My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Who are the "far right" fascists? Threatened by rise of tea partiers and libertarians, neocon Fox News sicks the Feds on alternative Right media

Fox News Trawls Infowars Comments, Reports Alex Jones To Authorities
(Prison -- By Paul Joseph Watson --

For anyone who thought Fox News would offer any kind of alternative to the fever pitch media demonization campaign being run by the likes of CNN and MSNBC against conservatives, libertarians, and anyone angry at the passage of Obamacare – think again. It turns out that Fox News has been spending its time trawling the comments section of looking for any excuse to shop Alex Jones in to the authorities.

That’s right – amidst thousands of political websites and millions of comments left on articles and forums across the entire spectrum of the world wide web, Fox News decided to target Alex Jones’ websites for a Nazi-style denunciation campaign in an effort to have the powers that be crack down on Infowars and shut down their competition.

“Hundreds of comments were posted in response to an incendiary story on, the radical far-right Web site owned by radio host Alex Jones. The story, entitled, ‘The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family,’ focused on the ‘increasing militarization of the IRS’ and its expansion of powers under the new health care law,” writes Fox News’ Jana Winter, adding that a “federal probe has been launched into the comments”.

In a separate Fox News article about an investigation into comments allegedly posted on by an individual calling himself “ACA,” we learn that it was Fox News itself who reported the comments to authorities.

“ACA,” the husband of a military servicewoman living on a Tennessee Naval base, had his weapons seized and is under scrutiny by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service as a result of alleged threats he made to kill police officers and other government officials.

“This action was taken after inquired about the online comment,” states the article. The Fox News story is posted in the “Terror” section of the website, an effort to link Alex Jones and to terrorists.

So in actual fact Fox News is paying its employees to search through the thousands of comments Infowars receives each day that even our own moderators cannot properly keep up with, in a desperate effort to find any hint of violent rhetoric as an excuse to turn in Alex Jones to the authorities, in some kind of bizarre thought police/Nazi denunciation campaign.

Fox News isn’t interested in Neo-Nazi and white supremacist websites that openly call for violence on a daily basis, nor do they care about the hundreds of comments that can casually be found on any day of the week underneath You Tube videos calling for Obama to be assassinated – no – they’re only interested in sifting through mountains of comments on websites owned by Alex Jones that might be perceived as violent...MORE...LINK

The problem with white nationalism as a response to the Zionist and Leftist plunder of America [updated]

Editor's note: this brief treatment came from my participation in the "comments" section at The Occidental Observer Blog in response to Kevin MacDonald's post Frank Rich's Triumphalism. I had made the point that one reason white Americans would reject white nationalism is because "probably a majority of white Americans now have at least one 'person of color' relative.”

Gussie Fink-Nottle replied, in part: "Laughable, given the relatively low rate of miscegenation among American whites."

Here is my response. -- Chris Moore

Fair enough. I have no source for my statement, and don’t know if a source even exists. But the point I’m trying to convey is that A) a lot of white Americans are related one way or another (marriage, shirt-tail relatives, etc) to a person of color (native american, hispanic, black, asian or mixed blood); beyond that, B) a lot of white Americans have friends that fall into the person of color category; C) a lot of white Americans have employees in the p of c category; D) a lot of white Americans would look at the “white nationalist” movement and say “Gee, I wonder if I qualify” (Italian-Americans, for instance). Or they’d say, hey, I’m not going to join the white nationalists and turn against A,B, and C above.

Besides, IMO, the obsession with blood lines is so Old Testament and anally Jewish.

The reason Western civilization was so successful and the Nazis were not is because Western civilization incorporated the various tribes it conquered into its value system and marched forward. The Nazis (and Zionists) by definition of their ideology, are exclusive and seek to keep people OUT (although the Zionists have plenty of 2nd class, non-Jewish useful idiots on both Left and Right doing their bidding).

The problem with what’s going on in this country is a combination of ideological Zionism and ideological multiculturalism (which was engineered by Jewish Zionists and Leftists to allow the former to keep their identity and pursue their supremacy without assimilating and to allow the latter to assemble various “tribes” and fashion them into a powerful coalition for political gain).

IMO, the solution is a Christian-ethic based, explicitly philo-Western civilization mass movement that crushes all tribal ideologies within our borders, including multi-culturalism and Zionism. This means routing the tribalistic rouges, multicultural Leftists, and neocons from the federal government, and preventing them from using it to tribalize us ever again by replacing their ideologies with libertarianism.


I’ll raise the issue again: If “whiteness” is the whole answer, why have so many modern whites embraced Marxism, socialism, left-liberalism, neoconservatism, and civilization-killing globalizationism, materialism, and money worship — all of which have made them putty in the hands of the Zionists? The Judeofascists may be at the root of many of these ideologies and movements, but being white in no way immunized whitey. Modern whites may be even MORE likely to join one of the above, and unquestionably more likely to join one of the last four.

In a pinch, I’d jump into a fox hole with a brown peasant with authentic Christian principles way before I’d ever get into one with a contemporary white who subscribes to any of the above.

AReader says: "...Zionists control public education, mass media, and entertainment – the most effective means of brainwashing and indoctrination."

And how were they able to wrestle all that from the Protestant establishment? Because the Protestant establishment was more interested in money worship, liberalism and golf than protecting Western civilization, and because organized Jewry and the Left were able to rewrite history and lay Nazism at the feet of Christianity, shattering both Christianity's moral authority and damaging the cause of Western civilization. The corrupt Jewish establishment became America's new moral authority, and has been raping America ever since, and using it to advance Zionism.

The problem was that while establishment liberalism may have joined the Right in anti-Communism, it was soft on the American Left, and soft on organized left-Jewry, and every time the Right pushed against left-Jewry and the American left, they got the “fascist” cat-call thrown in their face. Taking on a fifth column AND defeating Soviet Communism while simultaneously being sucker-punched with inferences of Nazism proved to be too much.

Regaining the moral authority is key to saving the country. That means hammering the left-liberals, Zionists, neocons, and their partnership in evil, not mirroring Jewish nationalism with white nationalism.

UPDATE #2-------------------------

@ AReader: "...The bottom line is that brave and friendly Anglo-Saxon protestants build a society based on individual liberties, limited government, and rule of law, that favored honesty and hard work and punished deceit and social parasitism, at least in principle if not always in practice...Some Jewish immigrants took advantage of the benevolence of their hosts, as well as the loopholes in their legal system, and infiltrated nation’s most critical communication structures..."

The REAL bottom line is that (certain) brave and friendly Anglo-Saxon protestants started collaborating with (certain) Jews in the rape and plunder of the country — certain kinds of “brave and friendly” Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the vein of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — certain kinds of unprincipled, money-worshipping and liberal “Protestants” who started cutting Faustian bargains and couldn’t stop.

But hey, if you’d rather put your head in the sand and ignore the role of “honest and hard working” “Protestants” like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and their predecessor ilk (who probably never put in an honest days work in their lives) well then I can see why my “rhetoric” would rub you the wrong way.

Accountability is a bitch, especially for the recent generations of Americans who fell down on the job due to their own lack of character, and who are handing off an America that is increasingly a Zionist infiltrated cesspool.

Please spare me your despicable excuse making and finger pointing. It’s quite craven.

@ me: "a greek traitor showed the persians the passage that allowed them to slaughter the spartans at thermopylae….doesn’t make greece or greeks not worth defending, or mean it was valueless.”

Millions of (white) Judeo-Christian Zionists, and millions of (white) Judeophile liberals, and millions of (white) money-worshipping Faustians easily adds up to a hell of a lot more than one Greek; it adds up to a plurality (if not a majority) of whites. And what all of them have in common is that they buy into this Zionist-pimped nonsense of a new, post-Western civilization, brave new world led by Judeo-America. Yes, even the liberals (or more correctly, neoliberals). And they’ll flog that horse until the country collapses, because they’re like a massive cult of crazy Hebrews.

It’s a new paradigm, people. And you’ve got to pick your battles. And if you want to take on all of them on one front, and all of the people of color (including Christian minorities) on the other, then you…will…lose.

It is ESSENTIAL that this battle be fought by every human being of good will, color be damned.

@ A Reader: “I don’t think you are getting it and there is nothing I can do about it.”

Oh, I get it all right. “Humph! Authentic Protestants would never…”

But you’re missing my point. Authentic Protestants would indeed — they’re called Christian Zionists, and today they’re considered as authentically Protestant as you are — in fact, perhaps even MORE authentic than you. From their perspective, you’re just an old school, stick in the mud anti-Semite. The new word is that the Jews have a special dispensation, and the Jewish Israelites are to be praised and followed to the high heavens, no questions asked. Or haven’t you heard?

Rachel Maddow, gleeful, shiny-eyed cheerleader for the politically correct police state

The Hutaree and MSNBC Militias
( -- By Scott Horton

Over the weekend in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, eight men of the “Hutaree Militia” were arrested (a ninth turned himself in Monday), and all have been charged with “seditious conspiracy,” “attempting to use weapons of mass destruction,” and firearms violations. Two of the nine are charged with “instructing” others how to make bombs. The indictment [.pdf] charges that these member of the so-called Hutaree Militia had plans to lure cops into various ambushes in furtherance of their plan for war against the Antichrist.

All the rest of the Michigan militias are telling the press that they had nothing to do with the accused, having long considered them trouble, and they reportedly even refused some of the Hutarees sanctuary once the arrests began.

A safe first guess on a case like this is that the Feds have just made up another one. The formula is always the same for them: Find a person or a small group of people who are gullible and bordering on criminal, then trick them into saying, or sometimes even doing, something stupid and/or evil. See for example the Miami 7, the Detroit 5, the Lodi 1, the NY 2, the NY 4…

In this case it seems that the self-proclaimed militia leader and his son somehow joined up with a very strange character named Khristopher Sickels and a few others and planned to make IEDs and use them against local police.

The funny part is, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reported Monday, “The FBI had infiltrated the group for several months,” attributing this information to Detroit News 4, though the closest thing this writer can find to that on their Web site is the assertion that “federal authorities had been monitoring the Hutaree members for some time.”

I’m betting Maddow’s interpretation that they had actually been infiltrated is accurate and that the worst of whatever these people actually did was at the urging of said federal agent.

(By the way, does “weapons of mass destruction” have a definition at all these days? It started out as a cute way for the empire to conflate mustard gas with hydrogen bombs, but now rifles and homemade land mines – at least in the hands of non-U.S. government employees – are included as well.)

Maddow, as Lew Rockwell pointed out on Monday, was beside herself with glee at the prospect of these citizens being tried by the federal government for “seditious conspiracy,” which, as she put it, is an “obscure 19th-century law” which allows the national government to imprison people who haven’t actually done anything. Wow, that really is “interesting.”

And if you stay tuned for the next segment, you can watch Maddow push her expert guest to conflate everyone to the right of her into the imminent threat of the right-wing populist, Patriot, neo-Nazi, End Timeser, abortion-doctor killer, Republican, Tea Party Armed Insurrection of Danger! He refused, but this Maddow lady is only getting started. Just wait till she becomes director-for-life of the New National Homeland FEMA Camp, Northern Command. We’ll all be seditious terrorist-hate-crime-enemy-belligerents.

You’ll wish you’d joined a militia then...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and MSNBC, are all either ideological Zionists or Zionist shills.

Maddow and Olbermann's attraction to a politically correct police state is totally consistent with the Zionist ideology, which operates through gaining political power by purporting to champion small, vulnerable, minority groups who have supposedly been victimized; leverages that "victim" status to grow an authoritarian, pseudo-secular, Jewish-supremacist police state ostensibly necessary to "protect" the vulnerable, and then justifies the abuses and murders of that police state by maintaining it's all being done to "save" the vulnerable "victims." That's exactly how Israel successfully pulled off its Gaza massacre of Palestinians, and the model that Left-authoritarians have followed for decades going all the way back to the Soviet Union, which utilized a totalitarian police state to murder millions -- all in the name of pursuing "social justice."

Speaking of Gaza, recall Maddow's reaction at the height of Israel's atrocities, when it was carrying out the butchering of defenseless women and children in what the United Nations would later find to be war crimes, the phony "humanitarian" Maddow set up her whitewash of the atrocities with standard hasbara (Zionist "explanation" propaganda) that Israel is "a tiny country, a Jewish state, right smack dab in the middle of the Arab world, surrounded on all sides by Arab nations, many of whom do not recognize Israel's right to exist."

What any of this had to do with the Jewish state's butchering of Palestinian women and children is totally irrelevant, other than as means to, again, justify the Zionist ideology and its abuses by presenting what are clear bullying, police state offensives as mere defensive measures taken to "protect" a "vulnerable" population of historical "victims."

Watch Maddow and her Zionist-ideology hasbara here (and keep in mind that as she spoke, Palestinians women and children were being massacred in Gaza by the Israeli authoritarians) and decide for yourself whether this despicable, saccharin-sweet, "politically correct police state" shrew is an ideological Zionist or not:

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Treacherous Bushcon/neocon snakes back ex-Democrat, neoliberal pseudo-conservative over authentic tea party conservative Rand Paul

SA@TAC - Dangerous Rand Paul
(You Tube) -- By southernavenger --

Dick Cheney's fear of Rand Paul's success in his race for US Senate in Kentucky represents everything that's right--and wrong--with the mainstream conservative movement...LINK

Violent, racist Left (and right-wing neocons) rewrite history to demonize peaceful Ron Paul and Tea Party whites

The Real Anti-Americans
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

As Democrats, after a Sunday rally on the Capitol grounds, marched to the House hand-in-hand to vote health care reform, Tea Partiers reportedly shouted the “n-word” at John Lewis and another black congressman. A third was allegedly spat upon. And Barney Frank was called a nasty name.

Tea Partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.

Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they’ve been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.

If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.

This is the politics of desperation.

Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of “aiding and abetting … terrorism.” New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the Tea Party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:
“How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht.”

Kristallnacht, “Crystal Night,” the “Night of Broken Glass,” was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.

To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.

Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made “some Americans run off the rails,” said Rich, have we seen anything like this.

Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn’t the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went “all the way with LBJ.”

Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors’ offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.

No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to “pal around” with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.

As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” and, “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win,” when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?

The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the Tea Party folks who chanted, “Kill the bill,” outside the House behave worse than that?

Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.

How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?

Not one Tea Partier, man or woman.

The “mass hysteria” of the Tea Party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. “By 2012 … non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party is virtually all white. … Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.”

Rich is implying that when America’s white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.

Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.

A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.

If the Tea Party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Indeed, Rich seems fixated on "whites," noting in his article that "The Tea Party movement is virtually all white," which may or may not be true.

But it's not just “leftist elites" demonizing white populists, tea partiers and libertarians. Notice that in a precursor article to Rich’s latest racial attack on whites, he attacked Ron Paul and the Tea Party movement by quoting Wall Street Journal neocon Dorthy Rabinowitz's description of Ron Paul's followers as “conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged.”

In addition to their hatred of the Tea Party movement, what do white-hating leftist elites like Rich and Ron Paul hating right-wing neocons like Rabinowitz have in common? Why, they're both Jewish Israel-firsters, of course.

I wonder how much of their political and racial theorizing and demonization is itself grounded in chauvinism and a desire to assert their own tribal supremacy here in America the same violently militant and authoritarian way they do in Palestine? They may, in fact, be projecting onto whites their own sinister motives and racist characteristics.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Corrupt MSM and Political Class may hate them, but average Americans find tea partiers far more ethical and appealing than they find Congress

Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress
(Rasmussen Reports) --

In official Washington, some consider the Tea Party movement a fringe element in society, but voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

As you would expect, there is a wide divide between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed.

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

“The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century,” Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance. “If we had to rely on politicians to fix these problems, the outlook for the nation would be bleak indeed. Fortunately, in America, the politicians aren’t nearly as important as they think they are.”...MORE...LINK

Spurning corrupted Dollar and Euro, central banks around the world clamor for gold as safer, more reliable reserve currency

Central Banks Stashing Away Gold at Brisk Pace
( -- By Dan Weil --

Central banks around the world added 425.4 metric tons of gold to their reserves last year, the biggest increase since 1964, according to the World Gold Council.

That represents a 1.4 percent gain to put their holdings at 30,116.9 tons in total. The increase was the first since 1988.

Central banks in India, Russia and China were among those boosting their gold reserves last year, as the precious metal jumped 24 percent, hitting a record of $1,226 an ounce in December.

Central banks now possess 18 percent of all gold ever mined.

“There’s clearly been a renaissance of gold in central bankers’ minds,” Nick Moore, an analyst at Royal Bank of Scotland, told Bloomberg.

“It’s not just been central banks taking on gold, but a general shift for physical gold in the investment sector.”

Many are now singing gold’s praises, with the precious metal up about 3 percent so far this year.

“Gold is quietly, at the edge, becoming the world’s second reservable currency, supplanting the euro and rivaling the dollar,” money manager Dennis Gartman wrote in his Gartman Letter, obtained by Bloomberg.

“The trend shall continue months, if not years, into the future.”...MORE...LINK

Turning the tables: Alex Jones rips CNN's murderous Iraq warmongering in interview it hoped to use against tea party "extremists"

Alex Jones Inside CNN Attack Piece 1/2
(You Tube) -- TheAlexJonesChannel --

...Alex calls out CNN for their complicity in "violence" through the promotion of the Iraq War-- which resulted in more than 1 million dead Iraqi civilians, including women and children. Alex dares CNN to mention over the airwaves the fact that Anderson Cooper was admittedly in the CIA and is part of the elite Astor family, or the fact that CNN reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 more than an hour ahead of attempt, likely in response to an early Reuters wire report. Yet, no retraction has been made.

Whether or not Alex's strong response to the attempts at painting political dissent as "violent" terrorism will ever be aired or not remains to be seen...MORE...LINK

NYT columnist Frank Rich: Big Government "liberal," Jewish, and a Ron Paul/Tea Party hater; No wonder he takes diction from Israel-first neocons

New York Times' Frank Rich attacks Ron Paul movement
(By Kinetic Reaction) --

Frank Rich, a writer for the New York Times, wrote an article attacking Ron Paul and his supporters a couple of days ago, called The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged.

In it he laments that the status quo big government Republicans are being replaced by "Glenn Beck, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin".

Frank Rich is worried, because this new type of Republican doesn't just want to make cosmetic changes to the federal government, it wants to cut out every thing that he loves about the federal government:

"The Tea Partiers want to eliminate most government agencies, starting with the Fed and the I.R.S., and end spending on entitlement programs. They are not to be confused with the Party of No holding forth in Washington — a party that, after all, is now positioning itself as a defender of Medicare spending. What we are talking about here is the Party of No Government at All."

He then mentions Ron Paul winning the CPAC straw poll, and goes on to quote the far right Israel-firster, Dorothy Rabinowitz, to describe Ron Paul's supporters as "conspiracy theorists, anti-government zealots, 9/11 truthers, and assorted other cadres of the obsessed and deranged."

Dorothy Rabinowitz, a senior member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, is one of Israel's fiercest and most pro-war advocates in the American media. She, along with other staff at the Wall Street Journal, have regularly railed against the Ron Paul movement and its position of non-intervention in the middle east. For example Bret Stephens made a series of ridiculous attacks back in February 2008 about Ron Paul in an article called "Ron Paul and Foreign Policy".

Frank Rich, the self-described liberal, is giving credit to an assessment of Ron Paul's supporters by a pro-war Israeli lobbyist, and in the process, demonstrating an absence of principles and judgment. It would require extreme naivete on Frank Rich's part to not realize that Dorothy Rabinowitz has a vested interest in trying to smear Ron Paul and his supporters due to her support for Israel. It's more likely that he realizes this, but does not care, in which case it demonstrates a lack of character. Either way, it does not bode well for his judgment and long term strategic vision.

To him, the idea of cutting back on federal spending that is unsustainable, and returning America to a limited Constitutional model where states, rather than a single all-powerful federal government, make policy, is so intolerable, that he would prefer pro-war neocons who promote a foreign policy for the benefit of a foreign country to be in power...MORE...LINK

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Lying Left politicos, media make a major blunder by declaring white dissidents opposed to their political program “racists”

So all Tea Party members are racists?
(Daily Telegraph) -- By Toby Harnden --

When you have absolutely no argument to advance, what’s the easiest thing to do? Denounce your opponents as racist. Colbert King, who won a Pulitzer for “distinguished commentary” in 2003, really plumbs the depths with this column. The Tea Party crowd needn’t be your particular cup of Earl Grey to spot the intellectual bankruptcy of this kind of thing:

"Tea Party members, as with their forerunners who showed up at the University of Alabama and Central High School, behave as they do because they have been culturally conditioned to believe they are entitled to do whatever they want, and to whomever they want, because they are the “real Americans,” while all who don’t think or look like them are not…Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today’s Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies. They, like Wallace’s followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America. They see the world through the eyes of the anti-civil rights alumni."

I talked to a bunch of Tea Party activists – including a grandmother and a paediatric heart transplant surgeon – protesting outside President Barack Obama’s event in Iowa City on Thursday. Passionate? Yes. Angry? Yes. Irrational? Some of them. Paranoid? Perhaps in some cases. White? Well, yes. I spotted one black guy in about 150 protesters. Racist? No – or certainly not a hint of it from anyone that I talked to.

The trouble with playing the racism card is that is an attempt to stifle dissent – what you are saying is illegitimate because your real rationale is that you hate blacks. Understandably, it drives people crazy. And just who is being racist by looking at a predominantly white crowd and leaping to the conclusion that they are all motivated by racial hatred?

In the past week, I think the Left has seriously overplayed its hand. The accusations of a wave of dangerous violence against pro-health care Democrats have been wildly overblown, as James Taranto skillfully debunks here. Most will see it as a clumsy attempt to marinalise opposition...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

This entire phenomenon of elite media and cynical political opportunists declaring opponents of their self-serving, authoritarian political programs to be "racists" reminds me of how Jewish Zionists declare American opponents of US aid to Israeli apartheid and ethnic cleansing to be "anti-Semites." Little wonder that a Jewish New York Times columnist (one of many white-hating Big Government Jewish elites in mass media who, just like their Zionist cousins, are the REAL racists) is leading the elite "liberal" media charge to conflate tea partiers not only with racism, but with anti-Semitism as well.

Here's Frank Rich's latest bit of racial demagoguery towards tea partiers:
There’s nothing entertaining about watching goons hurl venomous slurs at congressmen like the civil rights hero John Lewis and the openly gay Barney Frank. And as the week dragged on, and reports of death threats and vandalism stretched from Arizona to Kansas to upstate New York, the F.B.I. and the local police had to get into the act to protect members of Congress and their families. How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.
If only Rich were half so racially sensetive about the plight of the Palestinians, who after all are being subjected to organized Zionist racism that dwarfs even the worst behavior exhibited in the Old South, and have been for decades, then maybe Americans would have a more complete understanding of who the real villains driving racial enmity truly are. But to do that, he would have to be a non-tribalist, which like so many in his Big Government coalitions, clearly he is not.

This country is never going to progress into a truly race-blind future until cynics, opportunists and plain old bigots who can't get past their own primitive tribal loyalties get the lazy, ethnic-card crutch kicked out from under them. The problem is, the tribalists with their snouts in the Big Government trough who leverage their ethnic networks into political power and personal enrichment at the expense of the entirety of the country have vested interests in keeping us at each other's throats racially, religiously and ethnically -- they want to keep their tribe, and hence their power base, racially conscious, intact, and hence extracting maximum amounts from non-tribal Americans for themselves by way of taxpayer largesse and racial spoils.

No wonder they utilize mass media to stir up racial enmity through sensation, exaggeration and hyperbole at every opportunity.

The biggest racists aren't the average Americans who increasingly realize these special interest thieves and thugs are using Big Government to divide and rob us, but rather the cynics and opportunists of Left AND Right who reach for the race and tribal card for self-serving gain by way of the Big Government welfare-warfare state. It is these who are whipping up fear, paranoia and racial animosity towards those who are merely engaged in political expression simply because they are not engaged in State-approved political expression, not the other way around.

As always, it is these Big Government bullies and thugs that are sowing the seeds of conflict, strife and totalitarianism, not those that oppose them.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Fed is running a confidence game that preys upon the faith of the American people in the good will of their government

The Federal Reserve as a Confidence Game: What They Were Saying in 2007
(Mises Daily) -- by --

In February of 2004, I published an article entitled "Greenspam." The general lesson was not to listen to Greenspan's deceptive testimony. Delete it from your mind like spam email messages. Watch what he has done and what he is doing, in order to protect your wealth and capital. Discount anything you read about his testimony, except Congressmen Paul's questions and commentary.

This talk will be a follow up to that article. I will describe central banking as a confidence game.

The Federal Reserve plays a confidence game with us. A confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flimflam, hustle, scam, scheme, or swindle) is defined as an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist, and any accomplices are known as shills. Confidence men exploit human characteristics such as greed, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity, and naïveté. The common factor is that the mark relies on the good faith of the con artist.

Here I will concentrate on the Fed's basic confidence game of trying to gain and maintain our confidence in its system and getting us to not take proper precautions against the negative effects of its policies.

Inflation is surely a scam and part of the confidence game — printing up money and lowering the value of all dollar-denominated assets while simultaneously benefitting political friends and accomplices is surely a fraud that could be classified as a confidence game. This is even more true because when the people finally lose confidence in the Fed system and realize what the Fed has been doing, the game will be up, the dollar will go down, and the Fed will come to an end!

There are some more basic aspects of the fraudulent nature of the Fed that I will not address here. Is the Fed a "conspiracy"? This is an aspect that is probably addressed most fully by the G. Edward Griffin book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. Or is the Federal Reserve just a cover for a banking cartel? This question has been fully addressed in the works of Murray Rothbard.
We will set aside some other fraudulent issues with the Fed. Issues like, why hasn't the nation's gold supply been audited in decades? Why hasn't the Fed itself been properly audited? And has the Fed been manipulating the gold market or surreptitiously leasing out the nation's gold supply? I suppose all of these issues are related to the basic general con game, but they are not necessary to make our general point here today.

The basic focus here will be on the Fed's mission to instill confidence in us about the economy while simultaneously instilling confidence in us about the abilities of the Fed itself. The first mission is easy to see because Fed officials are almost always publically bullish and hardly ever publically bearish about the economy. The economy always looks good, if not great. If there are some problems, don't worry, the Fed will come to the rescue with truckloads of money, lower interest rates, and easy credit. If things were to get worse, which they won't, the Fed would be able to respond with monetary weapons of mass stimulation...

We can see that the Fed is a confidence game. Their public pronouncements, while heavily nuanced and hedged, uniformly present the American people with a rosy scenario of the economy, the future, and the ability of the Fed to manage the market. Ben Bernanke told Congress this week that we are in the early stages of an economic recovery. Of course, he has been saying that since the spring of 2009 (if not earlier).

These are the people who said that there was no housing bubble, that there was no danger of financial crisis, and then that a financial crisis would not impact the real economy. These are the same people who said they needed a multitrillion dollar bailout of the financial industry, or we would get severe trouble in the economy. They got their bailout, and we got the severe trouble anyways. It is time to bring this game, this confidence game, to an end...MORE...LINK

"Progressive" Obama admin's regressive character unmasked in green light to kill U.S. citizens

Deep Background
(The American Conservative) -- By Philip Giraldi --

Even in World War II, the United States did not attempt to assassinate U.S. citizens who went over to the enemy, but that has now changed with President Obama’s overseas contingency operations. On Feb. 3, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the United States government has developed procedures for killing American citizens abroad who are “involved” with groups threatening to carry out terrorist acts directed against other Americans. Three U.S. citizens have already been approved by the White House for summary execution as soon as actionable intelligence is developed to enable a pilotless drone’s hellfire missiles to do the killing. One is Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi; the second is American al-Qaeda member Adam Perlman, who goes under the name Adam Yahiye Gadahn; and the third is believed to be a Somali from Minnesota who has joined the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabab in the Horn of Africa. Anwar al-Aulaqi, linked in the media to the Christmas underwear bombing and with Major Malik Nadal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, has denied any involvement in either incident. Perlman, a propagandist for al-Qaeda, is in Waziristan. Killing these men would involve using military drones to attack targets in three countries with which the United States is not at war.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee a citizen due process and a public trial, as well as the right to confront his accuser. The Obama administration is arguing that these American turncoats do not have constitutional rights because they are not physically in the United States and are actively engaged in planning terrorist acts that the government has the right to disrupt by killing them preemptively. Blair has also explained that there are “defined policies and legal procedures,” but as the criteria for inclusion on the kill list are secret, due process is likely limited to the ruminations of a senior bureaucrat and a government lawyer, neither of whom has a mandate to protect the rights of the suspect. Furthermore, Blair’s use of the world “involved” suggests that the definition of terrorist activity might be somewhat elastic. The result is that secret information used to make a secret decision can very definitely get you killed in the Obama White House’s Brave New World. It will also kill many of your friends and family, as the hellfire missiles are notorious for their infliction of collateral damage.

Killing dissident citizens without due process is not a unique practice. Libyans, Iranians, and Soviets all did it in the 1980s and 1990s. But it is unusual in a liberal democracy where there are restraints on depriving a citizen of his life. The odd thing is that no one who matters seems too disturbed. No congressional committee protested, the New York Times only ran a short discussion thread on its online opinion page, and the Washington Post relegated the story to page 3 without any follow-up...LINK

Increasingly totalitarian Left oligarchy bares its fangs with the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine" designed to strangle oppositional speech

Alex Puts Ed Schultz in His Place Over "Fairness Doctrine" on The Alex Jones Show
(You Tube) -- TheAlexJonesChannel --

Alex Jones calls out Ed Schultz for crying foul over not being as popular as Rush Limbaugh and demanding that Obama brings back the "Fairness Doctrine."...LINK

How Big Government caused the housing crash

Government Caused the Meltdown
( -- by George C. Leef --

Thomas Woods’s Meltdown is a truly radical book.

That is to say, it probes to the root of America’s persistent boom-and-bust economic cycles. Not only has the most recent episode, beginning in 2007 with the rapid collapse of inflated housing prices, brought about widespread economic pain as unemployment rises, foreclosures increase, and bankruptcies mount, but it has also brought us to the brink of a sea change in the United States. For decades, the United States has been sliding into the quicksand pit of federal domination of the economy (and also most other facets of life). Now the politicians responsible for the current economic debacle are determined to use it as the leverage they need to force changes that will greatly increase Washington’s grip on the populace. They want to push us past the point of no return.

The country is in such grave danger because few people understand the real causes of our troubles. Overwhelmingly, politicians, opinion leaders, and academicians have pinned the blame for the current crisis on capitalism. They maintain that we can regain prosperity only if the federal government spends money like never before, bails out failing companies, and exerts far more regulatory control over what’s left of free enterprise...

...In Meltdown, Woods explains the truth: government blundering got us into the current recession and if we allow the politicians to exploit it to increase their power, we will have made a gigantic, perhaps fatal mistake. The book gives the reader an excellent, clear discussion of the causes and consequences of the housing bubble, but goes further to provide a convincing explanation of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. After reading the book, readers will be familiar with the names von Mises and Hayek; they will understand why it is impossible for the government to make a nation wealthy by inflating the supply of money; they will know why we would be much better off if we took control of money and credit entirely out of government hands...

Woods has two main objectives, first to set the record straight regarding the housing bubble and the frantic governmental efforts to deal with its aftereffects, and second to explain what policy changes are necessary to prevent future bubbles. He succeeds admirably in both.

Fearing that they would be blamed for the economic turmoil, leading politicians (including both the Democratic and the Republican presidential candidates in 2008) proclaimed that it was not due to government meddling, but instead had been caused by “laissez-faire philosophy” and greed. And intellectuals, eager to protect their stake in the alleged benevolence and wisdom of federal economic regulation – people such as Paul Krugman – leaped up to say that the crisis couldn’t be blamed on the government. Woods clears away the fog of self-serving falsehoods, showing that the collapse of the housing market was the entirely predictable result of federal policies for which the politicians and intellectuals were happy to take credit as long as they seemed to be “working.” He writes, “Following a familiar pattern, government failure has been blamed on anyone and everyone but the government itself. And of course, the same government failure is being used to justify further increases in government power.”

The home-loan debacle

The first part of the book examines the government’s policy blunders, beginning with the very notion of federal housing policy. The Constitution says nothing about housing, but in 1938 Congress and President Roosevelt created the Federal National Mortgage Association, usually called “Fannie Mae.” They did so because they thought it was a good idea to promote home ownership and figured that establishing a “government sponsored entity” to buy mortgages from lenders would do that. Of course, there were millions of Americans who owned houses prior to the creation of Fannie. There was no problem that needed to be solved, but the politicians thought it would be a popular move, so they went ahead, never contemplating that getting the government into the home-financing business would one day lead to disaster.

Fannie’s mortgage-backed securities were sold to investors worldwide, most of whom assumed that the paper was sound, backed by the U.S. government. Woods writes, “Everybody knew that if the GSEs [Fannie and its younger sibling, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation or “Freddie Mac,” are known as government-sponsored enterprises – GSEs] ran into trouble, they would be bailed out at taxpayer expense.” They ran into enormous trouble and were bailed out, but hardly anyone has had the guts to blame these political pets and call for their abolition.

Another of the culprits Woods identifies is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which used political leverage to compel banks to make more loans “in their communities.” This law (again, outside the constitutional authority of Congress but enacted anyway) was a power play to force banks to make loans they would not otherwise choose to, directing capital in ways that please the activists and politicians. Under the Clinton administration, this statute was used to compel banks to meet quotas of home loans to high-risk people. At the same time, Clinton forced Fannie and Freddie to purchase high-risk mortgages. Woods shows, in short, that political pressure was used to undermine the traditionally cautious lending standards in the mortgage industry.

Politicians in both parties took delight in crowing that home ownership was increasing, especially among minority voting groups, without realizing that home ownership is not necessarily good for everyone. For persons with low and unsteady incomes, home ownership can be a costly mistake, as later proved to be the case for millions who had taken out loans they couldn’t repay.

The main culprit

By themselves, however, Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA could have done only minor economic damage. Woods identifies the main villain in this drama as the Federal Reserve System. For years, the Fed under long-time chairman Alan Greenspan pumped up the money supply so as to drive interest rates down to artificially low levels. Artificially low interest rates tricked people into acting differently than they otherwise would have. Home ownership and housing construction looked like great investments during the years 2002 to 2006 because of the outpouring of credit from the Fed, steered by politicians toward the housing market. If interest rates had remained at market levels, the housing bubble could not have grown to the enormous size it did.

When the Fed finally stopped its wildly expansionary policy and interest rates began rising, many borrowers found that they couldn’t afford to keep the homes they had been lured into buying, and many builders found that projects they had started couldn’t be completed because of insufficient demand. Institutions that had invested heavily in mortgage-backed securities discovered that their portfolios were nearly worthless. Firms collapsed and the stock market plunged.

Woods makes it clear that the government’s desperate moves to shore up unsound investments through bailouts are exactly the wrong policy. All the politicians are doing is taking resources from the healthy sectors of the economy to prop up the unhealthy, thus obstructing the efficient use of resources and rapid recovery from its cheap credit binge. Instead of getting the government out of the mortgage market, repealing the foolish CRA, and abolishing the Federal Reserve, the politicians are taking us further into the interventionist swamp with massive increases in government borrowing, spending, and economic controls...MORE...LINK

Alternative Right shouldn't let Big Government GOP be beneficiary of American rebellion against Big Government Dems

SA@TAC - Shame on Everyone for Obamacare
(You Tube) -- By southernavenger --

The Democrats ushered in Obamacare but Republicans laid the groundwork in 2003, and were certainly no heroes in the lead up to this latest big government scheme...LINK

The real goal of Dems and their latest smear campaign: the political disenfranchisement of millions of Americans

Masters of Distraction
(Real Clear Politics) -- By David Harsanyi --

...Most Americans abhor violence and no serious person has offered excuses or rationalized the actions of the smattering of loons who have threatened politicians who voted for health care reform.

But this campaign of distraction mounted by Democrats meaning to smear millions of Americans involved in legitimate political expression is as transparent as it is distasteful.

The narrative: Fearful underdog Democrats (true if you ignore their notable majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the presidency) are fending off hordes of ferocious, irrational detractors to do what's right.

Democrats insist Republicans must condemn - over and over - this imaginary rise of widespread radicalism. In doing so, they are implicitly accusing Republicans of controlling the aforementioned radicals.

Other Democrats, like Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, went as far as to claim that Republicans were "aiding and abetting terrorism" against Democrats...

Rep. Russ Carnahan, for instance, claims that a coffin was displayed near his home, which I will grant would be awfully intimidating - unless, of course, it turned out that the coffin was used in a peaceful political candlelight prayer vigil, as it was. (Go to Google for pictures.)

Maybe Carnahan confused prayer candles for torches.

We also heard terrible (third-hand and unsubstantiated) reports of folks spitting out "N" words and "F" words at representatives walking through Washington protests. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. It happens all the time.

"I've received threats since I assumed elected office, not only because of my position, but also because I'm Jewish," said Republican Whip Eric Cantor, who had a bullet shot through his office Monday. "I've never blamed anyone in this body for that. Period."

Democrats claim that the "mischaracterizing" of the substance and motives of their health-reform legislation generates angry and violent reaction. Well, I suppose that's subjective. There is a strong case to be made that the Republican characterization of Obamacare is far closer to reality than that offered by Democrats.

The real problem is that Tea Partiers represent the means of obstruction. They must be discredited, first as robotic foot soldiers of the insurance companies, then as out-of-control and potentially violent mobs...MORE...LINK

Bolshevik tactics come to America: Underhanded lefties trying to demonize Tea Partiers by racializing the debate?

Anatomy of a Racial Smear
(The American Thinker) -- By Jack Cashill --

...The McClatchy newspaper chain, whose slogan is "truth to power," launched an opening salvo on Saturday, March 20 with the inflammatory headline -- its exact words -- "Tea party protesters scream 'nigger' at black congressman." That is "protesters" in the plural who "scream" a racial epithet, "nigger," at a particular "congressman."

This one headline contains one perilously uncorroborated accusation and three conscious fabrications, beginning with the identity of the "congressman" in question. So much for "truth to power."

To give the story poignancy, reporter William Douglas makes iconic civil rights veteran John Lewis the subject of the abuse. He is the "congressman" alluded to in the headline. The only problem is that Lewis never heard anything. This is the first of the fabrications.

According to the article, Lewis was walking from the Cannon Office Building to the Capitol when protesters started shouting. According to Lewis, however, what they shouted was not a racial slur, but "Kill the bill, kill the bill." If he heard anything more derogatory, he does not seem to have told Douglas about it.

Lewis, it should be noted, is no slouch when it comes to race-baiting. During the 2008 campaign, he compared the McCain-Palin campaign to that of "presidential candidate George Wallace," whose comparable "atmosphere of hate" led to the fatal church bombing in Birmingham. So egregious were Lewis's comments that McCain called on Obama to "condemn" them.

As Douglas reports, it was Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), a Lewis colleague walking a few steps behind him, who actually claimed to have heard the slur. Note the way that Douglas runs these sentences together.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."

"It was a chorus," Cleaver said. "In a way, I feel sorry for those people who are doing this nasty stuff -- they're being whipped up. I decided I wouldn't be angry with any of them."
Douglas deliberately leaves the impression that Cleaver heard a "chorus" of people shouting racial slurs. The use of the plural in the headline is the second of the fabrications. The chorus was, in fact, shouting, "Kill the Bill."

It is unlikely that Cleaver misled Douglas. In the era of the ubiquitous camera, he would have known that such an accusation could be immediately refuted, as it certainly has been. The ample videotape evidence shows that there was no such chorus.

Cleaver does turn briefly to face the camera in one video, but regardless of what he might have heard or thought he heard, no one on the video is heard to "scream" anything racial. This is the third fabrication.

What is uncorroborated is whether Cleaver even heard a single person utter the slur in question. William Owens, a black Tea Party activist from Nevada who had joined in the protests, confirmed to, "Never did I hear any type of racial slur."

House majority whip James CIyburn, who walked with the contingent from the Black Caucus, heard no racist remarks either. "I experienced some of [the anger]," Clyburn told Keith Olbermann on March 22. "I didn`t hear the slurs."...MORE...LINK

Friday, March 26, 2010

U.S. troops in a fight for their lives -- domestically

Bibi’s Hollow Victory
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

...The American position?

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory. Building there violates international law. Peace requires a sharing of Jerusalem, return of almost all of the West Bank and withdrawal of the Jewish settlers. And any land annexed by Israel must be compensated for with Israeli land ceded to the Palestinians.

That the U.S. position is not anti-Israel is attested to by the fact that Prime Ministers Ehud Barack and Ehud Olmert came close to a peace with the Palestinians based on these principles.

Netanyahu, however, does not accept them. For he won office denouncing them, and in his ruling coalition are parties that not only opposed withdrawal from Gaza, they oppose a Palestinian state.

Given the irreconcilable positions, the deadlock, why will Israel not prevail as she always prevails in such collisions? Why would Bibi’s “No” to Obama’s demand for a halt to the building of settlements and a cancellation of the 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem not be the final and irrevocable answer that Obama must grudgingly accept?

Answer: There is a new party to the quarrel: the U.S. military, in the person of Gen. David Petraeus.

According to Foreign Policy magazine, in January, a delegation of senior officers from Petraeus’ command were sent to brief Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen.

“The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CentCom’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israel’s intransigence on the Arab-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that (George) Mitchell himself was … ‘too old, too slow and too late.’”

Mullen took this stark message — that America was seen as too weak to stand up to Israel, and the U.S. military posture was eroding in the Arab world as a result — straight to the White House. Hence, when Joe Biden was sandbagged in Israel, he apparently tore into Bibi in private.

“This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Yedioth Ahronoth further reported: “The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and U.S. policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops.”

Biden was saying Israeli intransigence could cost American lives.

Each new report of settlement expansion, each new seizure of Palestinian property, each new West Bank clash between Palestinians and Israeli troops inflames the Arab street, humiliates our Arab allies, exposes America as a weakling that cannot stand up to Israel, and imperils our troops and their mission in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As this message has now been delivered by Gen. Petraeus to his commander in chief, Obama simply cannot back down again. If he does not stand up now for U.S. interests, which are being imperiled by Israeli actions, he will lose the backing of his soldiers.

U.S.-Israeli relations are approaching a “Whose side are you on?” moment. Either Bibi backs down this time — or Obama loses his soldiers...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

The Israel lobby is essentially an arm of the Israeli government. And of course, the Israel government has no qualms whatsoever about sending American troops off to fight Israel’s battles by way of its American minions lobbying for war, because it bears no political consequences for the actions, or the deaths of U.S. soldiers. The only downside for Israel is that if Americans ever fully find out about its treachery, this could theoretically impact its foreign aid/welfare -- and its lobby and minions help prevent Americans from fully finding out with their outsized influence in Washington and mass media.

American troops are basically being held hostage by corrupt Washington dancing to the tune of the Israeli government, and they increasingly realize this. They don’t want to get stuck fighting another war for Israel -- this time against Iran -- which isn’t even in America’s interests, and for many of them would be a death sentence.

The entire scenario with its corrupt Senators, its influence peddling fifth column, and its restive legions is starting to get the feel of a Shakespearian Roman tragedy.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

The triumph of liberal fascism: Big Business the big winner in Obamacare

Obama gives sugar plums to the special interests
(Washington Ecaminer) -- By Timothy P. Carney --

"Tonight," President Obama intoned near midnight Sunday, after the House had passed two health care bills, "we pushed back on the undue influence of special interests. ... We proved that this government -- a government of the people and by the people -- still works for the people."

But even before the president spoke, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America -- whose $26.1 million lobbying effort in 2009 was the most expensive by any industry lobby in history -- hailed the health package as "important and historic."

The second-biggest industry lobby in America, the American Medical Association, also cheered, as did the American Hospital Association, the No. 5 industry lobby. Throw in the goliath senior lobby AARP and Beltway powerhouse General Electric, and you realize Obama's underdog tale is all bark and no bite.

The health care bill Obama signed into law Tuesday is a triumph for the special interests. It will benefit the biggest businesses, and by injecting more government into the economy, it will permanently stimulate K Street.

Yet all along Obama has claimed the opposite. The Democrats' party-line Senate vote for the bill represented "standing up to the special interests," Obama said in December -- just before the health care lobbyists and pharmaceutical political action committees hosted fundraisers for Martha Coakley to try to preserve the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority.

Throughout March, as momentum built for passing the bill, and as Democrats adopted the mantra, "You're either with the American people, or you're with the insurance companies," health insurance stocks climbed in tandem with the bill's odds of passing. The health sector outperformed every other sector in the S&P 500 over the last month.

And once the bill passed, health care stocks rallied. Insurance giant Aetna -- whose product you are now required by law to own -- hit its 52-week high the morning after. Drug maker Pfizer rose 4 percent Monday and Tuesday, increasing its market capitalization by $3.8 billion -- almost a two-hundredfold return on the company's $21.9 million lobbying effort.

In Washington, talk of who's getting rich or taking a hit often distracts pointlessly from substantive issues. But it's important here for two reasons.

First, there's the unsettling but unavoidable conclusion that our president is willing to deceive us if he thinks he can get away with it. He knew the drug makers were on his side -- after all, he cut a private deal with top drug lobbyist Billy Tauzin. He also knew that the media would consider any big government proposal a blow to big business.

Second, showing who benefits most makes clear that this "reform" wasn't designed to "work for the people," as Obama claims. It works for the deep-pocketed companies who wrote it. Come January, you will no longer be able to buy over-the-counter medicines with your health savings account money -- if you want the tax deduction, you'll need to get more costly prescription drugs. That hurts customers and taxpayers while driving up health care spending -- but it profits Big Pharma.

The bill is loaded with sugar plums for the drug industry:

o Taxpayers will subsidize drug makers even more. o Employers will be forced to give prescription-drug insurance to workers. o Generic versions of biologic drugs will be kept off the market for 12 years. o States will be forced to subsidize drugs through Medicaid. o Americans will still be prohibited from importing cheaper drugs from China. o Medicare will continue overpaying for drugs.

If the bill's actual provisions paint a different picture from Obama's rhetoric, so does the money trail.

Standing behind Obama at the bill signing Tuesday were Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the leading Senate and House recipients, respectively, of health-sector political action committee money in this election cycle. The 2008 champs of health PAC fundraising, Max Baucus and Charlie Rangel, were also on stage.

And the man with the pen in his hand had received more money from drug companies and health insurance companies than any politician in the history of the country...MORE...LINK

Corrupt Congress sides with Israel lobby over U.S. military; Another unnecessary war next?

The Crisis That Wasn’t
( -- by Philip Giraldi --

It might have seemed a no-brainer that the vital security interests of the United States would eventually trump the demands of a small client state that lately has not been much given to rational behavior. But in the latest showdown between the friends of Israel and the Obama Administration the President of the United States blinked first, demonstrating once and for all that no one in the US has the power to say no to Israel. And the truly amazing part was that the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was so confident of the outcome that it didn’t even bother to hide very much of what it was doing, hardly deigning to engage in its usual clandestine arm twisting and slipped under the door "position papers." It immediately issued a public statement slamming the White House, asserting that "The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the US relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State." It then unleashed its friends in Congress and the media. Its brazen campaign against the American president was executed all out on public view, right up front and recorded on the AIPAC website.

Lest there be any confusion about what happened, the White House said "Thou shalt not" and Bibi Netanyahu responded "I shall" with Bibi left standing at the end. AIPAC managed to get the support of nearly every congressman who mattered, including many leaders from Obama’s own party. Half of the entire Congress attended the Monday evening gala dinner where Bibi Netanyahu was the guest speaker and there was what amounted to a bipartisan love fest when the Israeli Prime Minister visited Capitol Hill on the following day. Many legislators wrote statements affirming the US-Israeli relationship, carefully recorded by AIPAC in a 39-page document on its website. House Minority Leader John Boehner weighed in with a comment that might have been composed by a twelve year old, which means that he probably actually wrote it, and was echoed by Republican stalwarts Eric Cantor, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. Other commentary repeated the same themes: a threatening Iran, Palestinian intransigence, and Israel as a staunch ally. It all read as if from a script, suggesting a common source. Israel’s apologists never took Tel Aviv to task for anything, not even for being rude to the Vice President of the United States. Meanwhile the media was on board the trashing of the White House right from the start, supporting the perceived interests of a foreign country against those of the US. The Washington Post led the charge, calling on "expert" analysis of the situation from Elliot Abrams, Danielle Pletka, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Curter, Martin Indyk, and Charles Krauthammer while excoriating the White House with its own lead editorials...

At the AIPAC conference on Monday, Hillary Clinton agreed to the terms of the final surrender by the United States, telling the assembled friends of Israel that American commitment to Tel Aviv is "rock solid, enduring, unwavering and forever." Her entire speech portrayed Israelis and even the despicable Netanyahu in purely positive terms while blaming all violence in the region on the Arabs. She peppered her oration with commentary that is palpably ridiculous, like "The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests…And we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel’s security, we strengthen America’s security."...

Clinton did make one intriguing comment, perhaps not completely understanding the implications of what she was saying: "We cannot escape the impact of mass communications." She meant that many people have now become concerned about what is going on in Israel and Palestine because of what appears on the internet. But if Israel were truly the cowboy in the white hat upholding truth and justice that would hardly matter, would it? In reality, the narrative of Israeli exceptionalism and entitlement that has been carefully shaped by the Israeli government and its friends in the mainstream media has been thoroughly discredited by alternative sources of information made available through the internet. Once upon a time, only a very narrow audience that could easily be dismissed as "kooks" was aware of the Israeli repression of the Palestinians because the news was carefully filtered, particularly in the US. Today anyone with a computer and interest in the subject can become well-informed very quickly. If there was one hopeful aspect of Hillary’s speech, that was it. The rest was depressing, scripted, and did absolutely nothing to address the real issues...

Now that we have returned to the status quo ante of wag the dog, it is perhaps a good time to consider if anything positive has resulted from the American-Israeli crisis that never was. The disagreement revealed the utter impotence of the American government in dealing with Israel, even when national security issues are raised. For those who care about the future of the United States, it’s really past time to get hopping mad. The US government has effectively been held hostage to uncritically support a foreign government that engages in both apartheid and ethnic cleansing, something that few Americans would endorse if they were ever allowed a voice in shaping foreign policy. The presence of half of the US Congress at a dinner paying tribute to a foreign leader who is pursuing policies damaging to the United States is little more than a shameless spectacle, but no less than what we have come to expect from the Quislings on the Potomac. And then there is the fighting and dying in what is fashionably referred to as the "long war." Israel and its lobby were undeniably significant players in contriving the case that led to war with Iraq. The propaganda spewed at the current AIPAC conference makes it equally clear that Israel and its supporters are the leading advocates of an attack on Iran and their victory over Obama will only embolden them. Israel can trigger a war by bombing Iran and provoking retaliation that will draw the United States in and there is nothing Washington can do to stop that. When war happens and the awful consequences become clear Obama and Hillary will wish that they had stood up to Israel and AIPAC this week and stopped the madness. But by then it will be too late...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Now in open panic, Big Government Bushcons and neocons emerge from the closet to try to kill electoral prospects for authentic conservative Rand Paul

Cheney’s War on Rand Paul
(The American Conservative) -- by Daniel McCarthy --

Bush’s #2 has waded into the Republican Senate primary in Kentucky, guns ablaze. A week after neocons declared open season on Rand Paul, Cheney has endorsed his rival, Secretary of State Trey Grayson. National Review piles on, with former Cheney flack Cesar Conda taking to the Corner to snipe, “Should Mr. Paul be elected to fill Sen. Bunning’s seat, ‘Senator Rand Paul’s’ views on national security, the global War on Terror, and foreign-policy matters would be more in line with Majority Leader Harry Reid’s than they would with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s.”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Conda’s post is all about Rand Paul and says little about Trey Grayson. The neoconservative establishment is terrified of the prospect of a Senator Paul. Given that Rand holds a double-digit lead over Grayson thanks to the support of the tea parties and grassroots anti-statists, I suspect that the intervention of Bush administration retreads on the Secretary of State’s behalf will not have the effect Cheney desires...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

NR: "Should Mr. Paul be elected to fill Sen. Bunning’s seat, ‘Senator Rand Paul’s’ views on national security, the global War on Terror, and foreign-policy matters would be more in line with Majority Leader Harry Reid’s than they would with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s.”

Should Mr. Grayson be elected to fill Sen. Bunning's seat, Senator Grayson's views on foreign policy social engineering, war profiteering, domestic Big Government largesse, crony capitalism, State capitalism and government sponsored wealth transfers to the political class and government connected corporatists would be more in line with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell than they would with traditional American conservatives in the vein of the Founders.

When are these damn Big Government pseudo-conservatives just going to join the Democratic Party and get it over with so AUTHENTIC conservatives can start building a movement against centralizers and statist authoritarians based upon REAL conservative principles?

Dumb Big Government Americans easily manipulated by clever Israel-firsters

Republicans adopt Zionist litmus test
(Mondoweiss) -- by Philip Weiss --

I think it’s important to concede that Paul Berman was persuasive–and that bad ideas win sometimes–when he equated Islamism with fascism and called for a new cold war against the Islamophobic golem he shaped for fearful American pencilnecks post-911. Berman’s only-slightly hidden agenda was of course the Jewish state. And it’s important to point out that his idea has now been swallowed by Republicans and regurgitated to their followers. This is from Politico’s Alex Isenstadt:

“Support for Israel is one of those issues, like anti-communism used to be, that holds together a number of pieces of the conservative movement, including evangelicals but also neocons, economic conservatives and foreign policy hawks,” said Tevi Troy, a visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who served as Jewish liaison in the George W. Bush White House….

Chris Moore comments:

Economic conservatives support the socialist Israeli welfare state with its hand perpetually in the American pocket digging around for handouts and free Middle East wars on its behalf, and its American lobby bribing and coercing a corrupt Congress to keep it on the welfare dole perpetually? What kind of "economic conservatives" are those, the Zionist kind?

Also, to state that "evangelicals" uniformly support Israel no questions asked is false, as well. Christian Zionist Dispensationalist evangelicals do, of course, but those are far more Old Testament than they are "Christian," -- kind of pathetic Jewish Zionist wannabees, as I see it, who similar to their Judaic heroes, conveniently employ religion to mask their greed. In fact, they probably have far more in common with Judeophile left-liberal Democrats who are also Big Government, obsessive-compulsive control freaks hell-bent on using the coercive power of government for self-enrichment and social-engineering purposes. The Big Government Right just concentrates on social-engineering foreign lands under the auspices of "national security," whereas the Democrats primarily want to socially engineer Americans under the auspices of "progress." And both are happy to extract as much as they can from the hapless U.S. taxpayers to do so.

Another thing that both camps agree on is unconditional support for Jewish supremacy and Zionism, which seems to go hand in hand with the Big Government pseudo-Christian and anti-Christian agenda, ie replacing the moral authority of Christianity with the moral authority of Big Government.

And they both also like to pull out the victim card and hurl accusations of "hate," "persecution," "bigotry" and "intolerance" at those who are simply resisting their insane, neo-fascist agendas.

Big Government, social-engineering Zionists, left-liberals, and Republicans -- all whiny, greedy and obsessive-compulsive control-freak birds of a feather.

Whatever happened to REAL Americans and REAL Christians in the vein of the Founders?

How dumb and greedy Big Government GOP, working hand in hand with shrewd Marxist Dems, engineered its own demise

A Party’s Path to Extinction
(The American Conservative) -- by Patrick J. Buchanan --

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.”

From A Tale of Two Cities, Sydney Carton’s words, as he rode the tumbrel to the guillotine, came to mind on reading the latest statistics on what open borders has done to a Republican Party that altruistically embraced it.

The Center for Immigration Studies reports that, since 1980, some 25.2 million immigrants have entered legally and been granted permanent status with “green cards” to work and become citizens.

“Immigration, Political Realignment and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects” is the title of the CIS report, which understates the crisis. Bottom line: The more immigrants in an electoral district, the more grim the GOP prospects. Consider a few of the largest counties in the nation.

Between 1980 and 2008, Los Angeles, No. 1, grew by 2.5 million to 10 million people. The immigrant share went from 22 percent to 41 percent. Over those decades, the GOP share of the presidential vote fell from 52 percent in Ronald Reagan’s rout of Jimmy Carter to 29 percent for John McCain...

Richard Nixon and Reagan carried California seven times on presidential tickets. Both carried New York and Illinois in their greatest victories. Yet the GOP has not won one of those three pivotal states even once in the last five elections.

If California, New York and Illinois are moving out of reach for GOP presidential candidates and the party is being annihilated in New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, our three largest cities, what of red states Arizona, Texas and Florida?

They are going the same way...

The correlation seems absolute. The more immigrants who come in and become citizens, the more Democratic the country becomes.

Why? Almost all immigrants, legal and illegal, are poorer and less skilled than Americans, and depend far more upon government.

According to CIS, of recent immigrants who became citizens by 2008, by 55-30 they identified as Democrats. Among immigrants who have not yet become citizens, 70 percent identify as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans. The sooner Democrats get them naturalized, registered and voting, the sooner the bell tolls for the Grand Old Party.

Is the GOP problem its hard line on illegal immigration?

This is a myth. According to a Zogby survey done for CIS, 56 percent of Hispanics and 68 percent of African-Americans say legal immigration is too high. Only 7 percent of Hispanics and 4 percent of African-Americans say it’s too low. On no issue is the gulf between elites and the people so wide and deep.

What would be a GOP policy that advanced both the national and party interest?

First, an offensive against the administration for laxity in enforcing our immigration laws against businesses that hire illegals. Each time a business is forced to let illegal workers go, the jobs go to some of our 25 million unemployed and underemployed.

Second, a Put-Americans-First moratorium on legal immigration until U.S. unemployment falls below 6 percent.

And what is Republican Lindsay Graham up to? Collaborating with Sen. Chuck Schumer on a path to citizenship for illegal aliens...MORE...LINK
Andy (in comments): "US employers hire these hard workers who live cheaply and send much of their salary home and/or they start families here.The system works for them and the business’ that employ them. It does not work for the least educated and much more importantly least skilled US citizens who most often neither work as hard,as capably or as inexpensively as the immigrants."

Chris Moore comments:

Andy epitomizes the “cheap labor” wing of the GOP that is selling out the country to political and cultural Marxism on behalf of short term profit. It’s really the short term greed of Republicans that have turned them into “collaborators” (as Buchanan puts it) with the cynical, Big Government, welfare-pimping Dems.

Immigrants probably are harder working at physical labor, but only certain amount of immigrants can be assimilated from Mexico/S.America without changing the entire character of the areas into which they move, and eventually the entire country. Beyond a certain point, America simply becomes corrupt, crime ridden Mexico North.

And how many children of Hispanic immigrants born in the U.S. are going to join gangs instead of working their fingers to the bone for $8/hr? Enough so that LA, for example, has a huge Hispanic gang problem — gangs engaged in ongoing warfare with black gangs.

But that’s okay. White Republicans will just move further and further away from the crime-ridden cities their greed helped create, withdraw behind gated communities with private security guards, or find some other way to insulate themselves.

The entire phenomenon reminds me of how greedy white slavers behaved in the country’s early years. They seemed to know deep down their sins were unforgivable, but their greed overrode their conscience.

Larry Sanchez (in comments): “Long ago an ancient people, a civilization and culture, were forced from their sacred land and dispersed to live in exile. The memories of their homeland and rich spiritual heritage were not forgotten and each succeeding generation longed for the eventual return of their people to their holy land…The disposed people became refugees and the neighboring states refused to accept the large numbers of homeless. The refugees were forced to live in camps in the desert. In the meantime, the immigrants who claimed their homeland anew called it Aztlan.”

Chris Moore comments:

Larry, you mean to tell me that the Spanish-mix people that comprise the Hispanic population of "Aztlan" are indigenous to the Southwest region?

That's about as big a stretch as claiming that the Euro-mix Zionist Jews who corrupt left-liberal Judeophiles and spiritually barren Christian Zionists aided and abetted in the theft of Palestine are native to that land. No wonder more and more Americans and Europeans are opposed to the US government providing Zionist Jews a blank check.

Funny, but I don't see too many Aztlanners opposing aid to Israel. I guess they're too busy rigging their own tribal land-grab under the auspices of imaginary self-determination. Or maybe they're taking lessons from the Zionists on exactly how to go about it!

Just like Social Security, the new Obama-care scam amounts to a federal Ponzi scheme wealth-transfer from the young and poor to the old and affluent

Right-Wing Obamacare
(The American Conservative blog) -- by Daniel McCarthy --

Whether it’s called Obamacare or Romneycare, and whether it’s right-wing or left-wing, the further cartelization of the healthcare system is a very bad idea. In exchange for extending coverage to high-risk individuals, the insurance industry is promised guaranteed profits from a consumer base — that is, people like you and me — that is legally compelled to purchase its product. As with any massively centralized compulsory system, no one can know how it will all work out: perhaps the insurance companies really will lose money in the end. But as we move further away from a free market, the usual kinds of competitive pressures that keep costs down and quality high will be further attenuated; the only sure losers here are the consumers.

Although it doesn’t matter whether a bad idea is right-wing or left-wing, it might as well be pointed out that Obamacare has a great deal in common not only with what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts but also with what George W. Bush wanted to do with the Social Security system. Remember how Social Security “privatization” was supposed to work: it was not a just chance to opt our of a federal Ponzi scheme that transfers wealth from the young and poor to the old and affluent — which is what Social Security does — but rather Bush’s plan offered as the alternative to having all of your payroll taxes go to Social Security the prospect of having a small percentage of those taxes go into a “private” (but of course, government-approved) retirement fund. In short, it was a choice between an old-fashioned wealth transfer and a newfangled forced-savings scheme, one that would have involved the same cartelization risks as Obamacare does.

Just as Obama and the Democratic Congress are forcing Americans to buy insurance, Bush and the Republican Congress were going to force people to buy into retirement funds if they partly exited Social Security. No wonder, then, that the GOP has put up such feeble resistance against the individual health-insurance mandate: for 20-odd years the putatively free-market Right has wanted the federal government to compel individual citizens to buy another kind of product. The roots of Obamacare are not to be found among Marx, Lenin, or the European Left, but with Bismarck, Milton Friedman, and the state-capitalist Right...MORE...LINK

Chris Moore comments:

Why am I NOT surprised that it is the Baby Boomer generation of leadership that is engineering this latest scam? As ever, they're doing nothing but take, take, take their entire way through the system. I guess they’ve calculated they'll be dead by the time the country finally collapses, but in the mean time, ensure themselves health care. However, given the increased life-span of the average person, maybe upon national bankruptcy they'll just end up getting wheeled from their nursing homes and dumped onto the street or a snow bank.

Sad, although at that point it will be hard to argue against the mob that that's not exactly what they deserve.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

States-rights "rednecks" rebelling against corrupt Washington and its abuse of centralized power

States rebel against Washington
The pushback against federal power began under Bush, but may now be accelerating.
(Christian Science Monitor) -- By Patrik Jonsson --

...Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana, a motley cohort of states – from South Carolina to New Hampshire, from Washington State to Oklahoma – are presenting a foil for President Obama's national ambitions. And they're laying the groundwork for a political standoff over the 10th Amendment, which cedes all power not granted to Washington to the people.

The movement's success will largely depend on whether Washington sees these legislative insurgents as serious – or, as Pitts puts it, as just "a bunch of rednecks."

"There's a lot of frustration when someone quite distant from you forces you to do something you don't want to do," says Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in D.C. "That's the root cause, and it ends up being rationalized in constitutional terms."

Resurgent states

The reversal of the federal stem cell research ban, a stimulus package widely seen as a backdoor grasp for more federal power, and fears about gun control have accelerated a state sovereignty movement that began taking shape under the Bush administration. In the past, both liberals and conservatives have used states' rights arguments for political expedience. That may be the case now as ousted conservatives try to force issues out of Washington and into states, where they have a better chance of winning them...MORE...LINK

Internet will transform the world as citizen journalists use its power to root out crime and corruption that has plagued humanity throughout history

The Internet as Agent of Political Change
( -- Paul Drockton

...Transparency has always been the primary tool used to keep politicians honest. Traditional Journalists played the role of keeping politicians honest. No one wanted their name in the paper over the following issues:

1. Corruption
2. Sexual Scandal
3. Drug/Alcohol Problem
4. Financial Issues
5. Links to organized crime
6. Saying one thing and Doing Another
7. Hypocrisy.

The benefits of journalism were obvious. Unfortunately, this was not lost on people or organizations that had an agenda and money. Newspaper ownership became viewed as the primary method for controlling the flow of information. Publishers were literally gods in their communities, with the power to make some men, and reduce others to ashes. To quote William Randolph Hearst on the Spanish American Conflict: "You provide the photos, and I will provide the War".

Then came radio and television, which had the power to reach larger audiences.

Finally, we now have the internet. Now, the average citizen has the power to serve as journalist, publisher and researcher. Blogs are the new "Committees of Correspondence" in our modern Revolution. Yet, few people understand how to use the internet as an effective tool for political change. Thus, this article and the ones that will follow it.

Some History:

This website now has over 430,000 visitors each and every month. Its circulation is three times greater than the Salt Lake City Newspapers combined. Utah politicians know that a bad article on this blog will be read by vast numbers in their state and force their resignation or withdrawal from politics. Such has been the case with a Senator who was caught drinking and driving, a Lesbian legislature who was artificially inseminated by a gay couple, a Top Republican caught in a pedophile scandal, and many others.

The traditionally Utah media, which is tightly controlled, failed to even ask for the resignations of these individuals. We not only asked. We brought it about with an inordinate amount of publicity.

Another effort we launched involves the Holly Greig scandal. David Icke brought it to our attention with some great journalism and we were able to get the first radio interviews with Anne Greig (the mother of Holly) and Robert Green (fresh from his arrest). We were also successful in getting the publicity to change a small demonstration into a large one with Scottish police present. Our efforts did not go unnoticed and others have picked up the cause. But, the fact remains that the Holly Greig activism found its new life on this website and radio program. Such is the power of the internet.

The same can be said for "Canada's" largest scandal and other "Whistleblower" stories.

Now, imagine if their were thousands of individuals, throughout the world, all doing the same thing as we are. It would go beyond revolutionary and literally transform much of the corrupt world that we live in...MORE...LINK