Writer's Email: wesawthat@gmail.com
Fone WST... +1318.717.9017 Twitter:@wesawthat “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” ~ Gaius Cornelius Tacitus
The People Trump Pardoned Are on a Crime Spree
-
The New York Times takes detailed look at what crimes have been committed
by those Trump has pardoned. "The American public deserves to understand
the mayh...
Speed Cameras Painted, Burned in France, Italy, UK
-
[image: Colorful French speed camera]By Richard Diamond/Staff Reports
Vigilantes in Swansea, Wales, blinded the newly replaced speed camera on
Llangyfelach...
Abdur Biswas (Sep 1, 1926 - Nov 3, 2017)
-
Bangladeshi Statesman. He served as the 11th President of Bangladesh from
October 10, 1991 to October 9, 1996. He was educated at Dhaka University
where he...
Thank You.
-
I've never been much of a writer (let alone one of my father's caliber),
but I know that I must express my thanks to you all somehow.
The support that we h...
The Bush Regime has quagmired America into a sixth year of war in Afghanistan and Iraq with no end in sight. The cost of these wars of aggression is horrendous. Official US combat casualties stand at 4,538 dead. Officially, 29,780 US troops have been wounded in Iraq. Experts have argued that these numbers are understatements. Regardless, these numbers are only the tip of the iceberg.
On April 17, 2008, AP News reported that a new study released by the RAND Corporation concludes that “some 300,000 U.S. troops are suffering from major depression or post traumatic stress from serving in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 320,000 received brain injuries.”
On April 21, 2008, OpEdNews reported that an internal email from Gen. Michael J. Kussman, undersecretary for health at the Veterans Administration, to Ira Katz, head of mental health at the VA, confirms a McClatchy Newspaper report that 126 veterans per week commit suicide. To the extent that the suicides are attributable to the war, more than 500 deaths should be added to the reported combat fatalities each month.
Turning to Iraqi deaths, expert studies support as many as 1.2 million dead Iraqis, almost entirely civilians. Another 2 million Iraqis have fled their country, and there are 2 million displaced Iraqis within Iraq.
Afghan casualties are unknown.
Both Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered unconscionable civilian deaths and damage to housing, infrastructure and environment. Iraq is afflicted with depleted uranium and open sewers.
Then there are the economic costs to the US. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz estimates the full cost of the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq to be between $3 trillion and $5 trillion. The dollar price of oil and gasoline have tripled, and the dollar has lost value against other currencies, declining dramatically even against the lowly Thai baht. Before Bush launched his wars of aggression, one US dollar was worth 45 baht. Today the dollar is only worth 30 baht.
The US cannot afford these costs. Prior to his resignation last month, US Comptroller General David Walker reported that the accumulated unfunded liabilities of the US government total $53 trillion dollars. The US government cannot cover these liabilities. The Bush Regime even has to borrow the money from foreigners to pay for its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no more certain way to bankrupt the country and dethrone the dollar as world reserve currency.
The moral costs are perhaps the highest. All of the deaths, injuries, and economic costs to the US and its victims are due entirely to lies told by the President and Vice President of the US, by the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State, and, of course, by the media, including the “liberal” New York Times. All of these lies were uttered in behalf of an undeclared agenda. “Our” government has still not told “we the people” the real reasons “our” government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
Instead, the American sheeple have accepted a succession of transparent lies: weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections and complicity in the 9/11 attack, overthrowing a dictator and “bringing democracy” to Iraqis.
The great moral American people would rather believe government lies than to acknowledge the government’s crimes and to hold the government accountable.
There are many effective ways in which a moral people could protest. Consider investors, for example. Clearly Halliburton and military suppliers are cleaning up. Investors flock to the stocks in order to participate in the rise in value from booming profits. But what would a moral people do? Wouldn’t they boycott the stocks of the companies that are profiting from the Bush Regime’s war crimes?
If the US invaded Iraq for any of the succession of reasons the Bush Regime has given, why would the US have spent $750 million on a fortress “embassy” with anti-missile systems and its own electricity and water systems spread over 104 acres? No one has ever seen or heard of such an embassy before. Clearly, this “embassy” is constructed as the headquarters of an occupying colonial ruler.
The fact is that Bush invaded Iraq with the intent of turning Iraq into an American colony. The so-called government of al-Maliki is not a government. Maliki is the well paid front man for US colonial rule. Maliki’s government does not exist outside the protected Green Zone, the headquarters of the American occupation.
If colonial rule were not the intent, the US would not be going out of its way to force al Sadr’s 60,000 man militia into a fight. Sadr is a Shi’ite who is a real Iraqi leader, perhaps the only Iraqi who could end the sectarian conflict and restore some unity to Iraq. As such he is regarded by the Bush Regime as a danger to the American puppet Maliki. Unless the US is able to purchase or rig the upcoming Iraqi election, Sadr is likely to emerge as the dominant figure. This would be a highly unfavorable development for the Bush Regime’s hopes of establishing its colonial rule behind the facade of a Maliki fake democracy. Rather than work with Sadr in order to extract themselves from a quagmire, the Americans will be doing everything possible to assassinate Sadr.
Why does the Bush Regime want to rule Iraq? Some speculate that it is a matter of “peak oil.” Oil supplies are said to be declining even as demand for oil multiplies from developing countries such as China. According to this argument, the US decided to seize Iraq to insure its own oil supply.
This explanation is problematic. Most US oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. The best way for the US to insure its oil supplies would be to protect the dollar’s role as world reserve currency. Moreover, $3-5 trillion would have purchased a tremendous amount of oil. Prior to the US invasions, the US oil import bill was running less than $100 billion per year. Even in 2006 total US imports from OPEC countries was $145 billion, and the US trade deficit with OPEC totaled $106 billion. Three trillion dollars could have paid for US oil imports for 30 years; five trillion dollars could pay the US oil bill for a half century had the Bush Regime preserved a sound dollar.
The more likely explanation for the US invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush Regime’s commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel. Israel hopes to steal all of the West Bank and southern Lebanon for its territorial expansion. An American colonial regime in Iraq not only buttresses Israel from attack, but also can pressure Syria and Iran from giving support to the Palestinians and Lebanese. The Iraqi war is a war for Israeli territorial expansion. Americans are dying and bleeding to death financially for Israel. Bush’s “war on terror” is a hoax that serves to cover US intervention in the Middle East in behalf of “greater Israel.”
Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.
piyush the weasel skips important vote on iraq war troop redeployment!
breitbart snip:
[H.R.2956] legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists.
The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.
Title: To require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes.
Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 authorized the President to use the Armed Forces as appropriate to defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by the government of Iraq at the time; (2) the government of Iraq which was in power at that time has been removed; (3) the current Iraqi government does not pose a threat to the United States; and (4) after more than four years of efforts by members of the Armed Forces and U.S. civilians, the government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future course.
Directs the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act and complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence in Iraq by no later than April 1, 2008
Directs the President, by January 1, 2008, to transmit to the congressional defense, appropriations, and foreign relations committees a comprehensive U.S. strategy for Iraq. Requires the President to update such strategy no later than July 1, 2008, and every 90 days thereafter, including a description of the number of Armed Forces deployed to Iraq and the missions for which they are so deployed.
====
the rest of louisiana's criminal congressional delegation [rodney alexander, richard hugh baker, charles boustany, jim mccrery] voted against withdrawing american troops in this unconstitutional, illegal, immoral quagmire.
the criminally insane maniac that currently occupies the oval office, with the stroke of his pen, has made it illegal to protest the iraq war. do you understand yet that we do not live in america anymore? and just where is nancy pelosi, harry reid and the democrats at on this? is impeachment still off the table ms. pelosi? forget them what about republicans or anyone that considers themselves real americans?
By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky --
The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war.
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.
The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act.The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants.
The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.
Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.
The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. So far, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.
Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..
Broader implications
The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals.
This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a "national emergency".
The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq.
The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc.
In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (e.g. Second 9/11 terrorist attack).
On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its "National Intelligence Estimate" which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which, according to the terms of NSPD 51, would immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government and the instatement of martial law under the authority of the president and the vice-president. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, June 2007)
NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.
The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It repeals democracy. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda.
click link to view this latest bush outrage from the white house website click here to read this article by professor michael chossudovsky in its entirety
excerpt of an article captioned: "bryan anderson a hero?" by eric hufschmid and christopher bollyn
The Zionist media desperately tries to make the US Soldiers feel happy about losing their lives and destroying their nation
What is a hero?
People who defend us from enemies can certainly be described as heroes, but the American military is not defending us from enemies. Rather, they have all been duped into becoming Zionist attack dogs.
They are victims of Zionist deception; they are fools; they are suckers; they are Useful Idiots for Israel.
The US military could stop Zionism
If the US military were to realize that they have been tricked, the Zionists would be in serious trouble because the US military could put an end to Zionism.
So how do the Zionists prevent the military from realizing that they have been duped?
One method is to select certain soldiers for extravagant propaganda events. They praise the soldier for helping to defend America. They fool the Americans into believing that these soldiers lost their lives -- or their legs, eyes, or arms -- for a noble cause. The US military is attacking people who have never done them any harm, and have no desire to hurt them. [...] The US military is spraying uranium on themselves and the rest of the world, and now many American soldiers have cancer and retarded babies.
The uranium is spreading, so other nations will be affected. But not many people care because the Zionists have fooled people into thinking the uranium is safe because it has been depleted. click here to read more.
Every U.S. soldier takes an express and solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” That oath, however, is a sham because the troops do not support or defend the Constitution. Instead, when it comes to war the troops follow another oath they take — to obey the orders of the president, and they do this without regard to whether such orders violate the Constitution.
A textbook example involves President Bush’s war on Iraq.
The Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing a declaration of war from Congress. By waging war on Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, the president violated the Constitution.
Some people pooh-pooh the violation, perceiving the Constitution as simply a technical document that can be violated whenever the president feels that “national security” — or even the welfare of foreigners — necessitates it.
Some also make the claim that when Congress delegated its power to declare war on Iraq to the president (on the eve of the 2002 congressional elections), that delegation served as an adequate substitute for an actual declaration of war on Iraq.
They are wrong.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that we the people of the United States have imposed on our federal officials. Like it or not, U.S. officials are supposed to comply with its restrictions on power. If U.S. officials don’t like a particular constitutional provision or if they feel that it is outdated, the proper remedy is to seek a constitutional amendment, not ignore the provision.
Moreover, the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation under our system of government, has long held that no branch of the federal government can lawfully delegate its constitutional powers to another branch of government. Only the Congress, not the president, is authorized to declare war, and without that declaration the president cannot lawfully wage war on another nation.
We should bear in mind that had the president complied with the declaration-of-war requirement, the Congress might well have discovered in the process that the president’s WMD claims were defective. The Congress might also have concluded that invading a sovereign and independent country for the purpose of “spreading democracy” — a war in which tens of thousands of innocent people would be killed and maimed — could not be justified under moral principles.
“But we can’t refuse orders of the president. He’s our commander in chief,” say the troops. “It’s not our job to determine what is constitutional or not. We deployed to Iraq, like it or not, because the president ordered us to do so.”
Setting aside the moral implications of that position, doesn’t that mindset reflect that the oath that the troops take to support and defend the Constitution is in fact a sham? The troops know — or should know — that the Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without a congressional declaration of war. They also know that the Congress never declared war on Iraq. Nevertheless, they obeyed the president’s orders to attack Iraq.
The president’s war on Iraq reflects why our nation’s Founding Fathers opposed standing armies. Members of a professional army, who have vowed to obey the orders of the president, are unlikely to say no when the president orders them to attack another country.
On the other hand, a nation that relies instead on well-trained citizens (i.e., citizen-soldiers) to defend itself from a foreign attack would stand in a different position. Citizen-soldiers, while willing and prepared to rally to the defense of their own country in the event of an invasion, would be much less likely to answer the president’s call to leave their families and give up their jobs to attack a country thousands of miles away from American shores.
Isn’t it ironic that, even as the troops waging war in Iraq exhort the American people to support them, the troops, by invading Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, have failed to support the Constitution?
yesterday evening, the washington post published the following story about how president bush plans to increase the troop levels in iraq. meanwhile editor & publisher posted the results of a cnn poll in which its revealed that only eleven percent (11%) of the people support sending more troops. there is something extremely wrong when only ten or eleven percent of the people dictate to the majority the policy of this country.
"a tale of 1001 nights" gustave clarence rodolphe boulanger 1873
Bush to Expand Size of Military
By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 19, 2006; 4:18 PM
President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.
"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
The president's decision comes at a time when he is rethinking his strategy in Iraq and considering, among other options, a short-term surge in troop levels to try to secure violence-torn Baghdad. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are resisting the idea during internal debates in part out of the conviction that it will further strain already-pressed forces.
A substantial military expansion will take years and would not be meaningful in the near term in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "the active Army is about broken."
The Army has already temporarily increased its size from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then grow an additional 7,000 soldiers or more per year. The Army estimates that every 10,000 additional soldiers will cost about $1.2 billion a year.
The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee spoke out forcefully today for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, noting that their leaders describe the services as "stretched and strained." "We're going to have to pay attention to this," Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) told reporters. Saying the two services are "bleeding," he added, "I think we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces. I think that will be a major part of our work."
In describing his decision today, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Asked about Powell's assessment, Bush chose a different term. "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " he said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.' . . . We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?"
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to make a trip to Iraq to assess the situation for himself. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we . . . have got a new way forward."
Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months. The idea has the support of important figures such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has been pushed by some inside the White House, but the Joint Chiefs have balked because they believe advocates have not adequately defined the mission and are pushing it mainly because of limited alternatives, according to U.S. officials.
The chiefs have warned that a short-term surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, according to the officials, who described the review on condition of anonymity because it is not complete.
Bush would not discuss such ideas in detail but said "all options are viable." He said he also wanted the American and Iraqi people to know that he would press the Iraqis to do more to secure their own country. "We expect the Iraqi people to continue making hard choices and doing hard work necessary to succeed," he said, "and our job is to help them do so."
louisiana's senior senator the crypto-republican and consistent bush crime family ass-licking katrina mary landrieu snellings just voted "no" to wisconsin senator russ feingold's s.amdt.2924 the feingold-reid amendment to safely redeploy u.s. troops out of iraq - requires withdrawal of us troops from iraq by march 31, 2008 and cuts off funds in iraq by june 30, 2008. senator feingold's amendment is to h.r.1585 the defense appropriations act for 2008.
Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the Feingold-Reid Amendment to Safely Redeploy U.S. Troops Out of Iraq From the Senate Floor
"would require the president to begin safely redeploying u.s. troops from iraq within 90 days of enactment, and would require redeployment to be completed by june 30, 2008.
at that point, with our troops safely out of iraq, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions: providing security for u.s. government personnel and infrastructure; training the iraqi security forces (ISF); providing training and equipment to u.s. servicemen and women to ensure their safety and security; and, conducting “targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al qaeda and other affiliated international terrorist organizations.”"
the amendment fails 28 - 70. roll call vote #00345
thus giving us even more reasons to throw this cheap bush whore out of the senate next year.
03/10/06 "ICH" -- -- In the last 48 hours all the major players in the Bush administration have issued statements warning of the impending danger of Iran.
Cheney blasted the Islamic regime saying there would be “meaningful consequences” if it refuses to comply with international demands to stop its nuclear program. Condoleezza Rice said, “We face no greater challenge from a single country than Iran… This is a country that seems determined, it seems, to develop a nuclear weapon in defiance of the international community that is determined that they should not get one.”
Donald Rumsfeld warned at a press conference on Wednesday, “I will say this about Iran. They are currently putting people into Iraq to do things that are harmful to the future of Iraq. We know it, and it is something that they, I think, will look back on as having been an error in judgment.”
Bush chimed in too, “Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
And then there was Bolton, the most vehement of all, saying that the Security Council should issue a “vigorous response” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions or the United States might have to consider other steps.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said, “It’s going to be incumbent on our allies around the world to show that they are willing to act.”
Congress also added their support led by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA) “Iran’s quest for nuclear arms requires us to do two things: squeeze Iran’s economy as much as possible and do so without delay.” Lantos claims that more than 300 lawmakers will support sanctions.
Israel’s Defense Minister joined the chorus as well,” If the UN Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself.” Bush, Cheney, Bolton, Rice, Rumsfeld, Burns, Congress, and Israel.
Whoa! That’s quite a line-up.
All in the last 48 hours!
Was it spontaneous or a calculated public-relations campaign?
Beyond the political speechmaking are literally hundreds of articles, full of the same predictable fictions and demagoguery which have mischaracterized Iran’s nuclear program from the get-go; fueling the hysteria for another preemptive war.
Did Iran become nuclear superpower overnight?
Apparently, so. But, just for the sake of argument, let’s remember that according to the IAEA there is “no evidence of a nuclear weapons program or any diversion of nuclear material.”
That is the judgment of the Nobel Prize-wining chief of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, Mohammad ElBaradei. ElBaradei warned that there were no nuclear weapons programs in Iraq and he has drawn the very same conclusion in Iran.
“No evidence” still means “no evidence” except in Washington, DC, where it is a mere stumbling block for a massive media-blitz to manipulate public perceptions and whip the masses into war-fever.
It’s hard not to be impressed by the sudden ratcheting-up of inflammatory statements and spurious claims that blast from every media-soapbox across the country. Who could have imagined 4 years ago how utterly corrupted our media really is?
Try this: do a Google search through the 2,400 articles on Iran right now on and see what you find.
You’ll find that all 2,400 articles reiterate the same bland deceptions and wearisome lies as all the others. You’ll see that the forth estate provides neither facts, nor context, nor analysis, just the endless, repetitive fear-mongering of administration officials.
That’s it; just manipulation through state-sponsored demagoguery 24-7.
You won’t find anything about the IAEA inspection team that rummaged through Iran’s nuclear sites for the passed two years in the most thorough examination of any country in the history of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) You won’t hear anything about the “go anywhere, see anything” inspections that allowed officials from the IAEA to investigate any location or facility they felt was suspicious. You won’t hear that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) predicted that it would take 10 years for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. (If, in fact, that is even their intention) You won’t hear that Iran temporarily sacrificed its legal right to enrich uranium and accepted “additional protocols” because it trusted the EU-3 (Germany, France and England) who, it turns out, were simply acting as Washington’s agents. You won’t find one single article that clarifies the most fundamental issue of the entire confrontation; that Iran has an “inalienable right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes unless it can factually established that it has not complied with the terms of its agreement.
It has complied. There is no violation. That is why there will be no “punitive action”.
Instead, the United States is hoping for a “presidential statement”; a bogus “slap on the wrist” from the Security Council because the individual members can’t muster the courage to do their duty and defy the US.
Perhaps, the Security Council could offer a “supplemental presidential statement” at the same time, condemning the Bush administration, for developing a new regime of low-yield, bunker-busting “usable” nukes, and for its involvement in poisoning the groundwater and great swaths of the Iraqi countryside with Depleted Uranium; ensuring environmental devastation, cancer and birth defects will continue into perpetuity.
Will the Security Council have time to reprimand the real nuclear terrorist or will it limit itself to the imaginary villain who refuses to prostrate itself to Washington?
Iran has weathered this farce with great dignity. They understand the gravity of the situation when the media begins swarm to their victim. They know that there are Carrier groups in the Gulf and AC-130s in bases in Iraq. They know that Israeli commandoes have infiltrated the countryside and are scoping out potential targets. They know that satellites and unmanned drones have mapped out every square inch of territory from Iraq to Pakistan and the B-52s are tucked away close by where they can “liberate” another 100,000 or so Iranians.
How do they know?
Because it is the same lame script that was used in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The Iran Bourse
On March 20 the Iran Bourse will formally open and allow countries to break to US monopoly on oil purchases in petrodollars. The central banks across Europe and Asia will trade in part of their stockpiles of greenbacks for euros, and dollars will come flooding back to the homeland. $3 trillion of American cash and securities are owned by people or institutions outside of the United States. If just a small portion of them pour back into the US, Depression will follow.
Is the impending war with Iraq merely an effort to shore up the debt-ridden greenback? (which is now underwritten by $8.2 trillion in debt)
If not, then how do we explain the Federal Reserve’s surprise announcement that it would stop releasing the M-3 in late March, 2006 coinciding with the opening of the bourse? (The M-3 provides the aggregate statistics on US dollars around the world)
Don’t you think the American people would like to know when the central banks begin tossing their stockpiles of greenbacks overboard?
And won’t this “weakening of the dollar” curtail Washington’s ability to print unlimited amounts of money to fund a powerful standing army and provide lavish tax cuts to the wealthy?
The Iran bourse is a direct threat to the present economic system of extorting labor and resources from the developing world for worthless paper.
The Bush administration will do everything in its power to defend that system.
Berkshire-Hathaway chief, Warren Buffet recently noted, “Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them. In my view, it will create political turmoil at some point. …Pretty soon, I think there will be a big adjustment.”
“Political turmoil”?"big adjustment”?…”Pretty soon, I think”?
in a scathing article captioned 'house speaker pelosi lashes out at antiwar protesters' (see link) the world socialist web site takes the lying, democratic, piss-poor excuse for a house speaker nancy pelosi to task.
excerpt:
Asked about criticism of the failure (or more accurately, refusal) of the congressional Democratic majority to take action to put an end to the war in Iraq, despite the overwhelming antiwar opinion among Democratic voters, Pelosi said, “I am well aware of the unhappiness of the base.”
She told reporters that antiwar demonstrators had established seemingly permanent protest encampments outside her home in San Francisco several months, and more recently outside her Washington home as well.
The real venom in Pelosi’s comments was reported by Washington Post Capitol Hill columnist Dana Milbank, one of those in attendance at the press interview. While Pelosi invariably maintains a publicly smiling posture, he wrote, “her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic ‘base’ over her failure to end the war in Iraq.”
“Look,” she said, “I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things—Buddhas? I don’t know what they were—couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.”
Pelosi continued: “If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have ‘Impeach Bush’ across their chest, it’s the First Amendment.”
Pelosi is married to a multimillionaire investor, and her comments were charged with social resentment as well as political hostility. The antiwar protesters are not only unwelcome because they expose her hypocritical pretense to opposing the Iraq bloodbath—they are dirty, ragged and disreputable, and irritate the neighbors.
Pelosi’s remark—imagine that riffraff “sleeping on my sidewalk”—is reveals the enormous social distance between the masses of working people, housewives, students who oppose the war, and the privileged ruling elite. And her disparaging reference to the First Amendment demonstrates the hostility of a big business politician towards the democratic rights of the working class.
meet hambone a/k/a jason hamilton. hambone is good natured military slang for goober, gomer, opie, jethro and forrest gump. is this guy from central casting or what? and the interview just goes on and on.
stop the illegal and immoral iraq war hoax and bring our unique louisiana characters and fellow americans home.
this is a strange interview. it was recorded from the live broadcast of the rachel maddow show, yet former army specialist brandon neely's interview was pre-recorded and edited in places.
mr. neely doesnt seem to reveal anything that shocking or anything that under the circumstances you wouldnt expect to have taken place - despite ms. maddow's attempts to sex it up.
this could be a zionist trick to get the names of former; current servicemen who might be looking to talk about what happened as well as to allow the z's to get control of the message.
so, last night we were channel surfing and came to stop at...we are embarrased to admit this..faux news, but only because they were doing an interview with the aunt (fathers sister) of natalee holloway. anyway, during the course of the interview we noticed in the crawl all the "news channels" do nowadays, something about franklin graham comparing the us army 's [iraq] sacrifice to the sacrifice made by jesus?!? so this morning we held our nose's and went on fox news website but couldnt find the story. next we did a google news search on franklin graham (which is what we should have done in the first place) and found a story.
first off it was an army the ROMAN army that scourged jesus. it was an army the ROMAN army that crucifed jesus. it was soldier's ROMAN soldier's that gambled over jesus's garments. when jesus, hanging on the cross asked for water it was soldier's ROMAN soldier's that gave him vinegar to drink instead. it was another soldier a ROMAN soldier who took a spear and stabbed jesus in the side. you get the picture?
army's are meant to kill people not provide aid and comfort and certainly not to carry out the great commission. franklin graham's even suggesting something like this is offensive and odious. we wonder how many pieces of silver it took for graham to become a propaganda prostitute for the bush white house, the zionists and the military industrial complex?
Another Year Of Carnage Brought To You By The Corporate Democrats By Cindy Sheehan 5-8-8
zionist whore nancy pelosi at a recent aipac conference
The Democrats are working diligently to put a war funding bill on George's desk that will give him two cycles of money for the illegal and obscene occupations in the Middle East connecting anti- poverty programs and VA educational benefits to the appropriation's bill to exploit the horrible condition of poor families and vets who have risked life and limb because Congress is too worried about their political stakes than our children's lives.
The Democrats, with shaky reasoning, feel that attaching a time- line on an appropriation's bill for troop withdrawal (which George has promised to veto) by December 2009, will assuage the anti-war left that is becoming a bigger and bigger majority by the day. What the Democratic leadership is doing is putting their major donors and political futures ahead of our flesh and blood. Are you okay with the Democratic leadership thinking that you are dumber than a door bell and hoping that you don't see their ploy for what it is: a pure political calculation to help themselves and harm everyone else.
Are you okay with borrowing 178 billion more dollars from China furthering the demise of our dollar, economy and enlarging our deficit? Are you okay with putting our children's future at jeopardy so the Democrats can maybe widen their majority in Congress and perhaps put a Democrat in the White House?
Are you okay with the HUMANS of Iraq and Afghanistan (who bleed the same color you do and who love their children just as much) being exploited and abused for the sake of a bigger Democratic majority? Are you okay with our brothers and sisters in these countries being terrorized by OUR military? Are you okay with CHILDREN being demonized and then blown up by bombs dropped out of US jets? Are you okay with two countries being torn apart so Congress' cronies can make obscene profits when you know that many Senators and Congressional Reps are invested in the very industries that profit off of the death, dismemberment and destruction?
Are you okay with the Democratic leadership attaching the funding of programs to help our nation's neediest citizens to a bill that appropriates more money for a virtual genocide? Are you okay with the "Let them eat cake" mentality of such Democrats as Nancy Pelosi who wants to provide "guns for butter?" Are you okay with the Democratic leadership attaching provisions to fund Veteran educational benefits to a bill that will kill, maim and emotionally injure hundreds more of our troops?
Are you okay with paying over $4.00/gallon for gas while George and Dick's cronies in the oil business are reaping obscene profits? Are you okay with spending more for food and other essentials because the cost to transport these items has skyrocketed because of the cost of gas?
Are you okay with the demonization of another country and the potential invasion of Iran? Are you okay with tens of thousands of other HUMAN lives being destroyed for the neocon agenda of world domination?
Are you okay with letting George Bush and Dick Cheney walking away from the pain they have caused by their crimes and corruption after eight years of their reign of terror? Are you okay with BushCo leading lives of ease and peace for the rest of their lives while our own country is mired in poverty and violence?
I am vehemently not okay with any of these things! I pray to everything that is sacred (life, liberty, family, and health) that you are also not okay with it.
Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House and she has the constitutionally enumerated power of doing two very relevant things: De-funding (Article I, Section 8, clause 11) the occupation (instead she is uber-funding it) and allowing articles of impeachment to be introduced against George and Dick (instead, Article II, Section 4 is off the table).
Do not allow the Corporate Democrats to pull the wool over your eyes... again. They are not working hard to end the occupation; they are working overtime to extend it for another year at the expense of our military and their families, our economy, our ecology, and the HUMANS in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Do not allow the Corporate Democrats to pay one more penny for these occupations because, whether you are aware of it or not, at a cost of 16 billion dollars a month to maintain the occupations, THIS WAR ECONOMY IS AFFECTING YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! Not just me, not just our troops and their families, not just the HUMANS thousands of miles away, but YOU!
If you are as outraged as Cindy for Congress is and you want the carnage to stop now, not later: please support our campaign for true change, peace, and accountability.
Every time violence erupts somewhere in the world, our national leaders and news media make it sound like that particular outbreak is America's greatest threat. The conflict between Russia and Georgia is no exception. Almost as soon as news of the conflict broke, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, was suggesting that the United States (or the United Nations) should send troops to the scene. I guess two wars are not enough for McCain; he now wants to start a third. (And with all his talk about bombing Iran, make that four.) And talk all over Washington, D.C., was mostly about what kind of military response the United States should take.
Have people lost their minds? Or do people really believe that the United States is the world's--or should we say the United Nations'--policeman? Apparently, that is what our national leaders from both major parties believe.
Let's face it: most of America's foreign policy over the last several decades has been more about fulfilling the U.N.'s global desires than protecting the people and property of the United States. And, yes, that includes America's invasion of Iraq.
Do readers not remember that soon after launching the invasion of Iraq, President Bush appeared before the United Nations and plainly told that sinister organization that the reason he had ordered the invasion of Iraq was to "defend . . . the credibility of the United Nations"? Frankly, I did not know the United Nations had any credibility worth defending. Nevertheless, G.W. Bush was willing to sacrifice over 4,000 American lives for the express purpose of defending the U.N.'s "credibility." Now, John McCain appears willing to send troops to Georgia.
I will not use this column to analyze the specific events leading up to Russia's attack against Georgia, except to say that one can count on the fact that there is much more to the story than what NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are telling us.
In addition, one of the major fallacies being perpetrated by most in Washington, D.C., is the notion that America is somehow strengthened and protected by aggressive meddling in the affairs of foreign countries. Such a philosophy was considered anathema to America's Founding Fathers. They rightly understood that such reasoning created more problems than it solved and that it made America more vulnerable, not more secure.
Regardless of what the underlying and overriding reasons for Russia's attack might have been, I will say here and now that the Russian-Georgian conflict is not America's greatest threat. I will also be so bold as to say that Iran or North Korea is not America's greatest threat, either. In fact, I will categorically state that no foreign nation (although, of all foreign nations, Red China should undoubtedly be our biggest concern--and none of our national leaders seem the least bit concerned about it) is America's greatest threat. America's greatest threat comes from within. And I am not alone in that opinion.
Daniel Webster warned, "There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence. I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing."
While the national media focuses on Russia, Georgia, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, our own leaders are quietly molding the clay of our own demise right here at home. Both political parties, and the standard-bearers they select, are facilitating the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence. They are working in darkness to build an international community where the laws and principles of individual nation-states (including America's) are made subservient to the laws and principles of international entities. This is America's greatest threat.
For example, John McCain supports the International Criminal Court. Can you believe this? Can you imagine U.S. citizens being hauled off before an international court to be tried for crimes? Imagine an international court whose rulings and opinions overrule U.S. rulings and opinions. Imagine a court setting where the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights are null and void. Imagine a court setting where international law trumps U.S. or state laws. If that is not a surrender of U.S. sovereignty, nothing is! And John McCain is all for it.
Furthermore, both John McCain and Barack Obama support NAFTA, the WTO, GATT, and the FTAA. Both major party candidates support the NAFTA superhighway, the creation of a North American Community (which is the precursor to a North American Union), the SPP, and the United Nations.
Ladies and Gentlemen, America is on the verge of losing its independence and its national sovereignty. And both major political parties (along with a compliant national media) are equally culpable. And mark this down: when America loses its independence and national sovereignty, we also lose our freedoms and liberties. Please remember that before a Constitution and Bill of Rights could be drafted, there was first drafted a Declaration of Independence. It is the Declaration of Independence that lays the cornerstone and builds the wall of protection around the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lose the Declaration and we lose the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
No, the greatest threat to America does not come from Russia, Iraq, Iran, or any other foreign country. America's greatest threat comes from a complacent populace who would sit back and do nothing while our own civil magistrates surrender our nation's sovereignty and independence to international interests.
Think about it: 232 years after Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, and after our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend that document, our nation's leaders from both major parties are in the process of ceding America back to the kind of global empire from which we fought to break free. This is America's greatest threat!
Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.
Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.
To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.
The House Negro Power Rankings.
-
The House Negroes have been very active of late. As a result, the House
Negro power rankings have to be constantly updated. Here goes.
10. *Tim Scott:...
Police Jury meets Tuesday
-
The Lincoln Parish Police Jury will meet Tuesday, June 13, Lincoln Parish
Court House, 100 West Texas, third floor. Here are the meeting times and
agendas....
Electoral Deter-men-hers
-
Virgotex summarized the matrix of root voting impulses for Dems in 2020:
Democratic voters don't want "another" white male. They want a female
candidate...
Welcome to the Alexandria Postcard Collection
-
Postcards are an important medium in telling stories of the past. They are
historical masterpieces, showing life at points in time.
Greetings from Alexandr...
Rain Update, 1:10 p.m.
-
Our OEP Director has been asked about the effect the rain from folks who
were concerned about it over topping. The pic below was taken today and
show 6-7″ ...
brief dashcam clip of alleged sex offender arrest
-
brief dashcam clip of alleged sex offender arrest
some guy on a bicycle was allegedly looking at children through binoculars
across the street from the k...
Saying goodbye to our Old House
-
I never thought this day would come. We had to say goodbye to the “Big
House”, the old house, the Hynson-Ringgold house (and many other names)….
We were tr...
57th presidential inauguration 21 january 2013
-
57th presidential inauguration 21 january 2013
oath of office and speech + more.
From: wesawthat1
Views: 748
10 ratings
Time: 57:56 More in News & Politics
Part 3: Maturity Through Surrender
-
Description www.eaec.org
www.facebook.com/EuropeanAmericanEvangelisticCrusades Welcome to
Resurrection Life of Jesus Church. We are a Bible centered group ...
The Real Origins of Neocons
-
*Russian Lies: Shadow of Jabotinksy*
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
Philip Weiss reviews *They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, ...
Our Future Looks Glorious…if We Repent
-
“The Lord will not let the righteous go hungry…” ~ Proverbs 10:3 I remember
how this text struck me as I read it for the first time as a young boy[...]
Last Days Lunacy and End Times Madness
-
Podcast: LAST DAYS LUNACY and END TIMES MADNESS (The following commentary
is a reprint of the chapter Bible Basics 101: Last Days/End Times and The
Second ...
The uranium is spreading, so other nations will be affected. But not many people care because the Zionists have fooled people into thinking the uranium is safe because it has been depleted.
"a tale of 1001 nights"
The Iran Bourse
so, last night we were channel surfing and came to stop at...we are embarrased to admit this..faux news, but only because they were doing an interview with the aunt (fathers sister) of natalee holloway. anyway, during the course of the interview we noticed in the crawl all the "news channels" do nowadays, something about franklin graham comparing the us army 's [iraq] sacrifice to the sacrifice made by jesus?!? so this morning we held our nose's and went on fox news website but couldnt find the story. next we did a google news search on franklin graham (which is what we should have done in the first place) and found a story.
Another Year Of Carnage
zionist whore nancy pelosi at a recent aipac conference
