful country on earth. What was done with this unprecedented power, the effects it’s had on our Republic and the rest of the world is the story of Superpower.
Eight Republicans Help Confirm a Hard-Core Gun Banner
— And how to keep Senators from “spinning” their support for gun
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
“Too much work [was] left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote
for myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years
ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms.” —
Harold Hongju Koh (2001)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Imagine that. The Senate confirmed this week, by a vote of 62-35, a gun
banner who stays up at night thinking of ways to impose more gun control
upon American citizens.
Harold Koh is that gun grabber, and he was confirmed yesterday to be the
Legal Adviser at the State Department.
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans attempted to kill the Koh nomination
with a filibuster — until eight of them crossed the aisle to help
Democrats confirm Koh.
The back-stabbing Senators are: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Susan Collins
(R-ME), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Mel
Martinez (R-FL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH).
Once the filibuster was thwarted, Koh’s nomination passed easily. The
vote on final passage can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/m4m2f5
Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented
that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun
control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in
positions of power. The chief lawyer for the State Department is just
the position someone like him needs to push more gun control through
GOA will continue watching for any attempt by the Obama administration
to foist an international gun control treaty upon the citizens of the
Please stay tuned.
Don’t Let Your Senators Escape the Heat of the Spotlight!
If you have been watching the news, you have no doubt seen stories on
the health care debate. This is the topic de jour on Capitol Hill, and
Congress is ramping up to vote on a bill in a few weeks.
Last week, GOA alerted you to the fact that the whole health care issue
has become a Trojan Horse for gun control, among other things.
However, there are detractors who claim that the current health care
debate will have nothing to do with guns. For example, GOA has been
“informed” that a search of the TeddyCare bill does not turn
up the word
“guns,” and that the word “database” is seen only a
Hmm, if your Senator’s office gives you that as a response, then tell
them not to be so lazy and naive.
One needs to do more than type in a word search in order to analyze
legislation. The database was set up under section 3001(c)(3)(i) of the
stimulus bill. But the Kennedy bill allows for sweeping new
regulations, which make it potentially impossible for any doctor to
refuse to enter your records under the current section 13112 exemption.
Many things you tell your doctor in the privacy of his office could
affect your right to own a firearm. And just because anti-gun zealot Ted
Kennedy doesn’t notify us up front of his anti-gun intentions doesn’t
mean they don’t exist.
Frankly, we got this same garbage in connection with the Veterans
Disarmament Act (officially known as the NICS Improvement Act), where
the anti-gunners took away the guns of 150,000 veterans through language
which was not explicit. Before the bill was signed into law last year,
some detractors even claimed that because the NICS bill did not mention
the word “veterans,” we must have been wrong to suggest that
would disarm vets!
Well, guess what? The disarmament which was already occurring before
President Bush signed the legislation into law last year is now
occurring with a vengeance under the Obama administration. (In fact,
GOA members should be looking for an upcoming mailing which will give
you postcards to send in support of an important bill — introduced by
Sen. Burr of North Carolina — which will protect veterans from the
fangs of the Veterans Disarmament Act.)
The point is, no Senate staffer should ever give you an opinion on a
bill unless he has read the entire code that the bill will be amending.
Nor should they ignore the potential for an Obama administration to
abuse any particular piece of legislation.
Remember how the RICO Act, originally enacted to help combat the Mafia,
was later used to crack down on legitimate banks and peaceful pro-life
protesters? The original RICO Act never used the word
that didn’t stop overzealous prosecutors from going after the
And who would have thought, when the original Brady law was passed in
1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding traffic
tickets… or couples with marriage problems… or military vets with
nightmares from buying guns? After all, the Brady law never mentioned
those people groups, and yet the law has been used over the past 15-plus
years to deny gun rights to those very people.
Reading legislation is not a job for the timid or the lazy. If staffers
in your Senate offices aren’t willing to read current bills IN THE LIGHT
OF EXISTING LAWS — and to do the research necessary to compile this
information — then politely encourage them to get another line of work.
June 26, 2009
One state looks to ensure its citizens do not have to pay for climate change efforts
Climate change is a controversial topic. Some believe man is causing the world to warm. Others point out that the Earth has undergone solar warming and cooling for millions of years and that current temperatures are well within historic levels. A recent report challenging AGW theory showed significant support with 31,478 U.S. researchers and scientists, many of whom hold Ph.D’s, signing a statement that they believe that man has not played a part in the current warming trend.
Arizona is now close to becoming the first state to outlaw climate change legislation. The state Senate voted Monday, 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change. The bill is now awaiting House approval.
The bill will likely pass and be signed into law thanks to a switch in power. Formerly, Janet Napolitano (D) was governor of the state, but she left to join Barack Obama‘s Cabinet. Napolitano was replaced by Jan Brewer (R), who has not indicated a strong desire to support AGW theorists.
If Senate Bill 1147 passes it will block rules passed by the DEQ that set harsher emission standards. The proposed increases were hastily pushed through by the former governor, despite complaints from industry leaders. It would also end work on “cap and trade” carbon legislation, which has been opposed by the utility industry. Such a scheme could help to raise power prices for the state’s citizens significantly.
A passage could also give the state means to challenge the federal government in court over the proposed Waxman-Markey bill, which would put over $1,600 in yearly costs on American citizens to cut carbon emissions. The legislation, which has also received criticism for potentially hurting farmers, is currently making its way through a Democrat controlled House and Senate, awaiting Barack Obama‘s approval.
By Kim Dixon
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Reserve sought to hide its involvement in Bank of America Corp’s (BAC.N) acquisition of Merrill Lynch as Merrill’s financial condition worsened, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said on Wednesday.
The Fed “engaged in a cover-up and deliberately hid concerns and pertinent details regarding the merger from other federal regulatory agencies,” Representative Darrell Issa said in a statement released to Reuters.
Bernanke has in the past denied any inappropriate pressure on Bank of America. Fed spokeswoman Michelle Smith on Wednesday referred to a letter Bernanke sent Representative Dennis Kucinich on April 30 and later testimony in which he offered an “unconditional assertion” that he did not ask Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis to withhold information regarding Merrill.
“The Federal Reserve acted with the highest integrity throughout its discussions with Bank of America,” Bernanke wrote to the Ohio Democrat, who chairs a subcommittee on the Oversight panel.
The Democrat who heads the committee, Edolphus Towns of New York, has called Bernanke to testify on Thursday. “I am not going to prejudge these issues. We are not even close to finishing the Bank of America-Merrill Lynch investigation at this point,” Towns said in a statement.
Democrats on the panel have focused on whether Bank of America’s Lewis illegally misled investors about Merrill’s finances, while Republicans have zeroed in on whether the Fed and former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson inappropriately pressured Lewis to seal the deal.
The issue has become a political football as lawmakers look to blame someone for the troubled deal amid taxpayer anger over the billions of dollars the government infused into banks to try to ease the world financial crisis.
A Democratic source close to the committee said Republican members leaked documents just before a hearing earlier this month where Lewis testified. “They framed the story by looking at only a few of the documents,” said the source, who was not authorized to be quoted on the matter.
Some Democrats believe Bank of America’s Lewis had to know about Merrill’s deepening losses and that Lewis was threatening to pull out of the deal as a way to get more assistance from the Fed. Still, the Democratic source said, “The Fed does not come out smelling like roses.”
Kucinich said what is remarkable about the situation was that the Fed required no changes in the bank’s leadership or conditions on the billions that did go to Bank of America.
The bank, which did not return a phone call seeking comment, has taken $45 billion in bailout funds from the government.
Other documents released by the committee earlier this month revealed that a Fed analysis found deficiencies in the due diligence conducted by Bank of America prior to the Merrill deal.
Earlier this month, the same panel questioned Lewis about whether he was pressured to complete the deal with Merrill, which lost $15.8 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008. Lewis told the lawmakers that Bernanke never asked him to keep secret any information the bank wanted to disclose to shareholders.
The committee has obtained a number of emails and documents from the Fed about its behind-the-scenes role in the merger, which was quickly brokered late in 2008 amid turmoil in the U.S. banking sector, according to sources familiar with documents. The sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
The sources said documents showed the Fed tried to keep some information about the Bank of America deal secret from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, the North Carolina-based bank’s direct regulator, and from the Securities and Exchange Commission. The bank is also regulated by the Fed.
In one email cited, then-Merrill Lynch chief financial officer Nelson Chai wrote to then-Merrill CEO John Thain, about a discussion he had just had with New York Federal Reserve official Arthur Angulo:
“His hope is that there is no disclosure prior to (Bank of America) quarterly announcement. We told him this was current plan.”
That behavior “raises important questions” about whether the Fed can work collaboratively with other regulators and should gain additional power, as proposed in the Obama administration’s financial regulation plan, the sources said.
Documents obtained by Republican panel members suggest that the Fed pushed Bank of America to complete the deal by threatening to fire Lewis and the board, according to the sources.
They cited a December 20, 2008 email in which Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed, said he had spoken to Bernanke about Bank of America potentially trying to get out of the deal by claiming that a “material adverse change” (MAC) had occurred.
“Just had a long talk with Ben (Bernanke). Says that they think the MAC threat is irrelevant because it’s not credible. Also intends to make it even more clear that if they play that card and they need assistance, management is gone,” Lacker wrote, according to the sources.
Bernanke’s term as Fed chairman expires in January.
(Reporting by Julie Vorman and Kim Dixon; Additional reporting by Mark Felsenthal; Editing by Gary Hill and Carol Bishopric)
F. William Engdahl
June 25, 2009
Buried amid news stories about World Breastfeeding Week, World Suicide Prevention Day and World Rabies Day, the WHO has a small item giving the latest supposed count of ‘laboratory confirmed H1N1 cases. It is something on the order of 55,000 persons worldwide since this April at a factory pig farm in Veracruz Mexico a small child got ill and the world was told of a deadly new ‘Swine Flu’ that was allegedly spreading from pig to person. Yet the US Government is gearing up as if it ere preparing for the new outbreak of the dreaded 1918 ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic. The reality does not support the government response. Is something else going on?
Although neither the WHO nor the US Government’s Centers for Disease Control nor the Robert Koch Institute nor the Pasteur Institute nor any government or private agency in the world has yet to scientifically isolate, to photograph with means of electron microscopy and to list the chemical characteristics of the ‘novel H1N1 Influenza A virus’ as it is now officially called, the WHO has seen fit to declare a global “Pandemic Alert” Phase 6 alarm.
WHO sounds the Pandemic Gong
What is conveniently obscured in most all media accounts of the WHO is the definition of their ‘pandemic’ declaration. A look at the official definition reveals that it relates merely to the number of countries in a given WHO region reporting cases of a given disease. Specifically, Phase 5, just below Pandemic is defined as ‘sustained community level outbreaks in two or more countries in one WHO region. Phase 6 includes the Phase 5 conditions plus ‘sustained outbreaks in at least one other country in another WHO region.’
In her June 11 statement declaring, almost triumphantly, that WHO criteria had been met to declare an official Phase 6 ‘pandemic,’ meaning they claim to have found the symptoms in a specific number of countries, WHO’s Director-General, Harvard-trained Dr Margaret Chan declared, ‘On present evidence, the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.’ She then added, ‘Worldwide, the number of deaths is small…we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.’ Oh? That’s interesting. Then why the alarm? Mutations? Of what?
Chan even admits the possibility that most if not all the deaths being so far attributed to H1N1, the factor that creates the most panic in ignorant populations, might have been what epidemiologists call ‘opportunistic infection’, namely that a person already seriously ill catches a flu or severe cold and dies from complications. Chan states, ‘Many, though not all, severe cases have occurred in people with underlying chronic conditions…most frequently seen include respiratory diseases, notably asthma, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, and obesity.’ Those deaths are now tallied in the list of H1N1 caused deaths. No one bothers to look closely. The number of AIDS deaths perhaps declines as the same people are now tallied as victims in the now more popular H1N1 tally.
WHO Director-General Dr. Margaret Chan, never one to shy from a good chance to deliver a panic sound bite, recently while agreeing the virus is ‘pretty stable,’ warned it ‘could’ still change into a more deadly form, perhaps mixing with the H5N1 bird flu virus circulating widely in poultry. The world ‘could’ be hit by a meteorite and be pulverized into oblivion as well.
Obama gears up the Pandemic machine
In the United States, the Obama Administration has strong-armed the US Congress to appropriate 300% more money for Swine Flu ‘preparedness’ than Congress planned. Responding to lobbying by the Obama administration, the US Congress has approved an eye-popping $7.65 billion for the non-proven pandemic influenza.
Curiously enough, the money was included in a $106 billion supplemental appropriation bill for funding the military wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war on pig flu now seems to rank alongside the Ware on Terror the war on Iraqis and Afghanis as US policy priority.
Most of the pandemic money is for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but the bill includes $350 million to increase state and local capacity for responding to H1N1. The bill provides $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2009 money and $5.8 billion in “contingent emergency appropriations” for HHS and the CDC.
The funds are to be used for expanding surveillance, increasing federal stockpiles of drugs and medical supplies, and developing, buying, and administering vaccines.
The $350 million in state and local money, according to the House summary, is intended to help public health departments hire and train staff members, buy equipment to improve diagnostic capabilities, distribute antivirals and personal protective equipment from federal and state stockpiles, improve communication and maintain disease-reporting hotlines, and address other challenges, such as hospital surge capacity.
In substantially increasing the funding, Congress decided not to take funds from the stimulus and the Pentagon BioShield program of medical countermeasures against biological and other unconventional weapons. The new money will give a major ‘shot in the arm’ to the pharmaceutical giants like Roche, maker of Don Rumsfeld’s favourite ‘antiviral’ Tamiflu, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and other global vaccine giants.
A Curious German warning
Not to be left behind in the contest to see which world disease agency can spread the most needless panic, the Berlin-based Robert Koch Institute is doing its share to fuel the necessary angst to fuel mass vaccination frenzy in the population. Joerg Hacker, head of the Robert Koch Institute for infectious diseases stated, ‘It’s possible the virus has mutated. In autumn the mutated form could spread to the northern hemisphere and back to Germany.’ Now that’s really pretty scary sounding.
Mr Hacker no where presents the scientific basis for his alarming conclusion, but then no journalist present bothered to even ask. That would be perhaps impolite.
Even the CDC and WHO admit that symptoms of swine flu are mild. But we are being bombarded with propaganda from WHO, CDC and now Robert Koch Institute telling us that this Swine Flu H1N1 ‘could evolve’ into something more aggressive.
Germany has a reported 275 ‘confirmed’ cases of H1N1. Yet there exists no test that confirms presence of H1N1 virus as even the WHO and CDC admit, so one might wonder how they have been confirmed for what? To her credit, at least to date Chancellor Merkel has chosen not to go berserk as has the Obama Administration to prepare billions of taxpayer dollars for a virus which to date has not even been confirmed as the sole cause of a single human death and whose effects otherwise are comparable to a bad cold and disappear within normally five days. Are we being taken for absolute idiots?
June 25, 2009
As the anticipated July release date for Baxter’s A/H1N1 flu pandemic vaccine approaches, an Austrian investigative journalist is warning the world that the greatest crime in the history of humanity is underway. Jane Burgermeister has recently filed criminal charges with the FBI against the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN), and several of the highest ranking government and corporate officials concerning bioterrorism and attempts to commit mass murder. She has also prepared an injunction against forced vaccination which is being filed in America. These actions follow her charges filed in April against Baxter AG and Avir Green Hills Biotechnology of Austria for producing contaminated bird flu vaccine, alleging this was a deliberate act to cause and profit from apandemic.
Summary of claims and allegations filed with FBI in Austria on June 10, 2009
In her charges, Burgermeister presents evidence of acts ofbioterrorism that is in violation of U.S. law by a group operating within the U.S. under the direction of international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, as well as WHO, UN and NATO. This bioterrorism is for the purpose of carrying out a mass genocide against the U.S. population by use of a genetically engineered flu pandemic virus with the intent of causing death. This group has annexed high government offices in the U.S.
Specifically, evidence is presented that the defendants, Barack Obama, President of the U.S, David Nabarro, UN System Coordinator for Influenza, Margaret Chan, Director-General of WHO, Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services, Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, David de Rotschild, banker, David Rockefeller, banker, George Soros, banker, Werner Faymann, Chancellor of Austria, and Alois Stoger, Austrian Health Minister, among others, are part of this international corporate criminal syndicate which has developed, produced, stockpiled and employed biological weapons to eliminate the population of the U.S. and other countries for financial and political gain.
The charges contend that these defendants conspired with each other and others to devise, fund and participate in the final phase of the implementation of a covert international bioweapons program involving the pharmaceutical companies Baxter and Novartis. They did this by bioengineering and then releasing lethal biological agents, specifically the “bird flu” virus and the “swine flu virus” in order to have a pretext to implement a forced mass vaccination program which would be the means of administering a toxic biological agent to cause death and injury to the people of the U.S. This action is in direct violation of the Biological Weapons Anti-terrorism Act.
Burgermeister’s charges include evidence that Baxter AG, Austrian subsidiary of Baxter International, deliberately sent out 72 kilos of live bird flu virus, supplied by the WHO in the winter of 2009 to 16 laboratories in four counties. She claims this evidence offers clear proof that the pharmaceutical companies and international government agencies themselves are actively engaged in producing, developing, manufacturing and distributing biological agents classified as the most deadly bioweapons on earth in order to trigger a pandemic and cause mass death.
In her April charges, she noted that Baxter’s lab in Austria, one of the supposedly most secure biosecurity labs in the world, did not adhere to the most basic and essential steps to keep 72 kilos of a pathogen classified as a bioweapon secure and separate from all other substances under stringent biosecurity level regulations, but it allowed it to be mixed with the ordinary human flu virus and sent from its facilities in Orth in the Donau.
In February, when a staff member at BioTest in the Czech Republic tested the material meant for candidate vaccines on ferrets, the ferrets died. This incident was not followed up by any investigation from the WHO, EU, or Austrian health authorities. There was no investigation of the content of the virus material, and there is no data on the genetic sequence of the virus released.
June 25, 2009
It’s like manna from heaven for the corporate media. Michael Jackson, the “King of Pop,” and Farrah Fawcett, the “It Girl,” have died on the same day. Details of these two tragic events will now dominate the media for more than a week and push vastly more important events into the shadows.
Obama and Congress plan to hand the entire U.S. economy over to an evil cartel of private banksters and inbred elitists, thus creating a dictatorship not answerable to the people. Meanwhile, the corporate media has gathered in a feeding frenzy over the death of a mentally disturbed music icon.
It is no longer news that the Fed will soon have the power to seize any company, from the corner hot dog stand to once mighty automotive corporations. Farrah Fawcett’s death by cancer is more important than the fact the government will soon usher in a form of corporatism – what Mussolini called fascism – of a magnitude and sophistication never before witnessed.
Earlier in the week, Rep. Ron Paul warned that Obama and Congress are working together to produce a complete economic collapse, and yet this did not even make a ripple in the corporate media news cycle.
Globalist Brent Scowcroft admits the CIA and the Pentagon are busy at work undermining the government of Iran and yet the media focuses on what appears to be the staged murder of a young woman in Tehran and does not bother to mention her death is obviously part of the overall diabolical scheme to meddle in Iran’s affairs and prepare for a shock and awe campaign to rival the one unleashed on Iraq with the horrific result of more than a million dead people.
Evidence abounds that the World Health Organization, the United Nations, big pharma and governments around the world at the behest of the international bankers are planning to unleash a bioweapon attack in the guise of a flu pandemic. Journalist Jane Burgermeister has presented compelling evidence of this plot (including the declaration of martial law and mandatory toxic vaccinations) and yet the corporate media is silent.
The documented existence of FEMA detention and work camps and mass grave sites for this engineered pandemic are ignored by the corporate media with the exception of a lame hit piece conducted by government disinfo operative Glenn Beck and his sidekick from the paragon of yellow journalism, Hearst publishing.
There are government encroachments aimed at liberty on all fronts — water rights, CPS snatching children across the country, numerous laws proposed to limit and diminish if not eliminate gun rights — and yet the corporate media focuses exclusively on the death of celebrities.
In 200 BC the Roman poet Juvenal wrote about the lamentable fact the masses had given up their birthright of political involvement and abdicated their duties for only two things — bread and circuses.
Our rulers have yet to hand out bread, but they have engineered alluring electronic circuses and grand distractions. In doing so they are leading the masses down the path to enslavement.
On Friday, June 26, your Representatives will vote to raise your utility bill by at least $4,600 per year!
The “Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill” will limit American energy production, decrease American jobs, and increase the cost that you and your family pay every time you fill up your vehicle. Don’t let them pass this bill!
While liberals claim they want to “help the environment” and help consumers cope with rising energy costs, the Waxman-Markey energy bill will only increase taxes.
This bill includes a provision to create a “cap-and-trade” program – a tax on all factories and every American who turns on a light – which would result in an extra $4,600 annual tax on every American family and the loss of nearly 800,000 jobs per year.
The Waxman-Markey bill takes away your consumer choice by mandating more expensive, “energy efficient” manufactured homes, appliances, and transportation.
Make no mistake, contact your Representatives today and tell them to oppose the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Bill and to protect American energy and American jobs!
PS- Time is short. Please consider forwarding on this message to your friends and family. Congress needs to hear from them.
High-flying Kites could harness enough energy to power the world 100 times over, according to a survey of high-altitude winds.
Published in the journal Energies, the study reports that areas well suited to harvesting high altitude winds fall over some of the world’s major cities such as New York and Tokyo.
“The wind energy aloft is phenomenal. Energy densities unthinkable near the ground are common in the upper levels of the atmosphere,” said Cristina Archer, lead author and a meteorologist at California State University in Chico, USA. “It’s like a perpetual source of free energy.”
Fast and furious
“These winds blow much more strongly and steadily than near-surface winds, but you need to go get up miles to get a big advantage. Ideally, you would like to be up near the jet streams, around 30,000 feet,” added coauthor Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California.
Jet streams are moving belts of furious winds, shifting seasonally at altitudes between 6,000 and 15,000 metres. To get a global picture of the energy these jets hold, the researchers compiled 28-years-worth of data from both the U.S. National Centres for Environmental Prediction and the Department of Energy.
Archer and Caldeira looked at both wind speed and air density at different altitudes, concluding that extraordinary amounts of energy exist above Japan, eastern China, the eastern coast of the U.S., southern Australia and north-eastern Africa.
Average wind power densities in these locales “are greater than 10 kilowatts per square metre. This is unthinkable near the ground, where even the best locations have usually less than one kilowatt per square metre,” said Archer. New York clocked up a whopping wind power density of 16 kilowatts per square metre, the study found.
Kite-driven generators have been suggested as one method of capturing this energy. In principle, they work by using the strong pull of the wind to drive a land-based turbine, tethered to the kite via a cable.
When the cable reaches its full extension, the angle of the kite is shifted so that the wind no longer pulls and the cable can be rolled in again, before the cycle repeats. A prototype kite designed by Dutch former astronaut Wubbo Ockels, now at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, was able to generate 10 kilowatts of power – or enough electricity to supply 10 homes.
“This approach has the advantage that the heavy generator stays on the ground” said Pavel Trivailo, an aerospace engineer from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, in Australia. He said he has recently applied for funding to develop Ockels’ technology further, using radio-controlled gliders.
Like kites, gliders would only be useful on their way out into the wind – whilst winding back in, no electricity is generated. Trivailo imagines paired systems of kites, where one travels out as the other returns, likening the system to the paired action of a piston engine.
Gaps in the grid
He points out that cables capable of safely coping with large forces – such as those generated by wind – already exist, thanks to the ’space tethers’ used to join sections of satellites.
Some challenges of high-altitude wind power are still to be met, however. “While there is enough energy in these high altitude winds to power all of modern civilisation, at any specific location there are still times when the winds do not blow,” said Caldeira.
The study predicts wind may still fail about 5% of the time. “This means that you either need back-up power, massive amounts of energy storage, or a continental or even global scale electricity grid to assure power availability,” he said.
Trivailo agrees much work needs to be done. “How you deploy the gliders or kites at high altitudes is still an open question,” he said.
Baitullah Mehsud, the head of Pakistan’s Taliban, may have been the target of a deadly drone strike that claimed dozens of lives at a funeral in northern Pakistan, but details are still emerging about what looks like the most dramatic and deadly employment of drones in the U.S. military’s undeclared war in Pakistan.
CNN, quoting unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials, says the strikes killed at least 55 people, including three top Taliban commanders. Al Jazeera puts the death toll somewhat higher, saying around 60 people were killed as they dispersed after funeral prayers in the Makeen district of South Waziristan. Reuters, quoting Pakistani intelligence sources, puts the toll at 70.
The incident is part of an escalating drone war that has sparked serious controversy in both Pakistan and the United States. It also comes as Pakistan readies an offensive against Mehsud: Pakistani newspapers are also reporting the arrest of some of the Taliban leader’s fundraisers in Karachi.
Pakistan’s The Nation has details on a first strike that preceded the funeral: A drone fired three missiles into a militant stronghold near Makeen village, northeast of Wana, the main town in South Waziristan. Pakistani intelligence officials told The Nation that attack killed six militants and destroyed a compound, a bunker and two vehicles.
A follow-on strike apparently targeted the funeral service for individuals killed in the first attack. Mehsud — who is suspected of involvement in the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and has a$5 million bounty on his head — reportedly paid a visit to the village where the funeral took place, but managed to dodge the strike. The Associated Press quotes two intelligence officials as saying Mehsud left the scene before drone fired the missiles.
Whether Mehsud was the primary target — or the others attending the funeral — is open to question; Agence France-Presse quotes (again, unnamed) Pakistani officials as saying “mostly militants” were killed in the drone strike. Nevertheless, U.S. and Pakistani authorities are also fighting a war of perceptions in parallel with the drone strike. If it emerges that a large number of civilians were also killed or injured, it could have the potential to spark more ire in Pakistan, where public opinion has reportedly begun to shift against the Taliban.
“No difference people! But fuck it, don’t listen to reason… listen to that voice that makes you a complacent, subservient sucker.”
Hersh reports on a secret Congress-approved plan for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran’s nuclear program.
Congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing Iran’s leadership. This according to a new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The operations were set out in a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which, by law, must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran’s nuclear program.
According to Hersh, US Special Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq since last year. These have included seizing members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of so-called “high-value targets” who may be captured or killed.
While covert operations against Iran are not new, Hersh writes that the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command, have now been significantly expanded.
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist. He joinedDemocracy Now! from Washington DC.
Amy Goodman: Start off by talking about how you learned this information.
Seymour Hersh: Well, that stops me for a second. Here’s the problem with that question: the problem is this is all very classified, and let’s just say that in general, there are a lot of people that are very loyal to the United States — military people, people in special operations, people elsewhere in the Congress offices people in the Executive — who are increasingly being made anxious (and I think frightened is a fairly good word, too) about what this president and the vice-president may do in Iran. And so, it was from that quarter, I was able to learn that, The problem, the problem with the finding, and the problem with the whole story, and the complication is, that almost the last people it seems to me to know exactly what our special forces are doing, particularly the Joint Special Operations Command, which is a very elite unit whose mission essentially is — this is a separate unit of the Special Operations Command called JSOC — their unit is to go find and kill and capture if possible high-value targets anywhere in the world. The whole world’s a free fire zone for them. When they get into a place like Iran, where they are, the Congress isn’t told. So, Congress did approve — and the words were very careful: “up to” because the president wanted as much as that (we just don’t know how much he’s taken at this point) — four hundred million dollars for operations. And then they discover that the operations they approved may go way beyond what they think they were approving. It’s sort of like the end of democracy in a way. We don’t know what the government is doing. People on the inside don’t know what the government is doing. It was from this sort of collective angst that people began to talk to me about the operations.
Goodman: Can you talk about the Democratic-controlled Congress and what exactly it approved late last year?
Hersh: Late last year, at the time of the — as many in the audience will remember — the National Intelligence Estimate was made public, in late November/early December. And that was a document that — I don’t know why, but it’s been totally devalued by everybody, including all of the candidates. Both the two Democratic candidates during the primary and McCain kept on talking about Iran as if it were on the edge of being nuclear. What the NIE said, and it was a really very carefully done document, it said that since 2003, the evidence is clear that Iran has not pushed a weapons program. There is no evidence they’re actually seeking weapons, as they’ve been saying. And that’s what the NIE said at this same time as we all know this president, and the vice-president, and the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Advisor, and the Secretary of State, they’ve all disavowed it just as if it didn’t exist.
The corporate controlled media are deliberately providing a false view of reality in their coverage on the post election protests in Iran. For starters, the media entirely downplays the historical fact that the U.S. through covert CIA operations in the 1950s staged false flag terror attacks to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran. They have also ignored their own news reports detailing how the U.S. since 2005 have been running covert operations in Iran as part of an effort to destabilize the nation’s political and economic system. With all this in mind, it is almost certain that much of what we are seeing in Iran is the result of covert activity on the part of the U.S. and other western governments. In fact, considering that Barack Obama came out and said that there is no CIA activity involved with the post election protests, this alone gives credibility to the fact that there is. After all, when’s the last time the U.S. government told the truth about anything?
Below are news reports from the corporate controlled media detailing U.S. funding and encouraging of covert operations within Iran.
From the Washington Post:
The Bush administration told Congress last year of a secret plan to dramatically expand covert operations inside Iran as part of a long-running effort to destabilize the country’s ruling regime, according to a report published yesterday.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from spying on Iran’s nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s ruling clerics, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine.
From ABC News:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions.
From ABC News:
A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.
The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.
With the post election chaos in Iran, it is interesting to see how the corporate media’s own reports of U.S. funded covert activity in Iran have been completely forgotten. Over the past couple of weeks, western media outlets have consistently delivered incredibly biased reports, failing to provide people with the proper historical context of U.S.-Iranian relations. Operation Ajax which was the CIA funding of false flag terror attacks in the 1950s to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran has been ignored or downplayed by all the talking heads. The focus has been entirely on how evil the Iranian government is and how their electoral process is a fraud while providing little evidence conclusively proving either. It is funny to see how quick the media is to condemn the Iranian elections but refuse to condemn the widespread vote fraud that occurred in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. elections. The U.S. media has been virtually silent on the issues with electronic voting machines that are widely used in U.S. presidential elections. This is despite the fact that computer scientists and other experts have criticized these machines as having numerous security problems.
We are also being propagandized with the image of Neda a young Iranian woman who was shot to death during one of the protests. Sure, any death is a tragedy but let’s put this in the appropriate context. So far it appears as if there have been very few protesters who have actually died as a result of Iranian government action. Instead of reporting this, the western media has decided to personalize the story of one death and give the viewer a distorted view of what’s really going on. In addition, when one considers the U.S. covert activity within Iran one has to ask the question if Neda was killed by a U.S. operative so they could have a story to propagandize the world on how evil the Iranian government is. The entire story smells of a massive psychological warfare operation that has been amplified by the western media. In fact, we should question if the actual death itself is even real. For all we know, it could be entirely made up.
Apparently one young woman dying in a protest is of more concern to the western media than Israeli and U.S. forces killing an untold number of innocent people all over the Middle East for most of the past decade. Joseph Stalin was right when he said this.
“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
Undoubtedly the western media is propagandizing the people in the west to hate the Iranian government to justify future covert and possibly military operations in Iran. This is despite the fact that there really is no reason for the U.S. or other western nations to be involved in the internal affairs of Iran. Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear weapon, and even if they did, the Israelis have hundreds of nuclear weapons and an incredibly advanced military. Iran isn’t a threat with or without a nuclear weapon which makes the entire argument of the neo-cons and other lunatics who want regime change in Iran all the more ridiculous and insane.
Regardless of all this, it seems clear that the post election protests and civil strife in Iran has been encouraged by covert activity from western intelligence agencies and media outlets. This is obviously part of an agenda to destabilize Iran’s government so it can finally be merged into the New World Order.
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
President Barack Obama was forced to address accusations that the CIA was involved in fomenting the post-election riots in Iran during his White House press conference yesterday, claiming the allegations were “patently false,” despite the fact that the U.S. government publicly gave the CIA approval to undertake a destabilization campaign in Iran more than two years ago.
“There are reports suggesting that the CIA is behind all this – all of which is patently false but it gives you a sense of the narrative that the Iranian government would love to play into,” said Obama.
CIA involvement in Iran is not a “narrative” manufactured by the Iranian government, as Obama well knows.
As we highlighted in our report earlier this week, evidence of U.S. intelligence meddling in Iran is widespread, which is no surprise considering the fact that the U.S. all but announced they would pursue a destabilization campaign in Iran years ago.
In May 2007, the London Telegraph and others revealed that President George W. Bush had “Given the CIA approval to launch covert “black” operations to achieve regime change in Iran.”
: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”
The plan set in motion CIA propaganda and disinformation campaigns “intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs”.
It also released funds to bankroll the militant Jundullah organization, an Al-Qaeda offshoot formerly headed by the alleged mastermind of 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government.
It is widely suspected that the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, is now also working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and carrying out bombings in Iran. A large number of Mujahedeen-e Khalq members were arrested following riots last week, according to a Press TV report. The article claims that the men were “extensively trained in Iraq’s camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country”.
As part of CIA destabilization efforts in Iran, former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig last week claimed that the Agency had distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution. Beig cited documents that prove “the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election.”
The CIA program approved by Bush also included funding opposition groups and providing them with communications equipment that would bypass Internet censorship and allow demonstrators to communicate.
Twitter and other social networking websites have played a key role in the demonstrations. The U.S. State Department, which routinely demonizes the Internet as a tool of extremists and terrorists when it is used to criticize U.S. foreign policy, took the unprecedented step last week of requesting that Twitter.com “delay planned maintenance work so that Iranian protesters can continue to use it to post images and reports of unrest,” according to a London Times report.
According to several different reports, the CIA and Mossad has been creating fake Twitter feeds and flooding Iranians with SMS messages inspiring them to riot.
According to author Thierry Meyssan, Iranians received messages before the election votes had even been counted telling them that the Iranian Guardian Council had declared Mir-Hossein Mousavi to be the winner. When the official announcement of Ahmadinejad’s victory was later broadcast, the sentiment that fraud had took place was therefore amplified.
Meyssan also charges that the CIA and Mossad used Twitter feeds to put out fake reports of gun fights and deaths that were never confirmed, rousing Iranians to riot in the belief that their fellow countrymen were being brutally suppressed by the authorities.
Another website clearly documents the fact that the main Twitter accounts used to send out hundreds of alerts during the protests were only recently created and had not send out any alerts whatsoever before the protests began.
Top Neo-Cons with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger have been calling for the CIA to fund a ‘color revolution’ in Iran for years as a gateway to regime change.
Lest we forget that it was a violent CIA coup that led to the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 under Operation Ajax. The ousting was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup. During the coup, the CIA also bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.
Given this history, allied with the U.S. government’s own public program to instigate a destabilization campaign in Iran through the CIA, Obama’s claim that CIA involvement is “patently false” is clearly contradicted by the facts. The only thing that’s “patently false” is Obama’s statement itself.
Vote Coming to Confirm Anti-gun Radical
— “Guns Kill Civil Society,” says State Department Nominee
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a Wednesday vote on a
State Department nominee who supports gun control on a global scale.
While advocates of the Second Amendment have come to expect that
appointees of President Barack Obama would be hostile to the rights of
gun owners, the president’s nominee for legal advisor to the State
Department reaches a whole new level of anti-gun extremism.
Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton
administration, is a self-described “trans-nationalist” who
that our laws — and our Constitution — should be brought into
conformity with international agreements.
“If you want to be in the global environment, you have to play by the
global rules,” Koh told a Cleveland audience.
Koh’s positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local
ordinance on the greater world stage. This is of particular concern to
gun owners at a time when the U.S. Congress is under pressure from
President Obama to ratify an international gun control treaty with
countries in the western hemisphere. That treaty, known by its Spanish
acronym CIFTA, would likely serve as a forerunner to a more extensive
United Nations initiative, the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and
Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its
The Bush administration, under the leadership of UN Ambassador John
Bolton, rejected the small arms treaty. Bolton plainly told the world
that the United States will not accept a gun control document that
violates our Constitutional right to bear arms. Harold Koh commented
that Bolton was being “needlessly provocative.”
In a paper entitled “A world drowning in guns,” Koh maintains
civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: “Guns kill civil
society,” he said.
Koh is eager to assume his post at the State Department, having lamented
that there is only so much that can be done from the outside to push gun
control treaties, and that ultimately we need people like him in
positions of power. The chief lawyer for the State Department is just
the position someone like him needs to put his agenda into play.
While Koh’s nomination has been delayed largely because of Second
Amendment concerns, Sen. Reid plans to force a vote this week.
It is imperative that gun owners contact their Senators and insist that
they vote AGAINST this anti-gun extremist.
ACTION: Please contact your Senators immediately and urge them to
oppose Harold Hongju Koh’s nomination to the State Department. You can
use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written
—– Pre-written letter —–
The Senate is expected to soon vote on a State Department nominee who
supports gun control on a global scale.
Harold Hongju Koh, who served at the State Department under the Clinton
administration, is a self-described “trans-nationalist” who
that our laws — and our Constitution — should be brought into
conformity with international agreements.
According to Koh, “If you want to be in the global environment, you have
to play by the global rules.” Well, I don’t support global rules that
contradict our own Constitution.
Koh supports international gun control treaties such as the United
Nations initiative entitles the “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all
When former UN Ambassador John Bolton told the world that the United
States will not accept a gun control document that violates our
Constitutional right to bear arms, Harold Koh commented that Bolton was
being “needlessly provocative.”
And in a 2003 Fordham Law Review article entitled “A world drowning in
guns,” Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun
ownership: “Guns kill civil society,” he wrote.
I urge you to reject this trans-nationalist, anti-gun extremist who
would place foreign laws and international agreements on equal footing
(at minimum) with the U.S. Constitution.
By Justin Raimondo
Amid all the internet brouhaha over events in Iran — the “greening,” so to speak, of the blogosphere — what has been missed, so far, is the meaning and significance of the American response. On the surface, that response has been rigorously proper. In his most recent remarks, President Obama told reporters that it would be unseemly for the US to be seen as meddling in the Iranian electoral process.
This provoked a fusillade of self-righteous on the neocon Right: “He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election,” bawled John “Quick Draw” McCain. Unlike McCain — whose tendency to go ballistic is inadvisable in general and impermissible in a US President — Obama understands that a US government endorsement of the Green Revolution would be the kiss of death for Mousavi — perhaps even in a literal sense.
“It’s important to understand that although there is some ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”
Very smart — and so threatening in so many ways that it almost makes me pine for the good old days of the Bush era, when dumbness was de rigueur in Washington.
Obama realizes that the Iranian students flashing their green-painted peace signs — or is that a “V” for victory? — are fervently patriotic, and, being good nationalists, are all in favor of Iran’s nuclear power program. He knows Mousavi’s history as a conservative, albeit a relatively moderate one, in the context of Iranian politics. What strikes me as ominously threatening is the certitude with which he averred that Iran “is pursuing nuclear weapons.” Are they really? Someone please tell Dennis Blair, because he testified just 3 months ago that the U.S. intelligence community still stands by the spooks who exhibited a similar degree of certitude back in 2007 when they announced Iran had long ago given up its nuclear weapons program, and there was no evidence they had restarted it.
A US President hasn’t come right out and contradicted his own intelligence agency since …. Well, since George W. Bush ignored the CIA and went with the manufactured “evidence” of Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” generated by Dick Cheney’s office and other, even less savory sources. Aside from this disturbing parallel, however, here’s another:
“The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element…It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran’s nuclear program when he was prime minister.”
These are the words of Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, testifying before a committee of the Israeli Knesset. Like American neocons Max Boot and Daniel Pipes, Dagan believes the alleged madman Ahmadinejad is good for Israel — on the grounds, as Pipes puts it, that it is better to have an open enemy than one whose agenda is not quite so obvious. This should put to rest concern over the hysterical Israeli claim that Iran represents an “existential threat” to the continued existence of the Jewish state. If that were true, they’d be cheering on the Green Revolution for all they’re worth: as it is, their top officials are openly rooting for a man who — they insist — is calling for their extermination.
Note how closely Obama’s evaluation of Mousavi follows Dagan’s. This is not to say they are wrong, factually: indeed, to characterize the Green revolutionaries as anything other than confirmed nationalists would be a mistake. And that really is the core issue, as far as the US and Israeli governments are concerned: democracy schmocracy — the Iranians, by god, are not going to be allowed to challenge either Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region, or American hegemony.
The US and Israel are determined to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear technology of any sort. This is quite contrary to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Israel refuses to sign, never mind adhere to. In his many statements on the subject, our sainted President has declared that the acquisition of nukes by Iran would set off a regional “arms race” — without (for all his vaunted “smartness”) acknowledging that Israel’s possession of hundreds of nukes long ago set that race in motion.
The reality is this: “change” may be in the cards in Iran, depending on how the battle in the streets of Iran’s cities turns out. But it is most certainly not on the agenda in either the US or Israel, nor anywhere else in the Western world, as far as policy toward Iran is concerned. The recent spate of bombings and other acts of terror in Iran’s eastern provinces — carried out byJundullah, a radical Sunni group known to have received assistance from the US, according to journalist Seymour Hersh — signals to Tehran that there will be no let up in a campaign for “regime change” that started under the previous administration.
Anyone who believes the Obama administration is about to cut the Iranians any slack is in for a disappointment of major proportions. Change may be in the air in Tehran, but it’s the same old warmongering in Washington, D.C. Obama’s warhawks are lying low, for the moment, preparing for a long siege. For the moment, the prospect of a US-Iranian confrontation is taking a back seat to the drama being enacted in the streets of Tehran, but the War Party’s day will come, of that you can be sure — and a lot sooner than anyone thinks.
Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty
“Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
How the Financial Reform Plan Protects the Status Quo
By MICHAEL HUDSON
In reaching across the aisle for Republican support – and no doubt future campaign contributions from the financial sector Pres. Obama is morphing into Joe Lieberman. There also is a touch of Boris Yeltsin in his sponsorship of a financial “reform” ominously similar to what advisor Larry Summers backed in Russia – relinquishing government power to a banking elite. The Financial Regulatory Reform proposal promotes Wall Street’s “product,” debt creation, at the expense of the economy at large, and lets financial chieftains continue to self-regulate the debt industry – and to keep scot-free all their gains from the past decade’s worth of fraudulent lending.
Confronting the wreckage of a debt crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, Mr. Obama has achieved what no Republican could have: rescuing the Bush Administration’s pro-creditor policies that fostered the Bubble Economy in the first place. “Most of the financial sector lobby community is happy with what has emerged,” theFinancial Times summarized. A spokesman for the Financial Services Forum, a major Wall Street lobbying organization, called the proposals “careful and balanced.”1/ With such endorsements, victims of predatory lending have good reason to worry. The Obama plan is just the opposite from reforming the financial system along lines that progressive Democrats and other critics have urged.
The plan’s six most fatal flaws are apparent in its preamble, which lays out a false diagnosis of the financial problem in a way that whitewashes Wall Street (in contrast to Mr. Obama’s nice televised populist speech giving verbal criticism to “culture of irresponsibility”). A false diagnosis must lead to wrong-headed cures – rarely by accident. There invariably is a financial beneficiary who gains from blind spots in a legal “reform” package.
Having practiced medicine for over 30 years, Congressman Paul gives his perspective on the past and future of medicine in this country, and the effects of government and special interests on quality, costs and access.
June 20, 2009
Dear Friend of Liberty,
This week, the Obama administration unveiled another scheme to give more power to an already out of control Federal Reserve under the guise of regulatory “reform.” (The 85 page “plan” can be read in its entirety here.)
This Fed power grab will do nothing to help our economy or enable us to take control back from banksters and Wall Street insiders. Instead, their proposal will address our economic crisis by creating more rules, regulations, and government agencies. And of course, the plan is to spend more money we don’t have to implement this bureaucratic nightmare.
The Federal Reserve, currently taking hits from all sides, receives a substantial increase in powers from this proposal. Yes, you read that right. In the midst of the unprecedented squandering of TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, the Fed is going to get MORE power, unless you and I stop this scheme.
According to The Wall Street Journal:
The proposal, if passed into law, would represent one of the biggest changes ever in the Fed’s role. The central bank would win power to monitor risks across the financial system, and sweeping authority to examine any firm that could threaten financial stability, even if the Fed wouldn’t normally supervise the institution. The nation’s biggest and most interconnected firms would be subject to heightened oversight by the central bank….
Read the rest (which also has an Audit the Fed mention) here.
In another WSJ article, we find that:
The Fed emerges from the plan with the power to oversee from top to bottom almost any financial company in the country, including the firms’ foreign affiliates….
So any financial firm, even if it doesn’t actually own an insured depository institution, would be subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve.
The same institution that fueled the housing bubble and made our current economic crisis possible is now the one who gets to decide who poses a risk to the economy!
The idea that the Fed’s power would be increased right now is absurd.
So why would Congress even consider granting the Fed new powers?
As you may have seen, recorded testimony from the Fed’s Inspector General shows she has NO IDEA how our money is being spent there and NO IDEA what is really going on — or at least won’t say.
And the central bank is under so much fire that it has to hire a lobbyist to defend itself on Capitol Hill.
You might assume that the Fed would be in retreat. Or at least that the Obama administration wouldn’t even THINK about granting them new powers right now.
Think again. Politics trumps logic once more.
Despite all the promises of “change” that were so easy to make during the primary season, the Obama administration is practicing business as usual.
Like previous administrations, its ideas involve centralizing power among a few under the guise of “streamlining” the process. Instead of achieving accountability, this plan will further empower the Fed and their allies on Wall Street and in international banks.
It all goes to show that our work to Audit the Fed is only beginning.
While the support we have so far achieved is historic, you and I are taking on more than just our nation’s central bank.
We are challenging a long-held, firmly entrenched mindset that begins and ends any conversation by asking how the federal government can increase its power.
So today, let’s do two things:
1. Urge your Congressman and Senators to support H.R. 1207/S. 604, Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, to pull back the curtain and expose the out of control Fed once and for all. If your Congressman or Senator is already a cosponsor, urge him or her to do everything in their power to ensure this vital bill comes to a vote in the near future.
2. Insist your Congressman and Senators resist granting any new power to the Fed by rejecting the Obama administration’s new financial regulatory scheme.
Thank you for all your work on behalf of the cause of freedom. In the face of growing threats to everything our movement stands for, your support enables Campaign for Liberty to champion the principles that made this nation great.
John F. Tate
Paul Craig Roberts
June 22, 2009
President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?
There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.
On May 16, 2007, the LondonDaily Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraphthat a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
We are now witnessing in Tehran US “attempts to foment a popular revolution” in the guise of another CIA-orchestrated “color revolution“.
It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.
The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike. The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won.
The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
It has become increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth motivate the western news media. For the record, I would like to point out a few of the most obvious oversights, to use a euphemism, in the Iran reporting.
According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), “Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results.”
Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.
Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.
In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.
When the liberal reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70% of the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs didn’t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi, who was foreign minister in the most conservative government, and is backed by another establishment figure, Rafsanjani.
As Mousavi was seen as Rafsanjani’s man, why is it “unbelievable” that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to “pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”
The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.
We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th.“IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new Twitter.@ . He researched further and found that on June 14 the
He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a “moderate”? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?
John Bolton laid out the US strategy. First we try to destabilize the regime. Failing that, we strike them militarily.
As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of dollars in bailout money went and yet the FTC is more concerned about snooping into the financial affairs of bloggers who make a few bucks off affiliate relationships, according to new guidelines set to be introduced later this year that would give the government a foot in the door to regulate and shut down blogs for making “false claims”.
“New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest,” states an Associated Press report.
Furious that struggling families are supplementing their income by having housewives write blogs about cooking, or individuals posting political opinions and funding their operation by carrying affiliate links to Amazon books, the new FTC regulations would ensure that “Any type of blog could be scrutinized, not just ones that specialize in reviews,” according to the report.
The proviso that “any type of blog could be scrutinized” frames this assault on free speech in a wider context that just individuals making claims about products advertised on their websites.
state that “deceptive speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” and that “The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the government can restrict, or even ban, such speech.” Of course, the issue of whether such speech is deceptive will be decided by the government itself.
The definition of “false claims” is so loose that it could hand the feds the power to shut down any website on a whim based on the flimsiest of pretexts. The AP report notes that the new guidelines would create a system to “patrol systematically what bloggers say and do online”.
As the Cryptogon website points out, in reality this has little to do with the FTC’s concern for fair business practices and everything to do with the government getting a foot in the door for their overarching agenda to regulate and control blogs and free speech on the Internet.
“What has happened is that bloggers have blown the support columns out from underneath traditional media and the people who run the show don’t like that.”
“The fact that some of us are able to survive by maintaining blogs must have come as an incredible shock to fat bastards in boardrooms across the land. That we are not “regulated” is unthinkable in the Soviet hive mind that governs the political economy of the United States.”
This is all about creating a chilling atmosphere and preventing people from creating their own websites by establishing a mountain of red tape and bureaucracy around the currently simple process of writing and maintaining a blog.
The ultimate endgame is to mimic the Chinese Internet system of total government regulation and censorship via the implementation of a registration process whereby every blogger will be assigned a number and given permission to blog by the government. If the blogger expresses an opinion deemed unsavory by the authorities then their registration credentials will be terminated and their ability to login to their own blog will be removed.
— And you could be forced to spend $13,000 of your own money toward this effort!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country — and it isn’t pretty.
It won’t be pretty for your pocket book… OR FOR YOUR GUN RIGHTS!
But first, let us explain what TeddyCare is all about.
At the center of the plan is what’s called a “universal mandate.” What this means is that you — and virtually everyone in the country — will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.
If you work for a small business, the business will buy the insurance on your behalf. But you may be saddled with an enormous part of the cost. And, if the employer’s contribution is too large, you will be fired.
If you fail to buy TeddyCare, as the government orders you to do, the IRS will fine you, garnish your wages, put a lien on your house, and, ultimately, put you in prison.
How much will you have to spend on your TeddyCare insurance? Teddy’s not saying.
The portion of your paycheck that will have to be forked over to Teddy’s latest social experiment will be revealed ONLY AFTER THE MASSIVE HEALTH CARE BILL IS SIGNED INTO LAW.
This should set off alarm bells in your brain, because, for instance, the average family policy is currently $12,700. “So,” proclaims Teddy, “everyone’s going to get a subsidy to pay for this.” There’s going to be a “chicken in every pot,” and no one’s going to have to pay for it.
Yeah, right. If you’re a welfare mother, the government will pay for your TeddyCare, and it would pay for it — the first time — by taxing employer-provided health benefits of working Americans. But if you a “working Joe” your Kennedy-subsidy will be a microscopic fraction of the cost of your mandated TeddyCare insurance policy.
Okay, all of this sounds ominous… but why is this a gun issue?
The answer is that TeddyCare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every TeddyCare policy — which you will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment.
Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of your most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database.
So remember when your son was asked by his pediatrician about your gun collection? That would be in the federal database.
Or remember when your wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago — thereby potentially barring both her and you from ever owning a gun again? That would be in the database.
Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he’s had emotional stress since coming back to the States, that would be in the database.
Or remember when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, thereby making him a “mental defective” who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection? That’s in there too.
And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE’S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.
When we say “everyone,” we don’t mean quite everyone.
Teddy has conveniently excluded Washington bureaucrats from his TeddyCare mandate.
Also, Teddy and his friends in the media don’t want you to hear about the details until after the bill is passed. That’s why they’re trying to slam it through within the next month and a half before anyone’s had a chance to read or debate it.
In fact, the TeddyCare proposal is currently circulating around Capitol Hill without even a bill number.
ACTION: Urge your two U.S. Senators to oppose Sen. Ted Kennedy’s mandate that will result in the registration of all your gun information. Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.
—– Pre-written letter —–
At long last, Teddy Kennedy has partially revealed the health care system he wants to foist on the whole country — and it isn’t pretty.
At the center of the TeddyCare plan is what’s called a “universal mandate.” What this means is that I — and virtually everyone in the country — will have to buy as much health insurance as the government demands, and that insurance plan will actually have to be approved by the government.
But this is not only an issue of individual freedom; it is a gun issue.
This is because Teddycare will allow radical left Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to determine all of the fine print in every Teddycare policy — which Americans will be required to buy under penalty of imprisonment.
Currently, as a result of the stimulus bill and a whole lot of other factors, the government is rapidly moving in the direction of computerizing all of our most confidential medical records and putting them into a federal database.
So if a kid is asked by his pediatrician about his dad’s gun collection, that would be in the federal database.
Or if a wife told her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago — thereby potentially barring both her and her husband from ever owning a gun again, that would be in the database.
Or if a military veteran complains to his psychiatrist that he’s had emotional stress since coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, that would be in the database.
Or when gramps was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, thereby making him a “mental defective” who would have to relinquish his life-long gun collection, that would be in there too.
And, while we are dangerously close to allowing BATFE to troll all of that information, TeddyCare would allow Sebelius to put EVERYONE’S private data in a database with a stroke of a pen.
You cannot imagine how angry I, my family, and my neighbors are about this most recent fraud scheme to cheat me out of perhaps over $10,000 for TeddyCare — and to violate my privacy in the process.
I insist that you oppose TeddyCare — immediately and loudly. Please do not try to shower me with propaganda about how a mandate on how I spend my own money is somehow good for me.
The Truth About Guns In America
New Jersey Democrat senator Frank R. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation designed to cancel the Second Amend rights of well over a million U.S. citizens this coming week, according to the New York Times. “Mr. Lautenberg plans to introduce legislation on Monday that would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists,” the newspaper reports.
Lautenberg is a notorious gun-grabber. He introduced a similar measure in 2007.
Lautenberg’s action comes in the wake of statistics compiled by the Government Accountability Office drawing attention to an “odd divergence” in federal law that allows erroneously designated terrorists to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms but prevents them from getting on a plane or getting a visa.
The Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center — the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States — had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month, according to the ACLU. In March of this year the list hit the one million mark, a 32% increase from 2007.
The actual number may far exceed one million entries. The FBI says the number of names on its terrorist watch list is classified. In addition to the National Counterterrorism Center watch list, the FBI keeps a list of persons said to be domestic terrorists, according to ABC News.
Lautenberg said he was frustrated by an FBI refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond the aggregate data included in the GAO report, the Times notes.
Earlier this year, a Department of Homeland Security report on “rightwing extremism” designated advocates of the Second Amendment, pro-life and anti-illegal immigration activists, and returning veterans as “terrorists.” It is not known if members of these groups are on the so-called terrorist watch list, although it is a fair assumption to conclude they are.
On May 15, 2007, then Illinois representative Rahm Emanuel, speaking at the annual Stand Up For a Safe America event sponsored by the gun-grabbing Brady Center, said that if your name appears on the bloated and error-ridden terror watch list your Second Amendment right should be denied (Emanuel’s comments are included in the Alex Jones clip below).
Obama chief of staff Emanuel’s promise may soon carry the force of law if Lautenberg’s proposed law makes it through Congress. According to the New York Times, however, the Justice Department is “noncommittal” about whether it would develop guidelines if Congress moved to give the attorney general discretion to block gun sales.
Lautenberg’s proposed bill is one of several now working their way through the labyrinth of Congress. On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” Another bill, H.R. 1022, sponsored by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors, would provide AG Holder with the ability to ban guns at will.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily that H.R. 2159 will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”
Lautenberg’s proposed bill would go one step further and allow Holder to deny the Second Amendment to officially designated enemies of the state.
Alex Jones explains the real purpose behind Emanuel’s desire to deny American’s their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The Truth About Guns In America
Another document designating Americans as terrorists has surfaced. The document, entitled “Crisis Controlled: Assessing Potential Threats of Violence,” authored by Trooper John R. Wright, is posted on the official website of the Commonwealth of Virginia, under the Department of Human Resources Management.
In March, the Virginia State Police and the Virginia Fusion Center produced a report entitled “2009 Virginia Terrorism Threat Assessment.” In response, Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine ordered an investigation of the fusion center. The report designates university-based students groups as terrorist groups.
Presented in slideshow format, the latest document lists gun rights, pro-life, constitutional issues, tax protesters, and “anti-government groups” as domestic terror threats. Anarchists, separatists, “single issue,” and religious cults are listed along with al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hizballah, al-Jihad, Aryan Nations, neo-Nazi, skinheads, black separatists, and the Klu Klux Klan.
As amply documented here and elsewhere, al-Qaeda is a CIA and Pakistan ISI created terrorist group. Hamas was nurtured from the ground up by Israel’s Mossad and Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks. Al-Jihad is financed and supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, a British and U.S. intelligence asset.
Under COINTELPRO, the FBI provided covert aid to the Ku Klux Klan, Minutemen, Nazis, and other racist vigilantes. The Elohim City “settlement” connected to documented government operative Timothy McVeigh and linked to the Aryan Nations and other white supremacists groups was infiltrated and run by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the FBI.
The Black Bloc anarchists are a notorious government front. In keeping with the well-documented “strategy of tension” technique pioneered by the CIA-NATO contrivance Gladio, so-called anarchists (who were police agents provocateurs) engaged in violence during the anti-globalist Genoa protests in 2001. As Alex Jones documents in his film Police State 2: The Takeover, the Black Bloc anarchists in Seattle during the WTO protests of 1999 were effectively infiltrated and provocateured by the authorities. During the Montebello globalist summit in Quebec in 2007, several “anarchists” were .
In short, many if not most of the terrorist groups listed in the “Crisis Controlled” document are false flag operations specifically designed to discredit and subvert legitimate opposition to the government.
Trooper John R. Wright’s slideshow weighs heavily on “protective measures” against these manufactured threats. He tells us that terrorists will try to “fit in” and cites Timothy McVeigh, Luke John Helder (the so-called mailbox bomber), and Sarah Jane Olson as examples of people who on the surface appear to be average citizens. Sarah Jane Olson, aka Kathleen Soliah, was a patsy member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a classic government created terror group. McVeigh’s connection to the government is noted above.
Wright urges citizens to actively become snoops and instructs them to consider innocuous behavior as suspected terrorist activity. People who avoid community contact and value privacy are to be considered possible terrorists, as well as those who make “unusual purchases” or have “numerous visitors/meetings.”
Wright’s slideshow provides the following as an example of a terrorist lead:
“I saw a white male, about 6 ft tall wearing black combat pants, a black t-shirt, and boots with the pants tucked in, taking notes for at least 2 hours outside the front entrance to the Courthouse. He was standing near a brown Ford pick-up truck, PA SYE-141, with a rusting tailgate and a bumper sticker that said, “Say No to the New World Order”. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, if you listen to Alex Jones, have an anti-NWO bumper sticker on your vehicle, or wear certain clothing you may be reported to the Virginia State Police as a possible terrorist worthy of “subsequent investigation.”
“Crisis Controlled: Assessing Potential Threats of Violence” is another example of an orchestrated effort by police agencies — now fully federalized and under the sway of the Department of Homeland Security — to designate legitimate and constitutionally protected opposition to government policies as violent terrorist activity.
On June 15, Steve Watson reported on a Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course that characterized Americans exercising their First Amendment right as terrorists. The ACLU contacted the DoD regarding its Antiterrorism and Force Protection Annual Refresher Training Course, which advises personnel that political protest amounts to “low-level terrorism.”
“The ACLU points out that although in and of itself the classification of protest as terrorism is deeply disturbing, it is even more alarming when viewed in the context of the Pentagon’s long term efforts to crack down on organized dissent,” write Watson.
The Pentagon training course flagging protesters as terrorists came on the heels of the Department of Homeland Security’s “extremism” report. In the DHS report, pro-life, Second Amendment, anti-illegal immigration and “antigovernment” activists are characterized as terrorists.
An earlier report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” and dated February 20, 2009, specifically described supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructed the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
The MIAC report was subsequently pulled after Alex Jones went public with the story. An anonymous police officer in Missouri had sent the MIAC report to Jones.
The Virginia State Police need to receive complaints about this latest document. The Virginia State Police “Terrorist Tip Hotline” is 1-877-4VA-TIPS. The telephone number to the Virginia State Police administrative headquarters is (804) 674-2936. The administrative office handles questions concerning Department policy and procedure (email address: firstname.lastname@example.org). Please contact the Virginia State Police and politely indicate you do not appreciate the police urging citizens to become snoops and characterizing lawful behavior as terrorism.
The Truth About Guns In America
“Man, what a fuckin’ nightmare those people over there are living in. Your all suspects. Don’t laugh American’s… we’re not that far off.”
Mrs Ethelston’s Church of England Primary School, in Uplyme, Devon, prohibited photos and video filming, claiming it was due to changes in child protection and images legislation.
It is the first time the school has taken such measures.
Parents criticised the move and said they felt there was no legal reason why they cannot take photos for personal use.
Jane Souter, who has a son at the school and is chair of the Parents Teachers and Friends Association, said: “It is a shame but that is the way it is all going now, you are not allowed to do a lot of things because of rules and regulations.
“A lot of the parents think it is a great shame. There are people who have been there for many, many years and they are upset about it, although they do not blame the school.
“It is sad that you are not allowed to take pictures of your own children.
“It is all to do with the pictures getting into the wrong hands and the school has to follow its own code of conduct. “I am sure the school do not like it just as much as we do.”
Another parent, who did not want to be named, said: “Parents want to record achievements through their child’s life and not to be made to feel that they are all criminals and are going to upload dodgy photos to some porn site.”
They added that many parents were upset that they could no longer take photos and fear photography will be banned at every school event.
They said: “Speaking to many parents, they were extremely annoyed and exasperated and no one really knew why they couldn’t take photos of their children as they done so in the past.
“Many seemed just resigned that it was a sign of the times.”
They added: “Please, please, clear this ridiculous nanny state affair up.”
A spokesman for the Devon local education authority said: “It’s a decision which individual head teachers come to, usually with consultation with governors.”
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, June 19, 2009
Responding to the Obama administration’s new regulatory reform plan, which will officially hand the Federal Reserve complete dictatorial control over the U.S. economy, Congressman Ron Paul told MSNBC that the Fed was now more powerful than Congress.
Paul emphasized that no amount of regulation could compensate for a financial system created and controlled by the Federal Reserve that was completely unstable to begin with.
“The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress,” said Paul.
As we reported yesterday, the new rules would see the Fed given the authority to “regulate” any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets.
Obama’s regulatory “reform” plan is nothing less than a green light for the complete and total takeover of the United States by a private banking cartel that will usurp the power of existing regulatory bodies, who are now being blamed for the financial crisis in order that their status can be abolished and their roles handed over to the all-powerful Fed.
“They’re giving a tremendous amount of more power to the Federal Reserve – the very institution that created our problem. That’s about the way Washington works,” said the Congressman
“Too much regulations to begin with, so they give it more. The Federal Reserve creates the problem, so we give them more power. It’s fiat money that’s the problem, so we allow them to double the money supply – you can’t solve the problems that way. That’s like saying you can take care of a drug addict by just giving them more drugs,” concluded Paul, adding that the lack of understanding about how the Federal Reserve created the problem and how the free market ought to work was the root of the crisis.
A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.
The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.
As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.
There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs’ lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.
Commentators are “explaining” the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad’s win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government.
On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”
On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”
A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”
The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.
Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests.
Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.” Timmerman’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.”
“This is some serious shit right here people. Our government is spiraling completely out of control and is piss drunk with power. I urge you to spread the word on this one and contact your local reps & tell em’ NO!”
-Fred Face 6/20/09
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.” – Henry Kissinger (scum-bag)
(And thats exactly what they are trying to accomplish)
Source: Rady Ananda
* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” thatholds, processes, or manufactures food. [isn’t this every home in the US, every garden?] Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. [What is the definition?] And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes. There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren’t there? Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers. [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX. WTO “good farming practices” will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry’s products. They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do – against their own best wisdom – and paying out to industry against their will.
There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one’s own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all. Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished. So, it’s obvious where control will take us. And weren’t these the “rumors on the internet” that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]
* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” [This – “that has been used to transport or hold such food” – would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this. This is using food as a cover for martial law.] Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination. The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area. [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]
* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. [If these bills cover all who “hold food” then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.] Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.
[NAIS for animals and all other foods?]
* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing atracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?] would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers. [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply – is this not fascism? – so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]
* HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals. [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”? Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of “the Administrator”? Who is that person set to be? Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said? That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?]
If it was not clear before how frightening these bills were, this small section of provisions, should make their actual fascism clear now. It goes way beyond “food safety” to absolute control over farms, animals, food, and us, including our movements and access to food at all.
Action to Take:
Contact your Representative now! Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues. Tell them you are opposed to the bill. Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:
-The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie.
-Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety.
-The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.
HR 2749 needs to be defeated!! Please take action NOW.
To contact your Representative, use the finder tool at www.Congress.org or send a message through the petition system (the petition will be on our website this evening) athttp://www.ftcldf.org/petitions_new.htm. Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
To check the status of HR 2749, go to www.Thomas.gov and type “HR 2749″ in the bill search field.
BY RAW STORY
Tired of waving the national security flag, Obama administration lawyers are apparently trying another tactic to get the courts to back Bush administration arguments which never worked to prevent the release of critical documents. Forget Qaeda or North Korea, late night hosts who tell jokes are why the government should retain its secrets.
“A federal judge yesterday sharply questioned an assertion by the Obama administration that former Vice President Richard B. Cheney’s statements to a special prosecutor about the Valerie Plame case must be kept secret, partly so they do not become fodder for Cheney’s political enemies or late-night commentary on The Daily Show,” R. Jeffrey Smith reports for The Washington Post.
The AP reports, “Justice Department lawyers told the judge that future presidents and vice presidents may not cooperate with criminal investigations if they know what they say could become available to their political opponents and late-night comics who would ridicule them.”
“If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren’t going to cooperate,” Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith said. “I don’t want a future vice president to say, `I’m not going to cooperate with you because I don’t want to be fodder for ‘The Daily Show.’”
More from the Post:
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan expressed surprise during a hearing here that the Justice Department, in asserting that Cheney’s voluntary statements to U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald were exempt from disclosure, relied on legal claims put forward last October by a Bush administration political appointee, Stephen Bradbury. The department asserted then that the disclosure would make presidents and vice presidents reluctant to cooperate voluntarily with future criminal investigations.
But career civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith, responding to Sullivan’s questions, said Bradbury’s arguments against the disclosure were supported by the department’s current leadership. He told the judge that if Cheney’s remarks were published, then a future vice president asked to provide candid information during a criminal probe might refuse to do so out of concern “that it’s going to get on ‘The Daily Show’ ” or somehow be used as a political weapon.
Sullivan said Bradbury, who was the acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was not obviously qualified to make such claims and that they were in any event unsubstantiated. Sullivan said the department needed new evidence, if it hoped to prevail, and said the administration should supply him with a copy of Cheney’s statements so he could directly assess whether the claims are credible.
Politico’s Josh Gerstein adds, “Sullivan didn’t decide immediately whether the summary and notes of the Cheney interview should be made public, but the judge said Bradbury’s declaration was inadequate to justify withholding the records. He ordered the Justice Department to supplement its filings by July 1 and to produce the documents for him to examine in private.”
The CIA has delayed the release of a promised 150-page report on secret prisons and interrogation techniques, according to a letter sent to the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday.
The report, originally expected Friday, was still being examined by government censors for sensitive material, the intelligence agency said Thursday.
“We are disappointed by the delay in the disclosure of this report which contains critical information about the illegality and ineffectiveness of the CIA’s interrogation program,” said ACLU attorney Amrit Singh in a media advisory. “We can only hope that this delay is a sign that the forces of transparency within the Obama administration are winning over the forces of secrecy and that the report will ultimately be released with minimal redactions.”
The report sought by the ACLU was originally released, albeit heavily redacted, in May 2008. The document, now expected on Friday, June 26, will likely be only slightly less-redacted.
The report on the CIA’s torture program, as released by the Office of the Inspector General last year, is available on the Internet (PDF link).
For a band that has already conquered the Austin music scene like a frenzied Cortés-with-a-smile, it may seem superfluous to name an album “Exposion”. In no short supply of prior popularity, White Denim is guaranteed to capture at least an ear or two with its first full-length album. Indeed, it’s amazing this group got so far without having a full-length up to this point, but their success rests on one key fact: by melody if possible, by force if necessary, White Denim compels the listener to have fun.
In their latest release, currently available only in digital format, Denim has crafted 11 meandering, spastic glimpses into an alternate universe where, villain or hero, everyone taps a toe and snaps a finger in time.