My Other Blog & Comments

News and Information Feed

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, but Israel does, and is trying to sell them on the black market to other countries, say reliable sources

Iran vs Israel: What The Media Wants You To Forget

(What Really Happened) --

The corporate media have been given their orders to throw the focus back on to Iran.

Here is a recap of what they are trying to make you forget.

1. Last Spring, Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel refused.

2. The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

3. The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. Israel refused.

4. Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has signed.

5. Iran allows IAEA inspections of all its facilities.

6. Contrary to face-saving claims, it appears that the US and Israel were both caught off guard by Iran's announcement of a planned underground (to avoid being bombed) enrichment facility. The reasoning is simple. Had the US or Israel announced the existence of he new facility before Iran's notified the IAEA, it would have put Iran on the defensive. As it is now, the US and Israel seem to be playing catch up, casting doubt on the veracity of Israel's claims to "know" that Iran is a nuclear threat.

7. The IAEA and all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.

8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.

9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.

10. The United Nations has just released the Goldstone Report, a scathing report which accuses Israel of 37 specific war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza earlier this year. Israel has denounced the report as "Anti-Semitic (even though Judge Goldstone is himself Jewish), and the United States will block the report from being referred to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, thereby making the US Government an accessory after-the-fact.

11. Recently revealed documents prove not only that Israel has nuclear weapos, but actually tried to sell some to Apartheid South Africa. Who else Israel approached to sell nuclear weapons remains an unasked question.

12. In 1965, Israel stole over 200-600 pounds of weapons-grade uranium from the United States.

13. Declassified documents from the former South African regime prove not only that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, but has tried to sell them to other countries!

We all need to be Joe Wilson right now. We need to stand up and scream, "LIAR!" at every politician and every talking media moron that is pushing this war in Iran. And we need to keep dong it until they get the message that we will not be deceived any more.

Israel wants to send your kids off to die in Iran, and YOU are the only one that can stop them...LINK

Monday, January 30, 2012

MSNBC rips right-wing, Israel-first, Jewish-American billionaire behind Gingrich; When will it call out wealthy Zionists who own Democratic Party?

(By Chris Moore) -- In the following video, MSNBC's Chris Hayes digs into the background of the wealthy, Jewish-American casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, and finds him to be not only an Israel-firster deeply interested in getting the U.S. to slap down Iran on behalf of the Jewish state, but additionally to be pulling strings for the Chinese government in Washington in a quid pro quo exchange for profitable Asian gambling licenses.

The portrait of Adelson that emerges is that of a truly unpatriotic, scurrilous reprobate who only cares about enriching himself, and about Israel. As Adelson apparently sees it, America is a whore to pumped and dumped for his true loyalties -- namely mammon and Israel.

The problem for the liberal establishment-tool MSNBC, which is essentially a front for the Democratic Party, is that the most wealthy and powerful constituency in the Democratic Party at the national level is itself comprised of Zionist Jews who are exactly like Sheldon Adelson -- individually, perhaps not as wealthy, and often more stealth, serpentine and couth than the gruff, chutzpah-filled Adelson, but collectively, far more wealthy and just as militantly pro-Israel.

And just like Adelson, these pseudo-"liberal" Zionist Jews are equally interested in using the U.S. military as indentured mercenaries to take out any country in Israel's region that even looks sideways at the Jewish state or its aggression, all on the way to eventually starting a world war against Islam on behalf of international Jewish supremacism.

When watching the following video, think of Sheldon Adelson not merely as a metaphor for wealthy, right-wing, Zionist Jews who couch their Israel-first treason in religion (as he is cast by MSNBC), but additionally as a metaphor for the mentality of the entire, racketeering, Diaspora Jewish Zionist nation from left to right that is not only engaged in unpatriotic, Israel-first activism and warmongering, but is additionally engaged in unpatriotic, corrupt, State Capitalist/Corporatist profiteering, and that is pushing the internationalist, Globalist agenda from the shores of America for the same reason that Adelson goes to bat for the Chinese government in the U.S.: self-serving, nation-plundering profit.

This is a "nation within the nation" that exists at the expense of average Americans and their best interests, and to the (potentially fatal) detriment of the long-term survival of the U.S. itself.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Spokesman for Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-first billionaire behind Gingrich's warmongering, compares him to Joseph Kennedy backing JFK

Gingrich funder isn't trying to 'buy' the presidency, aide says

(MSNBC) -- by Michael Isikoff --

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul bankrolling Newt Gingrich’s super PAC isn’t trying to “buy” a presidency, his top political consultant tells NBC News. He’s just following in the footsteps of another powerful business tycoon, Joseph Kennedy, father of President John F. Kennedy.

“I don’t think it’s buying a presidency any more than it was when Joe Kennedy helped his son,” Sig Rogich, a veteran Republican operative who serves as Adelson’s government affairs consultant, said in an interview about the massive donations that the casino mogul has made to Gingrich’s super PAC.

Adelson, 78, who has a personal fortune estimated at $21 billion, “plays to win” and “puts his money where his mouth is,” Rogich added.

In the last three weeks, Adelson and his Israeli-born wife Miriam have pumped $10 million into the Winning Our Future Super PAC. Those donations provided a critical cash infusion that helped revive Gingrich’s candidacy, bankrolling attack ads against Mitt Romney in South Carolina and now Florida. They’ve also made the Adelsons the largest known donors so far in a presidential race awash with money under new rules allowing unlimited donations to so-called super PACs.

But the contributions have also raised new questions about Adelson’s outside role in influencing the campaign. Those questions could intensify as a result of potentially provocative comments he has made about Israel uncovered by NBC News.

Adelson owns a newspaper in Israel, 'Israel HaYom,' that backs conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and adamantly opposes any peace settlement with the Palestinians.

But while Adelson and Gingrich have bonded on the issue of a hawkish Mideast policy, especially over the threat of a nuclear Iran, some of the casino mogul’s comments could prove embarrassing.

In a talk to an Israeli group in July, 2010, Adelson said he wished he had served in the Israeli Army rather than the U.S. military—and that he hoped his young son would come back to Israel and “be a sniper for the IDF,” a reference to the Israel Defense Forces. (YouTube video of speech)

“I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform. It was an American uniform, although my wife was in the IDF and one of my daughters was in the IDF ... our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he’ll come back-- his hobby is shooting -- and he’ll come back and be a sniper for the IDF,” Adelson said at the event.

“All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart,” he said toward the end of his talk...MORE...LINK

Casino Empire of Gingrich's political sugar daddy, Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson, investigated for ties to organized crime

Adelson Casino Empire Investigated for Mob Ties, Prostitution

(Tikkun Olam) -- by Richard Silverstein --

The Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice have been investigating allegations of ties between Sheldon Adelson’s Macau casino and Chinese organized crime rings and prostitution for the past year. ABC News reports a former Sands Casino executive has charged that the Asian business operation relied on the Chinese triads which organized junkets for “high roller” gamblers and prostitution to service their “other” needs. It reports that on the same day Adelson arrived for a major business meeting at the Chinese enclave 100 prostitutes were arrested within the hotel. The charges are being investigated under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which governs crimes like corporate bribery.

Newt Gingrich, not one to observe the highest standards of ” family values” himself with his three wives and history of philandering, might want to explore whether this represents the highest standards of moral values for a Republican presidential candidate. And if it doesn’t trouble Newt, it might trouble some Republican primary voters. They might want to spend a moment thinking how many acts of prostitution or bribery contributed to the $10-million (the largest private gifts ever-given in U.S. campaign history) Adelson has funneled into Gingrich’s campaign, with the likelihood of tens of millions more should his fair-haired goy proceed farther in the primary process.

To see how Adelson has gamed another political system as a model for what he’ll do here in the States, we have to look no farther than his pimping for Bibi Netanyahu over the past decade or more. It is far cheaper to buy the Israeli political system than America’s. All Adelson needed to do was bankroll a new, free newspaper, Yisrael HaYom, to the tune of $40-million annually. The paper was Bibi’s alter ego. Just imagine the Washington Times with infinite resources, free, and distributed nationally. That’s what the Israeli paper’s role is inside Israel. Bibi himself credits it with creating a permanent rightist majority in Israeli politics. The result is the worst political and media system money can buy. Is that what we want here in America?...MORE...LINK

Friday, January 27, 2012

Zionist-front N.Y. Times says Don't worry about starting WWIII against Iran, West won't even feel it

Quoting Israelis, ‘NYT’ front pager says Iran will take a military strike lying down (won’t even raise oil prices!)

(Mondoweiss) -- by Matthew Taylor --

Front page above the fold today at the 'NYT,' stenographer to the Israelis Ethan Bronner reports, "Israel Senses Bluffing in Iran’s Threats of Retaliation":
Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.

The estimates, which have been largely adopted by the country’s most senior officials, conclude that the threat of Iranian retaliation is partly bluff....

“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak said. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”
For American audiences, the translation is: If Israel attacks Iran, the consequences will be...what? Maybe not an enjoyable picnic, but one where ants invade the egg salad?

Nowhere in the story is there a mention of the anticipatable human and environmental consequences to the Iranian people. Additionally, all of those quoted are Israeli or affiliated with the Israeli government. Where is the balance? Where are the quotes from neutral, international conflict experts from organizations like the International Crisis Group or Transcend? This is one of the worst pieces of war journalism I've ever seen. We need peace journalism, now!...LINK

Chalk up another epic failure for the 'Worst Generation': World steadily ditching U.S. dollar for Yuan as world reserve currency

China and UAE ditch US Dollar, will use Yuan for oil trade

(Commodity Online) -- by ? --

NEW YORK (Commodity Online): The US dollar is fast losing out its reserve currency status with China aggressively replacing the dollar with the Yuan as a currency for bi-lateral trade. The latest is an agreement signed between the China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which will use the Yuan for oil trade.

The deal is worth around $5.5 billion dollars and the Chinese central bank said that the deal aims at “strengthening bilateral financial cooperation, promoting trade and investments and jointly safeguarding regional financial stability”

Earlier, Russia and Iran had decided to use Rubles as a means of currency. With both China and Russia converting their bi-lateral trades into non-US dollar deals, the greenback is now under threat of losing out its status as the world reserve currency. And the impact of such a transition will essentially tip the balance of global power...LINK

Here's my submission for the Worst Generation's slogan, and the epitaph that should mark what will no doubt eventually be all of their urine-soaked graves:

Never have so few squandered so much, so fast. -- C.M.



Thursday, January 26, 2012

State of the Union under fraud, crime boss, war criminal, moral coward and serial liar Obama

Obama's Failed State Of The Union

(SteveLendmanBlog) -- by Stephen Lendman --

It was typical Obama, taking credit for what should be condemned. He's a fraud, a crime boss, a war criminal multiple times over, a moral coward, and serial liar.

His State of the Union address was beginning-to-end doublespeak, duplicity, coverup, and denial of failed policies complicit with Wall Street crooks, war profiteers, and other corporate favorites while popular needs go begging.

Not according to fawning New York Times writers, however. Suppressing truth and full disclosure, Helene Cooper headlined, Obama Speech Makes Pitch for Economic Fairness," saying:

Obama "pledged on Tuesday night to use government power to balance the scale between America's rich and the rest of the public....toward an economy 'built to last' and what he called irresponsible policies of the past that caused economic collapse."

Fact check

Throughout his tenure, Obama transferred trillions of dollars to Wall Street, other corporate favorites, and America's rich already with too much. In the process, he deepened a Main Street Depression. As a result, half of US households are impoverished or bordering on it. Hunger and homelessness grow. Nothing's done to help. Unaddressed human need is incalculable.

Over 25 million remain unemployed. Job creation is nil except for low wage/no benefit temp or part-time ones. Inequality in America is unprecedented. Obama supports austerity when massive stimulus is needed. Rich elites never had it so good at the expense of ordinary people left out.

Obama's Failed State isn’t fit to live in for growing millions.

Nonetheless, an accompanying Times editorial headlined, "The State of the Union in 2012," saying:

"A year ago....we applauded" Obama's plan to "put millions of struggling people to work (and his support for) wrestl(ing) down the deficit (by requiring) the wealthy (to pay) a fairer share of taxes."

Applause continued, ignoring Obama's duplicitous Tuesday address and agenda.

Fact check

It includes imperial wars, tax cuts for the rich, corporate handouts, and austerity for ordinary people losing out.

His America perpetuates permanent wars, disproportionate wealth extremes, spiraling debt, and unaddressed human need.

He ignores growing millions unemployed and impoverished. He cut Medicare for seniors and America's disabled as well as Medicaid for poor and disadvantaged recipients. He left growing millions of students debt entrapped, many for life.

He's destroying Middle America. His latest proposal involves looting pension funds to enrich mortgage lenders. Yet he's packaging fraud as a boon to ordinary people. It's typical Obama - say one thing, do another.

Nonetheless, major media scoundrels applaud. As a result, they're part of the problem, not the solution.

The editorial highlighted Obama's "achievements" and plans. It ignored his destructive agenda. It was typical Times, backing rogue politics.

Obama's address wreaked of failed state duplicity, coverup and denial. Throughout his tenure, rhetoric and gimmickry substituted for constructive policies. Tuesday was no different.

He left festering social and economic distress unaddressed, as well as the American dream in shambles. Expect continued business as usual to assure harder than ever times ahead...MORE...LINK

GOP establishment torpedoes Gingrich as grandiose, Clintonian

Drudge, conservative media criticize Newt Gingrich

(Politico) -- by By JIM VANDEHEI and MIKE ALLEN --

Newt Gingrich better hope voters who lapped up his delicious hits on the “elite media” and liberals don’t read the Drudge Report this morning.

Or the National Review. Or the American Spectator. Or Ann Coulter.

If they do, Gingrich comes off looking like a dangerous, anti-Reagan, Clintonian fraud.

It’s as if the conservative media over the past 24 hours decided Gingrich is for real, and they need to come clean about the man they really know before it’s too late. This is just a sampling of what’s hitting Newt:

• The overnight Drudge Report banner: “Insider: Gingrich repeatedly Insulted Reagan.” The headline linked to a devastating takedown by Elliott Abrams in the National Review, who wrote, among other things, that Gingrich had a long record of criticizing and undermining Reagan’s most transformative policies.

• Drudge also linked prominently to the American Spectator’s R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s similarly harsh takedown of Gingrich over character: “William Jefferson Gingrich.” In it, Tyrrell writes: “Newt and Bill are 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping… His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out.”

Drudge runs hundreds of links to stories of all stripes about candidates, but has been seen by Republicans as favorable to Romney in the past.

• Bob Dole issued a scathing statement Thursday that the Romney campaign provided to the National Review in which he said “it is now time” to rally to stop Gingrich, blamed the former Speaker for losing House Republican seats in 1996, and warned that it could happen again, at all levels of government.

“I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late,” Dole said. “If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. Hardly anyone who served with Newt in Congress has endorsed him and that fact speaks for itself. He was a one-man-band who rarely took advice. It was his way or the highway.”

Dole added, “In my run for the presidency in 1996 the Democrats greeted me with a number of negative TV ads and in every one of them Newt was in the ad. He was very unpopular and I am not only certain that this did not help me, but that it also cost House seats that year.”

• Conservatives are circulating a piece written by the editors of the National Review: “The Hour of Newt.” The editors, who have been extremely critical of Gingrich for weeks, waved conservatives off the Gingrich bandwagon. “Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.”

• Ann Coulter, the conservative columnist writing on her self-titled website, warns: “Re-elect Obama, Vote Newt!” She, too, gets Drudge promotion, with a column punctuated with this punch: “Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.”

• Tom DeLay, a top deputy to Gingrich during the Republican revolution of the mid-1990s, joined the chorus of other conservative members breaking their silence about Gingrich’s erratic leadership style. In a radio interview with KTRH, DeLay said: “He’s not really a conservative. I mean, he’ll tell you what you want to hear. He has an uncanny ability, sort of like Clinton, to feel your pain and know his audience and speak to his audience and fire them up. But when he was speaker, he was erratic, undisciplined.”

A top conservative media figure said the flood of attacks reflects a “Holy crap, it could happen” moment in the movement, as Republican leaders began to realize after Gingrich’s South Carolina victory that he could become the nominee, the global face and voice of their party and theology.

“It could happen, and it would be a disaster,” said the conservative, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect private conversations. “All of us who were around and saw how he operated as speaker — there’s no one who’s not appalled by the prospect of what could happen. He thinks he embodies conservatism and if he wakes up one day and has a grandiose thought, he is going to expect all of us to fall in line behind him...MORE...LINK

Haughty, disconnected elites out of touch with both Iranian and Western reality seek to escalate what's obviously become a war against Islam

Avoiding a ‘Dumb War’ With Iran

( -- by Philip Giraldi --

The media and the punditry have been deliberately misrepresenting facts to persuade the people of the United States to start another war, not unlike in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco. Since 9/11, hard-liners in the United States have depicted one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. They have justified attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, and Afghanistan, and they have endorsed Israel’s military actions against Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon — 10 Muslim countries.

This time around, Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and New Gingrich are all promising to disarm Iran by force. Romney has a neocon-heavy foreign policy team, while Gingrich’s campaign received at least $5 million in financial support from Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a passionate supporter of Israel. Meanwhile, the White House continues to dither by drawing “red lines” that appear to be more debating points meant to appease the Israelis than substantive policies.

Those arguing for war in Congress, think tanks, and the media have been exploiting a new International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report issued in November 2011, which they interpret to mean that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that poses a major threat to the United States. But the truth is that the IAEA document is essentially political, not factual. It is based on old intelligence assessments made mostly by the United States and Israel using sometimes fabricated information in an attempt to discredit Iran. In reality, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring its sites. While there is legitimate reason to challenge some of Iran’s actions, the nuclear program is not as threatening as many maintain.

Even those who are arguing against the rush to war frequently have succumbed to the propaganda. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a piece titled “Think Before Acting on Iran,” states that “Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things” and then goes on to describe “its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.” Well, Gelb should be well-informed enough to know that Iran’s leadership is both cautious and pragmatic because it is primarily interested in regime preservation, not in exporting the revolution or converting the world to Shi’ism. He should also be aware that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Gelb’s lack of connection with objective reality is reflected in his recommendation to openly debate the wisdom of going to war with Iran in a suitable forum like the Senate Foreign Relations Committee...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Obama State of the Union: His speechwriters need new material, his party does nothing but spin its wheels

Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record

( -- by rnc --

As feds blow billions overseas and on crony-bankster government, U.S. is turning into a lawless social cesspool that threatens all Americans

America After Dark: Desperate Meth Heads, Rampant Human Trafficking And Millions Of Criminal Predators Searching For A New Victim

(The Economic Collapse) -- by ?

When the sun goes down every night, America becomes a very frightening place. There are communities all over the country where drug dealing, human trafficking and gang violence have gotten so out of control that authorities don't really know what to do about it. In America tonight, thousands of meth heads will break into homes as they desperately search for enough money for another hit. In America tonight, thousands of children will be sold for sex at truck stops and on street corners. In America tonight, millions of criminal predators will be searching for a new victim. From the top levels of the federal government all the way down to the most depraved criminals on the street, America is rotting. Once upon a time our tremendous affluence masked the moral decay that was happening in this nation, but now that the economy is falling apart the damage to the fabric of our society is being revealed. We have become a nation of addicts, junkies, thrill seekers and predators. When we finally see the U.S. economy fully collapse, millions of desperate, angry and depraved monsters will take out their sick frustrations on all the rest of us...MORE...LINK

A pseudo-libertarian, statist liberal for years, Bill Maher finally mocks brainwashed liberalism, comes out for Ron Paul

Bill Maher Stands Up For Ron Paul & Calls His Audience "Brainwashed Liberals"

( -- by ThePinkfloyd51 --

TSA harassment of Rand Paul reveals draconian airport "security" measures are actually about government intimidation and cowing of Americans

PAUL: TSA’s intrusions undermine security

Senator or not, we’re all stripped of our freedom and dignity
(The Washington Times) -- by Sen. Rand Paul --

Today, while en route to Washington to speak to hundreds of thousands of people at the March for Life, I was detained by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for not agreeing to a patdown after an irregularity was found in my full body scan. Despite removing my belt, glasses, wallet and shoes, the scanner and TSA also wanted my dignity. I refused.

I showed them the potentially offending part of my body, my leg. They were not interested. They wanted to touch me and to pat me down. I requested to be rescanned. They refused and detained me in a 10-foot-by-10-foot area reserved for potential terrorists.

I told them that I was a frequent flier and that just days ago I was allowed to be rescanned when the scanner made an error. At no time did I ask for special treatment, but I did insist that all travelers be awarded some decency and leniency in accommodating the screening process.

My detention was real and I was repeatedly instructed not to leave the holding area. When I used my phone to inform my office that I would miss my flight, and thus miss my speech to the March for Life, I was told that now I would be subjected to a full body patdown.

I asked if I could simply restart the screening process to show that the machine had made an error. I was denied and informed that since I used my phone, to call for help, I must now submit or not fly.

Let me be clear: I neither asked for nor expect any special treatment for being a U.S. senator. In fact, this case is not about me at all. This is about every single one of us and how we are sick of the intrusive nature of our government.

While sitting in the cubicle, I thought to myself, have the terrorists won? Have we sacrificed our liberty and our dignity for security? Finally, the airport head of TSA arrived after I had missed my flight. He let me go back through the scanner and this time the scanner did not go off. The only comment from TSA was that some of the alarms are simply random.

So passengers who do everything right, remove their belts, remove their wallets, remove their shoes, their glasses and all of the contents in their pockets are then subjected to random patdowns and tricked into believing that the scanners actually detected something.

I have been through some of this with TSA Director John S. Pistole before. Last spring, a 6-year-old girl from Bowling Green was subjected to an invasive search despite her parent’s objections. Mr. Pistole claimed that small children were indeed a risk because a girl in Kandahar, Afghanistan, had exploded a bomb in a market in Afghanistan. But Mr. Pistole, this girl wasn’t from Kandahar and she wasn’t in Afghanistan. Isn’t there a significant difference?

In writing, he replied that TSA concluded because a child in a market in Afghanistan exploded a bomb, all American children needed to be evaluated as potential threats. My response: If you treat everyone equally as a potential threat, then you direct much attention to those who are never going to attack us and spend less time with those whose risk profiles indicate a need for tougher screening...MORE...LINK

Greedy, scheming, billionaire-political opportunist Soros fears populist blowback from economic collapse he and his low-cunning Zionist ilk created

George Soros on the Coming U.S. Class War

(Daily Beast) -- by John Arlidge --

'The situation is about as serious and difficult as I've experienced in my career.'

You know George Soros. He’s the investor’s investor—the man who still holds the record for making more money in a single day’s trading than anyone. He pocketed $1 billion betting against the British pound on “Black Wednesday” in 1992, when sterling lost 20 percent of its value in less than 24 hours and crashed out of the European exchange-rate mechanism. No wonder Brits call him, with a mix of awe and annoyance, “the man who broke the Bank of England.”...

For the first time in his 60-year career, Soros, now 81, admits he is not sure what to do. “It’s very hard to know how you can be right, given the damage that was done during the boom years,”...

He’s not even doing the one thing that you would expect from a man who knows a crippled currency when he sees one: shorting the euro, and perhaps even the U.S. dollar, to hell. Quite the reverse. He backs the beleaguered euro, publicly urging European leaders to do whatever it takes to ensure its survival. “The euro must survive because the alternative—a breakup—would cause a meltdown that Europe, the world, can’t afford.” He has bought about $2 billion in European bonds, mainly Italian, from MF Global Holdings Ltd., the securities firm run by former Goldman Sachs head Jon Corzine that filed for bankruptcy protection last October.

Has the great short seller gone soft? Well, yes. Sitting in his 33rd-floor corner office high above Seventh Avenue in New York, preparing for his trip to Davos, he is more concerned with surviving than staying rich. “At times like these, survival is the most important thing,” he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of “evil.” Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.

“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”...

To many, the idea of Soros lecturing the world on “evil” is, well, rich. Here, after all, is an investor who proved—and profited hugely from—the now much-derided notion that the market, or in his case a single investor, is more powerful than sovereign governments. He broke the Bank of England, destroyed the Conservative Party’s reputation for economic competence, and reduced the value of the pound in British consumers’ pockets by one fifth in a single day. Soros the currency speculator has been condemned as “unnecessary, unproductive, immoral.” Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, once called him “criminal” and “a moron.”...

Soros’s fragrant personal life will also prompt many to pooh-pooh his moralizing. Last year, Adriana Ferreyr, his 28-year-old companion for many years, sued him in New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, alleging he reneged on two separate promises to buy her an apartment, causing her extreme emotional distress. Ferreyr, a former soap-opera star in Brazil, said Soros had given the apartment he had promised her to another girlfriend. She also claimed he assaulted her. Soros has dismissed Ferreyr’s claims as “frivolous and entirely without merit” and “riddled with false charges and obviously an attempt to extract money.”

Despite his baggage, the man who now views himself as a statesman-philanthropist is undeterred. Having profited from unregulated markets, he now wants to deliver us from them...MORE...LINK

Zionist-stooge, pseudo-"liberal" thought control-freaks desperate to police Internet for thought crimes

Soros Mouthpiece Calls On Google To Police “Conspiracy Theories”

Stanford scholar wants search engines to flag global warming, vaccine skepticism as thought crimes
(Prison -- by Paul Joseph Watson --

Former fellow of George Soros’ Open Society and current Stanford University scholar Evgeny Morozov has called on Google and other search engines to become thought crime enforcers, by providing warnings about websites that contain “conspiracy theories” such as the belief, held by a majority of Americans, that global warming is not primarily man-made.

Morozov, whose biography confirms him as a well-connected insider, decries in a Slate piece how the Internet is a useful tool for “People who deny global warming” as well as “the anti-vaccination movement,” calling on Google to provide a “socially responsible curated treatment” that would marginalize such beliefs by amending search results.

His solution is to, “Nudge search engines to take more responsibility for their index and exercise a heavier curatorial control in presenting search results for issues like “global warming” or “vaccination.” Google already has a list of search queries that send most traffic to sites that trade in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories; why not treat them differently than normal queries? Thus, whenever users are presented with search results that are likely to send them to sites run by pseudoscientists or conspiracy theorists, Google may simply display a huge red banner asking users to exercise caution and check a previously generated list of authoritative resources before making up their minds.”

Morozov describes the potential that such a move will be judged as Google “shilling for Big Pharma or for Al Gore” as “a risk worth taking”.

This represents a similar argument to Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration,” an effort by Obama’s information czar to slap government warnings on controversial websites (including those claiming that exposure to sunlight is healthy). In a widely derided white paper, Sunstein called for political blogs to be forced to include pop ups that show “a quick argument for a competing view”. He also demanded that taxes be levied on dissenting opinions and even suggested that outright bans on certain thoughts should be enforced.

Giving companies like Google, which has grown to virtually become the gatekeeper of the entire Internet itself and is already engaging in SOPA-like acts of censorship, the power to denote which political and scientific positions are acceptable and which are fringe “conspiracy theories” is an insult to free thinking and smacks of Chinese-style thought control.

Morozov’s argument is also completely undermined by the fact that the two so-called fringe “conspiracy theories” he forwards as being in need of Google’s thought crime control, skepticism about global warming and the dangers of vaccines, are views held by millions of Americans and are not “fringe” at all...MORE...LINK

Charlatan rubes, or crypto Christ-haters? Why do warmongering Judeo-Christian Zionist evangelicals even identify themselves with the Prince of Peace?

Evangelicals, Ron Paul and War

(The American Conservative) -- by Jon Basil Utley --

Is supporting war more important for evangelicals than their social values? Isn’t Ron Paul a social conservative? He opposes abortion, gay marriage and promiscuous sex, he has never been divorced and certainly supports family values, but he believes in limited government. Two of his brothers are ministers. Why then are evangelical leaders now opting for Santorum, and before him Gingrich? The one big area of disagreement with Ron Paul is war; foreign wars and the domestic one against drugs. For this they oppose him. Santorum supports unending war in Afghanistan, backing Israel without limit and a new war against Iran.

Earlier there was a major far leftist candidate who supported all the issues that evangelicals oppose, and was a vocal proponent for expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank and promoting the war on Iraq. He was overjoyed when open homosexuality became allowed in the military, he supports abortion, gay marriage and the leftist agenda for big, intrusive government; power to labor unions as well as expanded, unconstitutional police powers within the U.S. Evangelicals adore him and went all out to support him 2006, when he lost his primary race and ran as an independent for the Senate. He is Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

All this shows how evangelical leaders put support for wars ahead of their social values. Their support includes every new law giving Washington ever greater police powers over American citizens, such as the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act and the recent National Defense Authorization Act which tear asunder much of the Bill of Rights. Most also supported torture of prisoners of war (with the notable exception of Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship). All this comes with their “social values.”

They loved George Bush. They were major supporters of the two wars against Iraq and the occupation of Afghanistan. Fear and ignorance of the outside world joins together with a belief that God uniquely favors America. Mostly poorer Southerners they also have strong affinity for the American military and its industrial complex. In addition, author Chris Hedges has written about how they are joined by many Northern blue collar families hurting from new technology, globalization, and poor schools in seeing government as out to undermine their communities and social values. Their solace is to hope for Armageddon. I know many of their leaders from the Reagan era when they joined in supporting his anti-communism, indeed in making his electoral victories possible. While the older ones consider my views against empire and for peace in the Middle East anathema, I find many younger ones much more receptive. Pollster John Zogby also notes that there is a strong divide on issues between evangelicals over 40 and younger ones. Christian economist Gary North wrote some years ago that they numbered about 20 million. He told me also that younger evangelicals were not so enthused with end of the world dreams as their elders. If you think this view excessive see this video of Tom Delay hoping for the end times and others saying that the Anti-Christ is a leader who seeks peace in the Middle East...MORE...LINK

Hoping to start yet another war, neo-fascist, Zionist-occupied governments provocatively parade warships near Iran

Britain, US and France send warships through Strait of Hormuz

(Telegraph) -- by By David Blair --

Britain, America and France delivered a pointed signal to Iran, sending six warships led by a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier through the highly sensitive waters of the Strait of Hormuz.

This deployment defied explicit Iranian threats to close the waterway. It coincided with an escalation in the West's confrontation with Iran over the country's nuclear ambitions.

European Union foreign ministers are today expected to announce an embargo on Iranian oil exports, amounting to the most significant package of sanctions yet agreed. They are also likely to impose a partial freeze on assets held by the Iranian Central Bank in the EU.

Tehran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation. Tankers carrying 17 million barrels of oil pass through this waterway every day, accounting for 35 per cent of the world's seaborne crude shipments. At its narrowest point, located between Iran and Oman, the Strait is only 21 miles wide.

Last month, Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, commander of the Iranian navy, claimed that closing the Strait would be "easy," adding: "As Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water."

But USS Abraham Lincoln, a nuclear-powered carrier capable of embarking 90 aircraft, passed through this channel and entered the Gulf without incident yesterday. HMS Argyll, a Type 23 frigate from the Royal Navy, was one of the escort vessels making up the carrier battle-group. A guided missile cruiser and two destroyers from the US Navy completed the flotilla, along with one warship from the French navy...MORE...LINK
Neo-fascist/Zionist modus-operandi: start wars to indebt average citizens to bankers, enrich the fascist racket, kill off goyim soldiers and impoverished natives

Monday, January 23, 2012

Can a Jewish-American Zionist oligarch buy another U.S. Mideast war for Israel for a mere $13 million? We'll find out if Gingrich is elected

Is Gingrich’s Hard Line on Palestine Paid for by Sheldon Adelson?

(The Daily Beast) -- by Wayne Barrett --

Gingrich went from Middle East moderate to saber-rattling hawk after Sheldon Adelson’s millions began flowing into the candidate’s coffers.

The linkage between campaign contributions and compromised candidates has grown so familiar that it no longer shocks, and indeed rarely even interests, most of us. But in the super-PAC era, when a single, $5 million, donation can resuscitate a broken Newt Gingrich, the search for a quid pro quo explanation expands with the enlarged dimensions of the donation. In the case of Las Vegas casino king Sheldon Adelson, Gingrich’s Daddy Warbucks, the size of the subsidy can literally shape a candidate’s views on matters of war and peace, and I’m not talking about a battle for gaming rights.

Adelson uses his money to abuse or anoint Israeli prime ministers (ask Ehud Olmert, on the abuse side, and the still-anointed Bibi Netanyahu) and American presidents (Gingrich versus Obama). He even pulled his money out of AIPAC, the top-pro Israel lobbying group, when it appeared to support a 2007 peace initiative championed by Olmert, President Bush, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an effort denounced by Gingrich at the time. “I don’t continue to support organizations that help friends committing suicide just because they say they want to jump,” explained Adelson, who was already spearheading a coup designed to replace Olmert with Netanyahu.

As significant as his 2012 check was to Gingrich’s Winning Our Future PAC, paying for the negative ads now swamping South Carolina, Adelson actually became Newt Gingrich’s biggest donor in 2006, pumping a million startup dollars into an otherwise empty and similarly named Gingrich PAC, American Solutions for Winning Our Future. He gave $7.7 million over four years to this group, widely seen as “the springboard” for Gingrich’s presidential campaign, making him the largest donor over those years to any 527 independent committees, the supposedly issue-oriented precursors to the super PACs that now dominate presidential campaign finance. The PAC spent $8 million flying Gingrich in private jets around the country in anticipation of a 2008 candidacy that he flirted with before abandoning, and in the lead-up to this race. It was during these years, and in recent jolting comments, that Gingrich appeared to begin talking to an audience of one, at least when it came to his Middle East views.

One way to test how this generosity might have influenced the always hardline Gingrich is how these views hardened even more after he climbed aboard the Adelson gravy train, who has so far donated nearly $13 million to Gingrich’s two White House-tied PACS, a record in American politics. In the summer of 2005, a year before Gingrich founded American Solutions with Adelson as the initial donor, the ex-speaker candidate penned a treatise for a right-wing U.S. publication called the Middle East Quarterly. Compared to the views he expresses now, which are a full-blown echo of Adelson’s, the Gingrich of six years ago was a moderate, endorsing Obama-like policies he now condemns...MORE...LINK

Did neo-fascist thugs target Sen. Rand Paul for criticising TSA boss John Pistole in Congressional hearings? Isn't that an illegal conspiracy?

Did TSA Target Rand Paul for Intrusive Pat-down?

( -- by Kurt Nimmo --

Following Rand Paul’s incident earlier today [1/23] with the TSA, the corporate media spun the story to say Paul was not detained. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, set the tone when he insisted Paul – or rather, the passenger in question – was not detained.

“Let’s just be clear,” Carney said in his Monday press briefing. “The passenger was not detained. He was escorted out of the area by local law-enforcement.”

“If you’re told you can’t leave, does that count as detention?” Paul asked in response to Carney’s assertion. “I tried to leave the cubicle to speak to one of the TSA people and I was barked at: ‘Do not leave the cubicle!’ So, that, to me sounds like I’m being asked not to leave the cubicle. It sounds a little bit like I’m being detained.”

During an interview following the incident, Paul said TSA alarms are often set off as “part of a random process” in an effort to be unpredictable. (See video above.), however, has confirmed from sources that the TSA often targets certain individuals for intrusive pat-downs and uses alarms to initiate the process.

It appears Rand Paul was deliberately targeted, although this cannot be definitively confirmed.

Paul questioned the TSA after a 6-year-old Bowling Green girl on a trip with her parents in April of last year was patted-down at an airport in New Orleans. The parents videotaped the incident and uploaded it to YouTube, where it went viral and created a public relations headache for the agency.

Paul had called TSA boss John Pistole “clueless” during a hearing held by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June of 2011...MORE...LINK
Steely-eyed authoritarian Pistole may not have appreciated Paul's characterization as "clueless" during Congressional hearings last June

Sunday, January 22, 2012

U.S. nouveau riche, international-oriented, corporate-oligarch class couldn't care less about creating American jobs

How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work

(New York Times) -- by CHARLES DUHIGG and KEITH BRADSHER --

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.

Apple has become one of the best-known, most admired and most imitated companies on earth, in part through an unrelenting mastery of global operations. Last year, it earned over $400,000 in profit per employee, more than Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil or Google.

However, what has vexed Mr. Obama as well as economists and policy makers is that Apple — and many of its high-technology peers — are not nearly as avid in creating American jobs as other famous companies were in their heydays...MORE...LINK

Did the Israel lobby just buy Newt Gingrich a victory in S. Carolina on the way to buying itself a U.S. war with Iran?

From: ‎
'Zionists buying out US politicians'‎

(Press TV) --

Press TV has conducted an interview with Jeff Gates, author of "Guilt By Association," from Los Angeles, to further discuss the issue. The following is a transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Projected results suggest that Gingrich would win in the southern state, but tell us about the ramifications of this win for the Gingrich camp?

Gates: I think it's a big news of momentum, which is what he's looking for. He got an enormous amount of support on Friday. Eight days ago, he got a five-million-dollar check from a casino magnate named Sheldon Adelson, a very strong pro-Israeli supporter. He is the one that we think has put Gingrich up to notion of saying that the Palestinians are an invented people.

So, it's a big deal. It sort of serves notice of the strength that the Israeli lobby continues to have with them, the government here in the US. It will also pull the Republican field, already way to the right, politically. This will pull them further to the right.

Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul would be considered fringe candidates 15 - 20 years ago, and now they're considered mainstream Republicans. So the ramifications for Gingrich are very strong for the implications for the foreign policy of the US. Frankly, it's rather scary.

Press TV: And in the bigger picture, where do the other candidacy hopefuls stand in the race?

Gates: Well, I think it's instructive that Barrack Obama was in New York on Thursday night at a huge fundraiser with pro-Israelis. And he made a point of saying how pro-Israeli he was, and how he would ensure that Iran is very much in the middle of our elections here - again, making sure that Iran would not get any nuclear weapons.

Gingrich is already on the record saying he thinks that the Iranian scientists should be murdered. And it's certainly something that is ongoing that it was an Israeli operation. So again, I think it's really showing the strength of the Israel lobby inside the US.

Once again, whether you're a left, right, or centralist, and certainly if you're a mainstream candidate - whether Republican or Democrat - not only are you funding but also your platform is traceable not so much to the Americans but quite a bit more to Israel and to Tel Aviv...MORE...LINK

Fed up with being indentured mercenaries for the 1% and its cronies? Rank and file can only afford small amounts, but military donors prefer Ron Paul

Military Donors Prefer Ron Paul

( -- by Viveca Novak --

...Paul has collected $95,567 in campaign contributions from individuals who listed their occupation as one of the branches of the US military or US Department of Defense. That's more than any other current presidential contender, including, notably, President Barack Obama.

OpenSecrets Blog reported in September that, during the first few months of the presidential campaign, Paul was doing well among donors that are members of the military or US Department of Defense -- better, in fact, than any other GOP presidential candidate...

This latest analysis updates those figures to cover the period between January to September 2011, and will be further updated to include the fourth quarter after the candidates file their year-end reports on Jan. 31.

Donor Obama Romney Gingrich Paul Santorum
National Guard $1,262 $0 $0 $4,068 $0
US Air Force $9,785 $4,400 $4,400 $23,736 $0
US Army $15,600 $3,500 $250 $24,503 $250
US Coast Guard $6,002 $0 $0 $3,716 $0
US Dept of Defense $27,613 $2,150 $0 $9,527 $0
US Marine Corps $1,700 $250 $0 $7,662 $0
US Military $200 $0 $0 $2,083 $0
US Navy $10,454 $3,000 $250 $20,272 $500
TOTAL $72,616 $13,300 $4,900 $95,567 $750...MORE...LINK

Official Iowa Caucus website declares official results can “never be certified”; evidence suggest Ron Paul voters defrauded by GOP insiders

Iowa vote fraud official

(Denver Conspiracy Examiner) -- by Jeffrey Phelps --

It’s official, or is it? Once again the establishment is showing it’s cards in an obvious attempt to defraud Ron Paul from the nomination, as Iowa GOP ‘officials’ purposely disrupt and permanently invalidate the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

The official Caucus website, in conjunction with the Des Moines Register, had to come forward Thursday to claim the official results can “never be certified” after 8 different precincts turn up invalid results due to “missing votes” and changing stories.

For the first time in history, the Iowa GOP decided to change the final vote count to a “Secret location” for what was claimed to be “security concerns.” The unprecedented change in venue came as a shock to most Iowans who are used to seeing the final results tallied at State Party Headquarters in Des Moines, in full view of the public.

This time, however, instead of business as usual, all of the final results were to be counted at an undisclosed location, completely hidden from public scrutiny, the seemingly ‘new’ business as usual.

What played out as a result was a mockery of democracy as Iowa election officials permanently skewed the results of the caucus, illegally miscounting and completely dismissing votes for Ron Paul, many of which were ironically from precincts that Romney lost in ’08.

Other missing or “uncounted” votes were expected to be heavy Ron Paul supporting, major populated areas and college town precincts, now leaving the true winner forever in question.

Originally, the results had Romney winning by 8 votes over Santorum with 30,015 votes. Now the establishment’s media claims new ‘official’ results show Santorum winning by 34 votes over Romney with 29,839 votes, but oddly 168 votes fewer than the ‘official’ total he was previously given, 30,007.

Additionally, Iowa’s establishment politicians now say 121,503 people voted overall, strangely down from the 122,255 it had originally reported. This could be due to new official results not including the 8 precincts that showed skewed results in the new final totals, but the truth may never be fully understood.

As if that’s not odd enough, hidden within all the commotion, even though many votes were missing, uncounted, and changed, including the official result totals for both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, no mention at all has been given to the new total Ron Paul should now have and if his votes were also miscounted or left out like the two ‘front-runners” votes were reported to have been. Especially considering how close Ron Paul came to winning, one would think his totals would be just as important to review as well...MORE...LINK

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Strange wording of Atlanta Jewish Times' call for Mossad to consider assassinating Obama has people wondering about Israeli connection to JFK hit

(By Chris Moore) -- The strange wording of the Atlanta Jewish Times' call for Israel's Mossad to consider assassinating President Barack Obama "in order to preserve Israel’s existence" has people talking about the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy, and again pondering whether Israel was behind that assassination, as well. (For a quick rundown of some of those theories, HERE'S a Google search).

First, Alan Hart nicely summarizes the current controversy here:

Have Israel’s “Inner Circles” Discussed Assassinating President Obama?

( -- by Alan Hart --

One man who apparently thinks the answer is “Yes” is Andrew Adler, the owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times...

In his weekly newspaper Adler listed three options for Israel “to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons”. (Never mind that, unlike Israel, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and that the latest assessment of Israel’s intelligence community – an usually honest assessment – is that Iran has not yet taken a decision to go nuclear for weapons).

Option 1 according to what Adler wrote “is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Option 2 “is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Option 3 “is to give the go-ahead for US-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

To make sure his readers got the message, Adler added this:

“Yes, you read ‘three correctly’. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If you have thought of this Tom-Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”...MORE...LINK
Now, connecting the dots between Adler's musings about a possible Mossad assassination of Obama and its relationship to Israeli interests, and the actual assassination of JFK and its relationship to Israeli interests, are a couple of commenters at Mondoweiss, a popular blog that concentrates on Israel and Zionist-related news and issues, who note the strange mention by Adler of an assassinated president being succeed by a vice president who is devoutly pro-Israel. (Vice President Joe Biden is on record as declaring himself a devout Zionist).
Mikesailor says:
January 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm

Perhaps the publisher read Victor Ostrovsky’s book : ‘By Way Of Deception’. In it, Ostrovsky describes how, during his Mossad training, his instructors held the Kennedy assassination as a prime example of a political murder performed correctly. Although never admitting the Mossad was behind the ‘hit’, one must wonder at the coincidences. After Kennedy told the Israelis that Dimona should be declared and Israel should join the NPT, he was assassinated and the much more ‘pliable’ Lyndon Johnson inaugurated. How ‘pliable’ was Johnson? He scotched all mention of Dimona and the NPT, and even when the Israelis attacked the Liberty, he attempted a ham-handed cover-up which remains to this day as the ‘official’ explanation. Where do you think the US policy toward Israeli nuclear weapons i.e. ‘ambiguity’ arose; with such policy remaining to this day? And investigation of the role of the Zionist gun-runner, Jack Ruby, is anathema to the main-stream media. Interesting, isn’t it?

Jeffrey Blankfort says:
January 21, 2012 at 1:08 pm

You beat me to it, Mikesailor. When I reread these lines:

“Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies,”

it occurred to me that this may have been the thinking behind the JFK assassination, not only because of Kennedy’s steadfast opposition to Israel obtaining nuclear weapons but because he supported Res. 194, the Palestinian right of return, and through brother RFK at the Justice Dept., was seriously attempting to get the American Zionist Council, AIPAC’s name at birth, to register as a foreign agent which the AZC’s lawyers were able to stymie until JFK was out of the way. Had the AZC/AIPAC been forced to register as a foreign agent–which it was then and remains as much so today–it not would have been able to function as it does today in the nation’s capitol and in the halls of Congress.

These were three red lines that Israel could not allow to be crossed and it is worth noting that no president since has attempted to cross even one of them. Cui bono? You got it.

MW readers should check out Grant Smith’s Foreign Agents: “The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal” available at IRmep, WRMEA, or online. Two years ago, Smith presented 360 pages of evidence at a two-hour meeting with the Justice Dept.’s Foreign Agents Registration unit, requesting that it re-open the case to get AZC-now-AIPAC to register begun by RFK in 1963 but in Israeli Occupied Washington, even though members of the unit seemed sympathetic, it didn’t stand a chance. The paper trail, however, hasn’t gone away. See Smith’s Israel Lobby Archive at
In the cases of both JFK and Obama, one reason a Mossad assassination is theoretically possible and even likely is the Zionist psychology revealed behind Adler's statement that assassinating Obama might be necessary to "preserve Israel's existence."

Even though Israel is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, and has one of the 10 most powerful military forces in the world, and as Alan Hart mentioned above, Iran has no nuclear weapons of its own whatsoever, the way the leadership of Zionism helps facilitate the continual expansionism of Israel itself, and Diaspora Zionist power as well, is to convince itself, its Jewish Zionist agents and allies in the Diaspora, and potential sympathizers in the West and elsewhere, that Israel is a literal and metaphorical stand-in for "the Jewish people," and is under perpetual existential threat, and constantly facing another Holocaust. Hence any and all actions are justified in order to "save the Jews."

It's a massive lie of course, and one used by Zionists throughout history to justify their mass murder (for example, saving the Jews from anti-Semitism and extermination was one of the rationales used by Communist Jews as a pretext to exterminate millions of "anti-Semitic" Christians in the early Soviet sphere many years before the Holocaust), but it is a highly effective (if incredibly cynical) means to rally the troops, justify all manner of atrocities, and incite Diaspora Zionists to engage in high treason time and again -- all in order to manipulatively serve the fascist interests of the insatiably greedy, expansionist, ambitious and totalitarian Judeofascists patriarchs at the core of the Zionist nation of Israel, and at the core of the various virtual nations in the Diaspora.

And it's also helpful in roping in Gentile useful idiots, opportunistic collaborators, and gullible bleeding hearts to betray their own interests and nations in order to "save the Jews."

The problem is, this fascist, murderous, Zionist scam is wearing thin, and like the boy who cried wolf, fewer and fewer intelligent people come running, because in the end, serving "the Jews" amounts to actually serving the Judeofascists who seek to exploit, subvert, manipulate and subjugate anyone who isn't Jewish, and even a lot of people who are.

With fascist wars of aggression and US-industry stripping Wall St Ponzi schemes collapsing, Money Powers have political lackeys turn guns on Americans

Alex Jones: Military Industrial Complex has declared war on the US

( -- by RT America --

Worse than Commies? GOP pseudo-patriots who ape neo-totalitarian, Beltway party-line too brainwashed to realize they're tools and useful idiots

Creeping authoritarianism on Capitol Hill

What we can learn from one congressman's convoluted defense of the NDAA
( -- by John Knefel --

On the day Occupy Congress came to Washington, I tagged along with seven Bard College students who went to talk to their representative, first-term Republican Chris Gibson from the 20th Congressional District of New York. Listening to Gibson defend his vote for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which President Obama signed on New Year’s Eve and which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens, I had a rare glimpse into the contemporary authoritarian mind-set in all its banality. It illustrated how the slow erosion of civil liberties manifests itself in the halls of power in Washington.

Gibson is a retired Army colonel, and it shows. From the Airborne division name plate on his desk, to the photographs of camouflaged soldiers that adorn his walls, to the “Beat Navy” button on his desk, his military background is on display. He spoke about serving in the military to defend American’s rights – rights that he claims to take very seriously...

When one of the Bard students asked about the NDAA, Gibson was well prepared. He removed three documents from his bag: a copy of Section 1021 of the bill, Obama’s signing statement, and an on-the-congressional-record conversation between two congressmen declaring the writ of habeas corpus was unaffected by anything in the NDAA...

And that, as they say, is the rub. After spending 15 minutes defending the NDAA, offering argument after argument about how it doesn’t change anything about citizens’ rights, how it doesn’t erode our liberties, he abandoned the point. When faced with the most egregious example of unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch – deprivation of life without due process – this staunch defender of the NDAA is forced to concede the point. What kind of logical pretzel must Gibson’s mind be twisted into? How can one cite “existing law” as the anchor of that section of the bill — as the language that prevents the executive from overreaching its power — and then, when faced with abhorrent existing law, simply concede the point? An argument that flimsy would not do well in a high school debate tournament. In the context of the U.S. Congress, it’s what passes for nuance.

This is how civil liberties get eroded: not by landslides, but by glaciers. Inch by inch. Those who claim to believe in liberty sacrifice it for the illusion of security, all the while holding themselves up as staunch defenders of the American Way. To whatever extent Gibson believes his own rhetoric about the importance of the Bill of Rights, his actions tell a different story, a story of illusion trumping logic and fact.

The greatest threat to America is the steady drip of, “I’ll concede that point,” but, after all, you’re citing a fringe example from which we can’t extrapolate. We are a Free Country, and no bill or act or presidential decree can take that away. Those who find comfort in that line of reasoning – and Gibson has plenty of company in both parties – are, whether they know it or not, acting as authoritarians. They must confront their own complacency and reverse course if they wish to actually defend civil liberties, instead of just claiming they do...MORE...LINK

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Who were stiff-necked rubes booing Ron Paul reciting Jesus’ Golden Rule in S. Carolina debates: Satanists, Zionist Jews or Judeo-Christian Zionists?

Ron Paul Booed For Mentioning Golden Rule Then Cheered - SC Debate 1-16-2012

( -- by LiveFreeorDieReport --

Sleazy liberal corporate interests like Hollywood and MSM, along with anti-free speech authoritarians, all big losers as PIPA, SOPA fall apart

PIPA support collapses, with 13 new Senators opposed

(arstechnica) -- by Timothy B. Lee --

Members of the Senate are rushing for the exits in the wake of the Internet's unprecedented protest of the Protect IP Act (PIPA). At least 13 members of the upper chamber announced their opposition on Wednesday. In a particularly severe blow for Hollywood, at least five of the newly-opposed Senators were previously co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act. (Update: since we ran this story, the tally is up to 18 Senators, of which seven are former co-sponsors. See below.)

The newly-opposed Senators are skewed strongly to the Republican side of the aisle. An Ars Technica survey of Senators' positions on PIPA turned up only two Democrats, Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), who announced their opposition on Wednesday. The other 11 Senators who announced their opposition on Wednesday were all Republicans. These 13 join a handful of others, including Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR), who have already announced their opposition.

Marco Rubio, a freshman Republican Senator from Florida who some consider to be a rising star, withdrew his co-sponsorship of the bill, citing "legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet." He urged the Senate to "avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences."...MORE...LINK

SOPA Co-Sponsors Abandon Bill Amid Massive Protests

13 Senators Announce Opposition, Including Five Former Sponsors
( -- by Jason Ditz --

Some 7,000 websites went dark Wednesday to protest the the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a law that would give the government more power to censor the Internet in service to corporations. The protests appear to have had an impact, and have caused several co-sponsors of to come out opposed to the bill.

In fact, it looks like the Senate version, called PIPA, is effectively dead at this point, with 13 Senators announcing their opposition today alone. Among the 13 were five of the bill’s co-sponsors.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), one of the primary corporate backers of SOPA, lashed the public protests against it, with former Sen. Chris Dodd (D – CT), the current MPAA Chairman, insisting protests by private websites fearing censorship amounted to an “abuse of power.”...MORE...LINK

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Totalitarian sociopaths have altered their dialectic model to socialist-capitalist synthesis run by oligarchs rather than commissars

The Left - "Useful Idiots" of the Rich

( -- by Kerry Bolton --

A self-appointed elite that Huxley called the 'World Controllers' and Caroll Quiqley described as 'an international network' has for generations been intent on establishing a 'World State' (Huxley) or what David Rockefeller calls a 'World Order' and and what President George W. Bush and others the 'New World Order.'

In more common parlance it is called 'globalization' but it is seldom understood in its wider ramifications, as set forth here, especially by the Left, whose activists support aspects of the same globalization process: multiculturalism, feminism, marijuana liberalization, abortion rights, open borders, and feel-good causes in the name of democracy and 'human rights,' the results of which are further control by the global plutocracy.

The Left, including the communists have generally served as the useful idiots of international capital ... The Left, whether in its Fabian, communist or New Left varieties has been appropriated by the system it is supposedly exposing. A post- New Left has emerged since the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc, and takes the form of the so-called 'color revolutions' under the patronage of the Soros network, and others.

The strategy used by the international oligarchy is the same as that more generally recognized as being a major element in Marxist doctrine; namely dialectics, the conflict of opposing forces that generates a synthesis. This dialecto method is something that Sutton realized when he was trying to understand why the oligarchy so often seems to be backing opposing ideologies, governments, and policies.

The Marxist dialecticians stated that history is engaged in a process towards world communism that would arise out of the conflict of capitalism and socialism. The oligarchs, on the other hand, apparently operate on the dialectical premise that what will result from their "controlled conflict" will be a socialist-capitalist synthesis which we might call the "World Collectivist State;" a world order that will be Communistic in organization but run by oligarchs rather than commissars. Aaron Russo, after talking with Nick Rockefeller, alluded to this as "selling socialism as capitalism."...MORE...LINK
Out with the commissar sociopaths modeled on Lazar Kaganovich (above) and in with the supposedly "oppositional" (but actually allied) oligarch sociopaths modeled on George Soros and Rupert Murdoch

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Is the left-wing, Hegelian dialectic behind perpetual war, neo-imperialism, and the endless strife of Globalism?

What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

( -- By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich --

Introduction: Why study Hegel?

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)

In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.

Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.

When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. ... Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal. The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all.

Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks. No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts.

We're definitely not in Kansas anymore...

The Hegelian dialectical formula: A (thesis) versus B (anti-thesis) equals C (synthesis).

For example: If (A) my idea of freedom conflicts with (B) your idea of freedom then (C) neither of us can be free until everyone agrees to be a slave...

The communitarian purpose for the Hegelian dialectic

Hegel's theory is basically that mankind is merely a series of constant philosophical conflicts. Hegel was an idealist who believed that the highest state of mankind can only be attained through constant ideological conflict and resolution. The rules of the dialectic means mankind can only reach its highest spiritual consciousness through endless self-perpetuating struggle between ideals, and the eventual synthesizing of all opposites. Hegel's dialectic taught all conflict takes man to the next spiritual level. But in the final analysis, this ideology simply justifies conflict and endless war. It is also the reasoning behind using military power to export an illogical version of freedom and false democratic ideals.

The reason we can call it the justification for modern conflicts and war, with impunity, is because no one can prove Hegel's theory is true. No matter how many new words they make up to define it, or how many new theories they come up with to give it validity, we can prove beyond a doubt that it is all false. And, we can show the final equation in Hegels' Dialectic is:

A: The [your nation goes here] System of Political Economy (List 1841)
B: state controlled world communism
C: state controlled global communitarianism.

The Hegelian dialectic is the ridiculous idea that constant conflict and continual merging of opposite ideologies, as established by extreme right or left belief systems, will lead spiritual mankind into final perfection. (Americans understood man's spiritual quests to be outside the realm of government control). Hegel's brilliance rests in his ability to confuse and obfuscate the true motives of the planners, and millions of people world-wide have been trying to make sense of why it doesn't work for over 150 years. But like the AA definition of insanity, the world keeps trying it over and over expecting different results. ...

When Frederick Engels and Karl Marx based their communist theory on Hegel's theory of spiritual advancement via constant resolution of differences, they based the theory of communism on an unproven theory.

While Darwin's theory of evolution is still being debated, there's absolutely no proof that societies are continually evolving. When Engels and Marx later based their communist theory on Lewis Henry Morgan's theory of anthropology in 1877, they again based the theory of communism on an unprovable theory.

And when Amitai Etzioni used Hegelian reasoning to base the Communitarian Network on a "balance" between (A) Rights and (B) Responsibilities, he built the entire theory of (C) communitarianism on nothing but disproven and unprovable unscientific theories....

Already gaining substantial ground against the Americans, British Marxism was bolstered when Charles Darwin published his theory of human evolution in 1859. Engels, according to modern day scholars, seized upon Darwin's theory to substantiate communism:

"When Marx read The Origin of Species he wrote to Engels that, 'although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.' They turned against what they saw as the social, as opposed to the biological, implications of Darwinism when they realised that it contained no support for their shibboleth of class oppression. Since they were slippery customers rather than scientists, they were not likely to relinquish their views just because something did not fit." (see: Marxism and Darwinism by Anton Pannekoek, 1912.)

In 1877 Lewis Henry Morgan published Ancient Society, or Researches in Life, Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism, to Civilization. Then the "slippery" Engels seized upon Morgan's work as the constantly "evolving" basis for the totally unsubstantiated theory of natural social evolution into utopian world communism...

While the Marxist-communitarian argument has not provided a shred of evidence to prove their utopian vision, and their synthesis does not match their own projected conclusions of world justice, we are convinced their argument does in fact substantiate our conclusion, that the entire philosophical dialectical argument is nothing but a brilliant ruse. We used to call it "a cheap parlor trick" until a responder to this page wondered how we could call it "cheap" when it's been so successful. And he was right. The dialectical arguments for human rights, social equity, and world peace and justice are a perfectly designed diversion in the defeated British Empire's Hegelian-Fabian-Metaphysical-Theosophical Monopoly game. It's the most successful con job in the history of the modern world. (For a well presented Christian overview of the con, see American Babylon: Part Five-the Triumph of the Merchants by Peter Goodgame.)

The communitarian synthesis is the final silent move in a well-designed, quietly implemented plot to re-make the world into colonies. To us it doesn't matter if there is some form of ancient religion that propels the plotters, nor does it really matter if it turns out they're aliens (as some suggest). The bottom line is the Hegelian dialectic sets up the scene for state intervention, confiscation, and redistribution in the U.S., and this is against our ENTIRE constitutional based society. The Hegelian dialectic is not a conspiracy theory because the Conspiracy Theory is a fraud. We've all been duped by global elitists who plan to take totalitarian control of all nation's people, property, and produce. Communitarian Plans exist in every corner of the world, and nobody at the local level will explain why there's no national legal avenue to withdraw from the U.N.'s "community" development plans...MORE...LINK

Monday, January 16, 2012

Ron Paul's simple, common sense morality causing fits on the opportunistic, identity-politics left by exposing its pseudo humanitarianism

Ron Paul Debate Flushes Out Gender-Baiting Right Wing Opportunists Masquerading as Progressives

(Naked Capitalism) -- by Yves Smith --

The intense debate precipitated by a post on this site, “How Ron Paul Challenges Liberals,” and follow up posts by Glenn Greenwald and here serve to prove their simple yet frequently misrepresented thesis: that Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-Fed positions expose fault lines among those traveling under the “liberal” banner.

Anyone who read comments on NC prior to this debate would have noticed some sympathy for Paul, ranging from the more common “he’s batshit and I’d never vote for him, but his opposition to our Middle East adventurism and the lack of accountability at the Fed is refreshing” to some making a stronger case for him. That shouldn’t be surprising given the point often made here and in the few lonely “progressive” outposts on the blogosphere (“progressive” is in the process of being co-opted in the same way “liberal” has been): that the Democratic party has been so deeply penetrated by the neoliberal/Robert Rubin/Hamilton Project types that it isn’t that different from the right on economic issues.

It should not be controversial to point out that the Democratic party uses identity politics as a cover for its policy of selling out the middle class to banks and big corporate interests, just on a slower and stealthier basis than the right. And we’ve seen the identity card used in a remarkably dishonest manner in this Ron Paul contretemps.

The strategy used is shameless straw manning in combination with gender baiting. Both Katha Pollitt (in “Progressive Man Crushes on Ron Paul“) and Megan Carpentier (“Ron Paul’s useful idiots on the left“) grossly misrepresent Glenn Greenwald’s posts on Paul, in which he says repeatedly that he is talking about broad policy issues, and not standing behind any candidate:
I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite…”There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole.
What does this become in Pollitt’s piece? She depicts Greenwald as being on a par with Ron Paul enthusiasts like Andrew Cockburn:
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven’t abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children…And yes, these are all white men; if there are leftish white women and people of color who admire Paul, they’re keeping pretty quiet.
Ah, the gender baiting card! No women or non whites have anything nice to say about Ron Paul! That’s patently untrue, but identity bigots like Pollitt apparently can’t wrap their minds around the notion that many people see themselves as citizens first and their demography second, and can and do have nuanced views based on how they weigh multiple political considerations: class, concentration of power, rule of law, civil liberties, and gender/race/sexual orientation. I’m not a Paul booster, yet I applaud his effort to curb the Fed, which has circumvented Constitutional budgetary processes to support a predatory financial services industry, as well as his criticism of Iran war-mongering. The fact that I ran a piece on how Paul is inconvenient to liberals meant I support this view, but Pollitt omits anything that undermines her tidy Obama-defending narrative.

But most important, I object to the presumption of the Pollitt position, that right-thinking women of the left-leaning persuasion must of course agree with her. I find myself appalled by the culture, such that it is, of soi-disant progressives in DC. That isn’t to say that there aren’t many talented individuals laboring to make things better. But from what I can tell, their efforts are too often at odds with and deliberately undermined by a puerile, often vicious style of discourse that values petty conformity over substantive contributions. And the sacred cow of petty conformity is political correctness (well, unless you are a “progressive” woman, that makes is OK to yell “white male oppressor” when you run out of arguments)...

Does that mean that I am a fan of Ron Paul? No. Do I admire the fact that he’s articulating an anti-war platform? Yes, but very cautiously and very sadly…And in part, we have only Paul to look to, because of “white leftish women” like Katha Pollitt, who says,
I, too, would love to see the end of the “war on drugs” and our other wars. I, too, am shocked by the curtailment of civil liberties in pursuit of the “war on terror,” most recently the provision in the NDAA permitting the indefinite detention, without charge, of US citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism. But these are a handful of cherries on a blighted tree.
Really? Half a million Iraqi civilians dead? Dozens of Pakistani children dead because of drones (or more. We are not allowed to know)? The reproductive systems of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi women decimated by decades of US-led chemical warfare? The curtailment of civil liberties of legal residents (and not merely citizens) in the US? The indefinite detention of tens of thousands of migrants, documented or otherwise? Those migrants include Latinos, South Asians, Arabs, Middle Easterners, Muslims from other parts of the world–detained not just for migrating without papers, but for merely being suspected of terrorism and held without charges, without lawyers, without family knowing, without judicial review–without a way out. These are what an anti-war position would resist. Seriously? Pollitt believes these are cherries on a blighted tree?..

Essentially, Pollitt’s column comes down to this: We want solidarity among liberals and progressives—but only on terms determined by WHITE leftish women and a segment of white men and some people of color...MORE...LINK