Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Are we slaves???
Dragan Matijevic
There were always people who wanted to control others and by imposing their will secure their existence, materially and spiritually. There were always spiritual guides who wanted nothing but the best for their students and then there were guides who used their students for their own gains. Whether talking of secular or religious world, principles of controlling others are very similar, it's all about disconnecting people from their source, from God, disconnecting people form each other, and about taking control of their mind.
Generally, we people are very uncertain as to what are we doing in this world, of what we really want, of who we really are. Deep down we feel insecure, confused and disconnected and this makes us frightened. This is a fertile ground for the manipulators of the world to work on.
Principle 1: Creating Fear, Ignorance and Confusion
The first principle of enslavement would be one of furthering of fear, ignorance and confusion. This is done by distracting the people and by lying to them about anything that matters in life.
This is the principle of spreading of ignorance, distraction and destruction that is widely practiced in the cult* that is our society at large. The belief behind this principle is that people’s spiritual dimension is the greatest obstacle to a totalitarian control and it has to be annihilated. This is done by keeping the masses confused and ignorant of their true nature, by bombarding them with all types of distractions (popular culture, trivia, greed, fear, useless education, drugs, pornography, war…) and by destroying everything that is of life-enhancing value using any means possible, especially genocides.
Principle 2: Winning the Battle for Attention
The second principle is one of attraction and motivation. You have to attract and win at any cost people's attention and motivate them to do what you want them to do. This is again implemented by way of deception and by carrot and stick method. The motivation is created by using Promise of Perfection, by promising the crowds a perfect life, a dream life, such as the American Dream. In a secular world the Promise of Perfection is all about sex and money, in a spiritual world it is salvation from suffering, perfect peace, security, abundance and happiness. Those are the carrots, the stick is fear, installing fears in people, such as fear from poverty, hunger, loneliness, hell....
Principle 3: Creating & Providing for Needs
Manipulators know that there is also the all important principle of needs; they know that they have to appear to be providers, providing for people’s material and spiritual needs, such as the need to belong and to socialise, the need for intimacy, need for a family and home, for bliss, protection, love… At the same time the herd instincts are fostered, conformity to the imposed and established norms, and thus the fear of being different are encouraged. People are cajoled to make a conscious or unconscious pledge of obedience to those norms and throw to the wind their responsibility, their autonomy, their ability to think for themselves and thus stand alone.
Principle 4: Creating and Controlling Opposing Forces
People, once they become part of a clan, cult, society, are further kept in line by intentionally created opposing forces (republicans, democrats, communists, capitalists), by using alternative punishment and reward, criticism and praise, by setting them at war with each other so much so that those that were once brothers and sisters will turn against each other with ease. With constant frictions peace is destroyed, and ultimately, seemingly unbreakable dependence and inhuman isolation are created.
Principle 5: Creating Isolation
The willing victims, once brought into the Fold (such as newly pushed New World Order) have to be kept there. For this, there is the principle of isolation. Isolation from one’s Old Life, from one’s History, from family and friends, even isolation from one’s own common sense! This is replaced by a New Family and New Common Sense that is subjected to new ideology, often based on High Principles, usually running on the lines such as Brotherhood, Equality and Freedom, but always meaning exactly opposite of what it is being said. These new theories always sounds great to the naïve mob, but in practice they always fail miserably. However, for the purpose of the game they never fail, because their function is to enslave – the brighter the principle the darker the blind spots that it creates in its victims.
Principle 6: Imposing of Top-Down Hierarchical Authority
Then, there is the principle of unquestioned authority and rigid hierarchical top-down structure. Once in the fold the sheep have to be controlled and the power moves from the top down, only! The person on the top has to be an absolute despot, otherwise there is no real authority and no real obedience, at least according to the rules of this particular game. Each higher level within the structure has to rule the lower ones by the superior commitment and morality. The lower levels have a responsibility to admonish each other or report on each other to the higher levels, ensuring cheap and all-covering policing.
Principle 7: Setting up Bottom-Down Economy
The principle of bottom-up economy says that the wealth has to flow upward! An absolute ruler on the top has to exploit the slaves below him. Apart from breaking people's moral fiber and squeak clean washing their brains, it is the most important fact that all the Money and all the major resources be held by the Rulers. For then they will have the power to employ and to sack, buy or sell, ANYBODY THEY WANT!
Principle 8: Secrecy
Then there is the principle of secrecy. While information about all of the activities in the structure, accurate or distorted, is programmed to reach the top of the pyramid, nothing of importance should leak downward. Ultimately, the top only knows the real purpose and the final destination. This ensures that knowledge and power always remains where it should be, at the top.
Principle 9: Making Everything Relative
In this Set-Up, it’s the principle that morality and responsibility are relative values, subject to change according to the whim from the top. The end justifies the means. Trauma is used as a tool to create more obedient subjects, all in the name of a better future. Fear (terror if need be) and guilt are applied as cohesive elements. Love and Joy are morsels to be fed in tiny doses to the obedient.
Principle 10: Control of Means of Communication and Spreading Self-promoting Propaganda
Going hand in hand with the principle of secrecy is the principle of rampant propaganda. The truth is a commodity in the hands of a few – the top of the structure, the absolute despot(s), is the only possessor of the ultimate truth of what is really going on. The despot uses propaganda to invent New Words and New Meanings. Powerful old words, like “freedom”, “love” etc. are given New Meanings and are installed from the top down to rule over actions of the lower layers. The words become the goals. Through the power of propaganda and inverted meanings human values are turned upside down; blatant truths are shouted down as lies and lies as truths, or the truth is given just a lip service.
Principle 11: Having and Imposing Absolute Confidence
Then there is the ‘I’m god’ principle, or the principle of SUPREME CONFIDENCE. The despots have to absolutely believe in themselves. Everyone else has to treat the despots as if they were gods. The fear and unquestioning adulation is the most needed food for the ‘great ones’ to carry on with their mission.
Principle 12: Being Absolutely Ruthless in Executing all the Other Principles
Finally, the principle of ruthlessness states that in order to make the manipulation work all other mentioned principles have to be implemented ruthlessly, without unduly agonising about whether they are right or wrong.
What is the ultimate goal of the ‘great ones’, the great rulers of the human times? Could it be true that they are after the evolution of mankind, as they will claim? Could it be that our governments only want us to prosper and grow into happy, proud and strong human beings?
The situation on the ground is surprisingly very different to what we are told. It’s again precisely opposite, the ones on the top set things up so that they prosper while the others slave away for them, slaves that have sacrificed their precious freedoms for the so-called Greater Good.
Countering the Principles
Our spiritual dimension, the awareness, what we really are, is the greatest obstacle to a totalitarian control. Those who want to enslave people do everything to make us ignorant and 'disconnected' from ourselves and everybody else. This is done daily to billions of us, by useless education, by always keeping us busy, confused, by bombarding us with violence and horror, by pornography, alcohol and drugs, by sports and entertainment, by feeding us toxins, by installing envy, guilt, greed, avarice, sloth, anger and fear.
And this is what they call POPULAR CULTURE. We're told that people want this. Far from it!
Reject this so called culture. Educate yourself. Thinks for yourself and turn quietly to YOURSELF.
*A cult is understood as a group of people adhering to a specific and commonly accepted belief system.
Link:
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/06/the-12-principles-of-enslavement.html
OOPS!!! Warm-mongers love to make sh*t up...
Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring ‘97 Percent Consensus’ Claims
By: James Taylor
Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism...
Read the rest here:
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/18/climate-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
By: James Taylor
Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism...
Read the rest here:
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/06/18/climate-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
"The Snowden controversy is highlighting one of the many major differences between libertarians (and a few principled civil-libertarian liberals and conservatives) and statists. Libertarians choose conscience over oaths and laws. Statists choose conformity to the state over conscience."
Conformity versus Conscience
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Suppose you have taken a job with the U.S. national-security state. You pass a high-level background check that secures you a top-secret security clearance. It is explained to you that everything that you see or do in your new job is classified top-secret. You are advised that you can never mention or discuss anything you see or do with anyone, including your spouse.
You are asked if you agree to these terms, and you do. You sign a written agreement and a written oath in which you agree and solemnly swear to never reveal to anyone anything you see or do as part of your job. You are also reminded that federal law makes it a felony criminal offense to reveal any classified national-security secrets that you learn about in the course of your job.
After a period of time, you are taken to a top-secret U.S. military-CIA prison camp in Eastern Europe. You see tens of thousands of prisoners being held in this massive prison facility. It is explained to you that these prisoners are radical Muslims, people who have been engaged in planning terrorist attacks on the United States. You are then taken to a special wing of the facility, where you witness prisoners being brutally tortured to provide information regarding terrorism.
Then, you are taken to another wing of this top-secret facility, where you witness thousands of prisoners being systematically executed. It is explained to you that the president, in consultation with his national-security team, has determined that the war on terrorism necessitates a systematic extermination of people of Muslim faith, owing to the centuries-old war between Christianity and Islam. It is emphasized to you how important it is to keep this systematic extermination system top secret, so as not to incite the enemy. Already, you are told, several hundred thousand Muslim enemies have been secretly exterminated in this top-secret operation.
What would you do upon your return to the United States? Would you remain silent and simply continue doing your job? Would you be supportive of the president and simply trust that he was doing the right thing? Would you write a memo to your boss expressing reservations you might be having?
Or would you go to the press and disclose what you saw, knowing that you were violating your oath, your employment contract, and federal law?
Undoubtedly, there would be some who would take the position that your oath and the law reign supreme. It would be manifestly wrong, they would argue, for you to break your promise and to violate the law, especially when you knew the conditions going into the job. They might say that it would be fine for you to work within channels to stop the Muslim extermination program, perhaps by writing a memo to your boss objecting to the program, but that it would be treasonous for you to reveal the program to the public.
Others, predominantly libertarians, would argue to the contrary. They would say that conscience reigns supreme over the oath and the law. If you concluded that a mass extermination program by the national-security state was morally wrong and if you concluded that the only way to bring it to a stop was to reveal it to the public, then libertarians would argue that that’s what you should do. In fact, libertarians would consider you a hero for choosing conscience over conformity, especially since your actions would be certain to incur the wrath of the national-security state, a wrath that would be visited upon you in terms of prosecution, incarceration, torture, or even assassination.
That’s the nature of the debate that is now playing out over the revelations by former NSA employee Edward Snowden. Sure, one can say that a massive secret federal surveillance scheme is not the same thing as a massive secret Muslim extermination program, but they’d be missing the point. The point is: What should a government employee who has taken an oath of secrecy do when he discovers grave wrongdoing at the hands of his own government, the government for which he is working? Should he comply with his oath and the law or should he obey the dictates of his conscience?
The Snowden controversy is highlighting one of the many major differences between libertarians (and a few principled civil-libertarian liberals and conservatives) and statists. Libertarians choose conscience over oaths and laws. Statists choose conformity to the state over conscience.
Link:
http://fff.org/2013/06/18/conformity-versus-conscience/
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Suppose you have taken a job with the U.S. national-security state. You pass a high-level background check that secures you a top-secret security clearance. It is explained to you that everything that you see or do in your new job is classified top-secret. You are advised that you can never mention or discuss anything you see or do with anyone, including your spouse.
You are asked if you agree to these terms, and you do. You sign a written agreement and a written oath in which you agree and solemnly swear to never reveal to anyone anything you see or do as part of your job. You are also reminded that federal law makes it a felony criminal offense to reveal any classified national-security secrets that you learn about in the course of your job.
After a period of time, you are taken to a top-secret U.S. military-CIA prison camp in Eastern Europe. You see tens of thousands of prisoners being held in this massive prison facility. It is explained to you that these prisoners are radical Muslims, people who have been engaged in planning terrorist attacks on the United States. You are then taken to a special wing of the facility, where you witness prisoners being brutally tortured to provide information regarding terrorism.
Then, you are taken to another wing of this top-secret facility, where you witness thousands of prisoners being systematically executed. It is explained to you that the president, in consultation with his national-security team, has determined that the war on terrorism necessitates a systematic extermination of people of Muslim faith, owing to the centuries-old war between Christianity and Islam. It is emphasized to you how important it is to keep this systematic extermination system top secret, so as not to incite the enemy. Already, you are told, several hundred thousand Muslim enemies have been secretly exterminated in this top-secret operation.
What would you do upon your return to the United States? Would you remain silent and simply continue doing your job? Would you be supportive of the president and simply trust that he was doing the right thing? Would you write a memo to your boss expressing reservations you might be having?
Or would you go to the press and disclose what you saw, knowing that you were violating your oath, your employment contract, and federal law?
Undoubtedly, there would be some who would take the position that your oath and the law reign supreme. It would be manifestly wrong, they would argue, for you to break your promise and to violate the law, especially when you knew the conditions going into the job. They might say that it would be fine for you to work within channels to stop the Muslim extermination program, perhaps by writing a memo to your boss objecting to the program, but that it would be treasonous for you to reveal the program to the public.
Others, predominantly libertarians, would argue to the contrary. They would say that conscience reigns supreme over the oath and the law. If you concluded that a mass extermination program by the national-security state was morally wrong and if you concluded that the only way to bring it to a stop was to reveal it to the public, then libertarians would argue that that’s what you should do. In fact, libertarians would consider you a hero for choosing conscience over conformity, especially since your actions would be certain to incur the wrath of the national-security state, a wrath that would be visited upon you in terms of prosecution, incarceration, torture, or even assassination.
That’s the nature of the debate that is now playing out over the revelations by former NSA employee Edward Snowden. Sure, one can say that a massive secret federal surveillance scheme is not the same thing as a massive secret Muslim extermination program, but they’d be missing the point. The point is: What should a government employee who has taken an oath of secrecy do when he discovers grave wrongdoing at the hands of his own government, the government for which he is working? Should he comply with his oath and the law or should he obey the dictates of his conscience?
The Snowden controversy is highlighting one of the many major differences between libertarians (and a few principled civil-libertarian liberals and conservatives) and statists. Libertarians choose conscience over oaths and laws. Statists choose conformity to the state over conscience.
Link:
http://fff.org/2013/06/18/conformity-versus-conscience/
The last time they did something like this we got 9/11 out of it...
NORAD’s Falcon Virgo Exercise Rolls Out in D.C. Today
Pentagon’s commitment to “rapid response” decimated by 9/11 stand down.
Kurt Nimmo
On June 17, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs announced a NORAD exercise for the Washington, D.C. area to be held between June 18 and June 19.
The Defense Department press release states:
Exercise Falcon Virgo is designed to hone NORAD’s intercept and identification operations as well as operationally test the NCR Visual Warning System and certify newly assigned command and control personnel at JADOC. Civil Air Patrol aircraft, a U.S. Coast Guard MH-65 Dolphin helicopter and a Dover Air Force Base Aero Club Piper Seneca III will participate in the exercise.
These exercises are carefully planned and closely controlled to ensure CONR’s rapid response capability. NORAD has conducted exercise flights of this nature throughout the U.S. and Canada since the start of Operation Noble Eagle, the command’s response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Previous Exercises Did Nothing to Prevent 9/11
Previous “carefully planned and closely controlled” exercises failed to protect the capitol and New York City on September 11, 2001. Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude current and future exercises will also fail to protect American cities.
The Pentagon has longed claimed that the FAA did not inform it that American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40 on the morning of September 11. Appearing before the Kean Commission, the FAA disputed the Pentagon’s assertion.
“The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said,” writes Nicholas Levis.
The Pentagon claim ignores the fact that the National Military Command Center, situated in the basement of the Pentagon, monitors the airspace over the northeastern seaboard and would have detected aircraft deviating from assigned flight patterns.
Additionally, military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 deviating from its flight pattern. It had done this in 1999 when it detected the Lear jet of pro golfer Payne Stewart suddenly depart from its flight path en route to Dallas.
“If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two ‘anti-terrorist’ F-15′s on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod,” notes William Thomas for 9-11 Visibility Project. “Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the ‘fast-movers’ intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson River at least six minutes from Manhattan.”
In 2003, a Democrat senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton, accused NORAD of lying. If the air defense timeline promoted in the Kean Commission book was correct, Dayton said, then the timeline presented by NORAD at the time was wrong.
“When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government,” writes Levis.
The Pentagon’s failure to communicate excuse was put in doubt by former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony before the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on May 23, 2003. Mineta told the commission then vice president Dick Cheney had issued a stand-down order:
I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
Mineta’s testimony was corroborated by counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. Reporter Bob Woodward also corroborated Mineta’s testimony and destroyed the government’s claim it could not track the allegedly hijacked plane because it had turned off its radar transponder.
Pentagon Drills: Window Dressing for Martial Law
In is reasonable to conclude that no number of “carefully planned and closely controlled” exercises will prevent another 9/11 attack, as the Pentagon claims, if NORAD is ordered to stand down as it obviously was on September 11, 2001.
Falcon Virgo is another post-9/11 window dressing event designed to make it appear the Pentagon is ready and able to defend America against terrorists. It is one of a large number of similar exercises that have become routine for the Pentagon and post-9/11 planners who harbor an agenda for America.
As an Infowars.com resource page on martial law demonstrates, the Pentagon is far more interested in acclimating the public to the presence of troops on the street and destroying the remnants of Posse Comitatus than defending the nation from phantom terrorists.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/norads-falcon-virgo-exercise-rolls-out-in-d-c-today.html
Pentagon’s commitment to “rapid response” decimated by 9/11 stand down.
Kurt Nimmo
On June 17, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs announced a NORAD exercise for the Washington, D.C. area to be held between June 18 and June 19.
The Defense Department press release states:
Exercise Falcon Virgo is designed to hone NORAD’s intercept and identification operations as well as operationally test the NCR Visual Warning System and certify newly assigned command and control personnel at JADOC. Civil Air Patrol aircraft, a U.S. Coast Guard MH-65 Dolphin helicopter and a Dover Air Force Base Aero Club Piper Seneca III will participate in the exercise.
These exercises are carefully planned and closely controlled to ensure CONR’s rapid response capability. NORAD has conducted exercise flights of this nature throughout the U.S. and Canada since the start of Operation Noble Eagle, the command’s response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Previous Exercises Did Nothing to Prevent 9/11
Previous “carefully planned and closely controlled” exercises failed to protect the capitol and New York City on September 11, 2001. Because of this, it is reasonable to conclude current and future exercises will also fail to protect American cities.
The Pentagon has longed claimed that the FAA did not inform it that American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40 on the morning of September 11. Appearing before the Kean Commission, the FAA disputed the Pentagon’s assertion.
“The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said,” writes Nicholas Levis.
The Pentagon claim ignores the fact that the National Military Command Center, situated in the basement of the Pentagon, monitors the airspace over the northeastern seaboard and would have detected aircraft deviating from assigned flight patterns.
Additionally, military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 deviating from its flight pattern. It had done this in 1999 when it detected the Lear jet of pro golfer Payne Stewart suddenly depart from its flight path en route to Dallas.
“If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two ‘anti-terrorist’ F-15′s on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod,” notes William Thomas for 9-11 Visibility Project. “Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the ‘fast-movers’ intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson River at least six minutes from Manhattan.”
In 2003, a Democrat senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton, accused NORAD of lying. If the air defense timeline promoted in the Kean Commission book was correct, Dayton said, then the timeline presented by NORAD at the time was wrong.
“When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government,” writes Levis.
The Pentagon’s failure to communicate excuse was put in doubt by former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony before the National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on May 23, 2003. Mineta told the commission then vice president Dick Cheney had issued a stand-down order:
I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
Mineta’s testimony was corroborated by counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke. Reporter Bob Woodward also corroborated Mineta’s testimony and destroyed the government’s claim it could not track the allegedly hijacked plane because it had turned off its radar transponder.
Pentagon Drills: Window Dressing for Martial Law
In is reasonable to conclude that no number of “carefully planned and closely controlled” exercises will prevent another 9/11 attack, as the Pentagon claims, if NORAD is ordered to stand down as it obviously was on September 11, 2001.
Falcon Virgo is another post-9/11 window dressing event designed to make it appear the Pentagon is ready and able to defend America against terrorists. It is one of a large number of similar exercises that have become routine for the Pentagon and post-9/11 planners who harbor an agenda for America.
As an Infowars.com resource page on martial law demonstrates, the Pentagon is far more interested in acclimating the public to the presence of troops on the street and destroying the remnants of Posse Comitatus than defending the nation from phantom terrorists.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/norads-falcon-virgo-exercise-rolls-out-in-d-c-today.html
"Barak Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are supporting a terrorist organization, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations..."
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
“We have a lot of evidence, which incriminates the US-NATO-Israeli backed al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces, namely al-Nusrah, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations.”
Press TV has conducted an interview with Michel Chossudovsky, Center for Research on Globalization, Montreal, on Barack Obama’s hypocritical statement claim that Syria uses chemical weapons on its people when US Special Forces train Syrian militants in CW use.
The following is an approximate transcript of the interview.
Press TV: How do you react to this announcement by Obama’s administration that they are now ready to arm these militants?
Chossudovsky: The US president is accusing Syria, namely the government of Bashar al-Assad, of having crossed the red line. But we have to ask ourselves, who has crossed the red line?
Barak Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are supporting a terrorist organization, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations.
Following this announcement, the White House spokesman stated that it was the intelligence community, which assessed that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons.
This is a nonsensical statement because all the evidence that we have to date points to the fact that the rebels, namely al-Nusra, which is a terrorist organization, has chemical weapons in its possession.
And I’m referring to several reports: First of all, several months back there was a report, it was on CNN, to the effect that Western military or Special Forces were actually training opposition rebels in the use of chemical weapons in Jordan and Turkey. This was a report on CNN.
Subsequently, and that’s very recent, we had a United Nations Independent Commission, which actually accused the rebels of using chemical weapons.
They said that there was no evidence to the effect that the Syrian government was using chemical weapons against the civilian population, but there was evidence to be confirmed that the rebels had chemical weapons and that they were using them against civilians.
Then you had another statement by the Turkish general directorate of security, namely the Turkish police, and this is nearly a month ago, to the effect that police seized Sarin gas in the possession of al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists who were believed to be heading for Syria.
So we have a lot of evidence which incriminates the US-NATO-Israeli backed al-Qaeda affiliated rebel forces, namely al-Nusra, which is also on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations.
Press TV: Do you find it interesting that all of this is happening when the Syrian army is actually making significant gains in the country?
Chossudovsky: Precisely. In fact, the rebels, which are largely integrated by al-Qaeda affiliated forces, literally have been decimated and the last stronghold of the rebels in the border city with Lebanon, al-Qusayr, have been defeated and these so-called rebel strongholds have been taken back by Syrian forces.
I think that it would be highly unproductive at this stage to channel weapons to a defeated rebel army.
I should mention that much of this channeling of weapons and money to al-Qaeda in Syria goes through a rather notorious individual, the FSA (Free Syrian Army) Supreme Military Commander General Salim Idris.
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-has-crossed-the-red-line-on-syria-interview-with-michel-chossudovsky/5339262
"If the Main Core database contained 8 million American “enemies of the state” in 2005, how many more are now listed considering the greater technological abilities and increased budget and emphasis on mining data? The NSA now collects 2.1 million gigabytes of data per hour and is currently building a $2 billion facility in Utah to store it all."
Are You An Enemy Of The State?
by Bob Livingston
The massive and hyper-Orwellian nature of the surveillance state as revealed by Edward Snowden and The Guardian seems to have caught the majority of Americans by surprise.
Even some of the criminal class in Washington, D.C., responsible for writing the laws that established the surveillance state, claimed surprise and feigned outrage, though many of them endorsed it and went on the attack against Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story. The reaction of the psychopaths who inhabit the D.C. cesspool under the mantel of “public servant” is indicative that they covet power above all else and to them the U.S. Constitution — which they swore an oath to defend — is a meaningless and antiquated document.
Representative Peter King (Fascist-N.Y.) said he believes journalists involved in reporting stories about the surveillance programs should be investigated.
Weeper of the House John Boehner called Snowden a traitor because what he did was “a giant violation of the law;” Senator Diane Feinstein (Communist-Calif.) also invoked the “T” word. Senator Barbara Mikulski (Socialist-Md.) wondered how someone who didn’t finish community college could be “exposed to some of our most significant secrets.” That the politically opposed criminal class would side with one another on blatant violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments and against the American people is evidence that government is an enemy of the people.
What Snowden revealed is not new and certainly not surprising. In fact, reading about it reminded me of something I wrote in October 2001 for publication in my printed newsletter, The Bob Livingston Letter™ (subscription required) in November 2001:
It Was War On Drugs.
Now It’s War On Terrorism.
Both were created by the U.S. establishment and both never intended to be won.
Both were designed as esoteric war on the American people under a mask of “patriotic” war fever.
Is there a hidden power, a shadow government behind the Pentagon and Trade Center Towers attack — a force using an Arab terrorist mantra?
The vast modern military operation to ferret out and bring to justice “Arab terrorist” Osama bin Laden and company is a comical production sold as real by the controlled media and bureaucrats of the establishment. The “success” of the charade will be the beginning of widespread terrorism and fear hysteria on the American people…
The terrorist scare is providing the excuse, as expected, for new police powers against the American people. There will be a massive surrender of what we have left of liberty. This drama against us is quickly unfolding. All phases of our public and private lives are at stake. Manufactured crises always provide the cover for seizure of human rights. Phony patriotism is strong leverage against a population ignorant of the ways of treason by “our own government.”
Osama Bin Laden, U.S. ally and a CIA contract agent in Afghanistan, is now branded a super villain worthy of a comic opera.
The art of war is that all warfare is based on deception and that rulers must cultivate the appearance of moral rightness in order to rally the people and persuade them to fight. It works!
In the blink of an eye the people have stopped blaming the government for the worsening economy and shifted the blame to the “terrorists.”
The government of the United States has reasserted its power over the American people. It is now stronger, much stronger, because of the “terrorist” attack. Any student of history would know ahead of time that government power is strengthened by horrendous attacks such as we have seen on our own people.
Who really benefited from the attacks? The answer is the U.S. government is now ready to wage a simulated war on the Arabs and real war on the American people.
History is full of governments which perpetrated monumental frauds upon their own people to trigger a war. Governments have to create the illusion that they were attacked first. Sacrificing the World Trade Towers, a billion dollars, and seven to eight thousand lives is nothing to the great chess game of power politics and oil under Arab lands.
The U.S. intelligence apparatus has been mining data and compiling a list of “subversives” since at least the 1980s. The list is kept in a database called Main Core.
Christpher Ketchum of Radar Magazine reported in 2008 about the existence of the Main Core data mining operation while covering a rift in the George W. Bush White House that led to the resignation of James Comey, John Ashcroft’s second in command at the Department of Justice in 2005. Comey resigned after Bush overruled him and re-certified a program that involved massive computer data mining of Americans and their compilation into a list of possible subversives. Ketcham writes that former government employees and intelligence sources with independent knowledge of domestic surveillance operations, “say the program that caused the flap between Comey and the White House was related to a database of Americans who might be considered potential threats in the event of a national emergency. Sources familiar with the program say that the government’s data gathering has been overzealous and probably conducted in violation of federal law and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
“According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, ‘There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.’ He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.”
If the Main Core database contained 8 million American “enemies of the state” in 2005, how many more are now listed considering the greater technological abilities and increased budget and emphasis on mining data? The NSA now collects 2.1 million gigabytes of data per hour and is currently building a $2 billion facility in Utah to store it all.
So who is an enemy of the state and likely to find himself in the Main Core database? The criminal political class has made it quite clear it is not al-Qaida, which it has funded and armed in Egypt, Libya and Syria. It is not Islamic extremists, who have been given blanket immunity from government spying.
It is not the criminal elected class and government functionaries. It is not the parasitic “taker” class too distracted by bread and circus, Hollywood antics, amoral lifestyles, reality TV, and sporting events and too easily swayed by slick oratory, fancy suits and promises of government largess to recognize totalitarianism in the regime of the undocumented usurper and his Congressional enablers.
It is Americans who believe in the rule of the law, the Constitution and freedom.
And since this information is neither new, nor surprising to anyone paying attention, one has to ask what is the purpose of its newfound celebrity and the vilification of Snowden and attacks on the 1st Amendment and Greenwald, who works for a mainstream publication and whose “findings” would not have been revealed were it not in the interests of those who control the message?
It is no doubt part of a new campaign — as was the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups — designed to suppress and intimidate anyone who dares oppose the growing tyranny. It is aimed especially at any journalist or blogger or potential whistle-blower as a reminder that the Constitution is not a protection against the psychopathic criminal class in Washington or their globalist masters.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/17/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state/
by Bob Livingston
The massive and hyper-Orwellian nature of the surveillance state as revealed by Edward Snowden and The Guardian seems to have caught the majority of Americans by surprise.
Even some of the criminal class in Washington, D.C., responsible for writing the laws that established the surveillance state, claimed surprise and feigned outrage, though many of them endorsed it and went on the attack against Snowden and Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the story. The reaction of the psychopaths who inhabit the D.C. cesspool under the mantel of “public servant” is indicative that they covet power above all else and to them the U.S. Constitution — which they swore an oath to defend — is a meaningless and antiquated document.
Representative Peter King (Fascist-N.Y.) said he believes journalists involved in reporting stories about the surveillance programs should be investigated.
Weeper of the House John Boehner called Snowden a traitor because what he did was “a giant violation of the law;” Senator Diane Feinstein (Communist-Calif.) also invoked the “T” word. Senator Barbara Mikulski (Socialist-Md.) wondered how someone who didn’t finish community college could be “exposed to some of our most significant secrets.” That the politically opposed criminal class would side with one another on blatant violations of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments and against the American people is evidence that government is an enemy of the people.
What Snowden revealed is not new and certainly not surprising. In fact, reading about it reminded me of something I wrote in October 2001 for publication in my printed newsletter, The Bob Livingston Letter™ (subscription required) in November 2001:
It Was War On Drugs.
Now It’s War On Terrorism.
Both were created by the U.S. establishment and both never intended to be won.
Both were designed as esoteric war on the American people under a mask of “patriotic” war fever.
Is there a hidden power, a shadow government behind the Pentagon and Trade Center Towers attack — a force using an Arab terrorist mantra?
The vast modern military operation to ferret out and bring to justice “Arab terrorist” Osama bin Laden and company is a comical production sold as real by the controlled media and bureaucrats of the establishment. The “success” of the charade will be the beginning of widespread terrorism and fear hysteria on the American people…
The terrorist scare is providing the excuse, as expected, for new police powers against the American people. There will be a massive surrender of what we have left of liberty. This drama against us is quickly unfolding. All phases of our public and private lives are at stake. Manufactured crises always provide the cover for seizure of human rights. Phony patriotism is strong leverage against a population ignorant of the ways of treason by “our own government.”
Osama Bin Laden, U.S. ally and a CIA contract agent in Afghanistan, is now branded a super villain worthy of a comic opera.
The art of war is that all warfare is based on deception and that rulers must cultivate the appearance of moral rightness in order to rally the people and persuade them to fight. It works!
In the blink of an eye the people have stopped blaming the government for the worsening economy and shifted the blame to the “terrorists.”
The government of the United States has reasserted its power over the American people. It is now stronger, much stronger, because of the “terrorist” attack. Any student of history would know ahead of time that government power is strengthened by horrendous attacks such as we have seen on our own people.
Who really benefited from the attacks? The answer is the U.S. government is now ready to wage a simulated war on the Arabs and real war on the American people.
History is full of governments which perpetrated monumental frauds upon their own people to trigger a war. Governments have to create the illusion that they were attacked first. Sacrificing the World Trade Towers, a billion dollars, and seven to eight thousand lives is nothing to the great chess game of power politics and oil under Arab lands.
The U.S. intelligence apparatus has been mining data and compiling a list of “subversives” since at least the 1980s. The list is kept in a database called Main Core.
Christpher Ketchum of Radar Magazine reported in 2008 about the existence of the Main Core data mining operation while covering a rift in the George W. Bush White House that led to the resignation of James Comey, John Ashcroft’s second in command at the Department of Justice in 2005. Comey resigned after Bush overruled him and re-certified a program that involved massive computer data mining of Americans and their compilation into a list of possible subversives. Ketcham writes that former government employees and intelligence sources with independent knowledge of domestic surveillance operations, “say the program that caused the flap between Comey and the White House was related to a database of Americans who might be considered potential threats in the event of a national emergency. Sources familiar with the program say that the government’s data gathering has been overzealous and probably conducted in violation of federal law and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
“According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, ‘There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.’ He and other sources tell Radar that the database is sometimes referred to by the code name Main Core. One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.”
If the Main Core database contained 8 million American “enemies of the state” in 2005, how many more are now listed considering the greater technological abilities and increased budget and emphasis on mining data? The NSA now collects 2.1 million gigabytes of data per hour and is currently building a $2 billion facility in Utah to store it all.
So who is an enemy of the state and likely to find himself in the Main Core database? The criminal political class has made it quite clear it is not al-Qaida, which it has funded and armed in Egypt, Libya and Syria. It is not Islamic extremists, who have been given blanket immunity from government spying.
It is not the criminal elected class and government functionaries. It is not the parasitic “taker” class too distracted by bread and circus, Hollywood antics, amoral lifestyles, reality TV, and sporting events and too easily swayed by slick oratory, fancy suits and promises of government largess to recognize totalitarianism in the regime of the undocumented usurper and his Congressional enablers.
It is Americans who believe in the rule of the law, the Constitution and freedom.
And since this information is neither new, nor surprising to anyone paying attention, one has to ask what is the purpose of its newfound celebrity and the vilification of Snowden and attacks on the 1st Amendment and Greenwald, who works for a mainstream publication and whose “findings” would not have been revealed were it not in the interests of those who control the message?
It is no doubt part of a new campaign — as was the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups — designed to suppress and intimidate anyone who dares oppose the growing tyranny. It is aimed especially at any journalist or blogger or potential whistle-blower as a reminder that the Constitution is not a protection against the psychopathic criminal class in Washington or their globalist masters.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/17/are-you-an-enemy-of-the-state/
Did Obama really go to Columbia University???
Legendary Columbia Professor Never Heard Of Obama
by Wayne Allyn Root
Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. And I have more information on the Barack Obama at Columbia University mystery. The plot thickens.
My life has crossed paths with Obama on multiple occasions. According to Obama, we were Columbia University classmates, both pre-law and political science majors in the Class of ’83. I also ran against Obama in 2008 on the Libertarian Party Presidential ticket. What are the odds?
But something about the Obama at Columbia story has always bothered me. Last week, at Personal Liberty, I wrote about having just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates — everyone except Obama. As usual, he wasn’t there — not a trace, not a video greeting, not a letter. I could not find any classmates who knew him.
I called Obama “the ghost of Columbia University.” I pointed out (just as I’ve said in the media for many years now) that Obama may have been registered at Columbia and may have graduated from Columbia, but he was rarely (if ever) seen for the two years in between. It’s a strange, mysterious and frightening story.
Is he the real-life “Manchurian Candidate”? What explains Obama having just enough skeletal proof that he was there (one photo, one roommate, one professor, one friend)… but never seen in a class, never on anyone’s radar screen, almost invisible? A total two-year blackout. It’s like a story straight out of a novel about the CIA or KGB. He graduated Columbia, but it’s almost as if he never went there.
To make matters even more mysterious, Obama’s college records are sealed. He’s had plenty of opportunities to authorize the release, to clear the air. He has never chosen to do so. But why? What has he got to hide? Funny enough Obama has never had a problem ripping open the sealed records of his political opponents. Every step of his career Obama has beaten his opponents by having sealed documents just happen to be publicly exposed by anonymous sources. But not Obama. His records are always unavailable (and never leaked). Obama always seems to have powerful forces on his side.
Did he attend Columbia as a foreign student? That was the educated guess I made in my appearance on “Hannity” on FOX News a year ago. The only photo of Obama from his Columbia days was in his off-campus apartment with a roommate described by USA Today as a Pakistani foreign student, pot smoker, and cocaine abuser. If you’re a foreign student, you live in housing off-campus with other foreign students.
That would also explain how he transferred into Columbia. Transferring into an Ivy League school is all but impossible. I did a little digging and found out only three transfer students in all of America were accepted into Columbia in the past academic year — three students out of 315 million Americans. Yet those who knew Obama at Occidental called him a pot smoker and partier who rarely attended class. You’re telling me that a student with that record, at an average college, was accepted for transfer into prestigious Columbia University? Only if he was an exotic, Indonesian foreign student transferring into a college that desperately wanted to claim an ethnically and globally diverse student body.
Still, that might explain how Obama got into Columbia. But where was he for those two years? My gut instincts say something is wrong with the Obama at Columbia story. Very wrong. Rancid.
But until now, I was the only Columbia-attached person publicly voicing my suspicions. That just changed in a big way. Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was the American history and diplomatic history professor at Columbia for 46 years. And he is more emphatic than yours truly that there are no Obama footprints at Columbia.
I was put on Graff’s trail by another Columbia classmate skeptical about Obama’s story. He told me that Graff had been the speaker for the Class of ’53 last weekend at Columbia. My friend was watching Graff answer questions from the crowd when he was asked about Obama at Columbia. Graff said, “I have my doubts he ever went here.”
I did some digging and located Graff’s home phone number. I called him. Now retired, he was delighted to hear from me. He agreed to go on the record about Obama. Unlike Obama, Graff clearly remembered me. He was thrilled to hear from his former student. I was in several of Graff’s classes, and he remembered me like it was yesterday. He sounded great — like he hasn’t lost any of his trademark sharpness in the 30 years since we last met.
I was honored to learn that this legendary historian has been following my political career for many years. But he had no cheery things to say about the President. Graff said: “I taught at Columbia for 46 years. I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American history and diplomatic history, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”
Even more importantly, Graff knew the other history and political science professors. “None of the other Columbia professors knew him either,” said Graff.
Graff concluded our interview by saying: “I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.”
There is something wrong with Obama’s story; I know that. Many of my classmates at last weekend’s 30th reunion feel queasy too — even though they are mostly Obama supporters. They know in their guts he wasn’t there. Now the most beloved professor ever at Columbia joins us in publicly questioning the story. Obama is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia. Rotten like dead fish.
It’s hard to come to any other conclusion, but Obama is purposely trying to destroy capitalism, kill the American Dream and undo American values, as well as shred the Constitution. Now that you realize he has a mysterious background, it all fits, doesn’t it? The question is: Who controls Obama? Who is pulling the purse strings? Who has the motive and desire to destroy America? Who benefits by the destruction of the greatest democracy in world history? Who wants to see a one world government, with no America getting in the way?
I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. Same time, same place. God bless America. We’ll need all the blessings we can get with Obama in the White House.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/13/legendary-columbia-professor-never-heard-of-obama/
by Wayne Allyn Root
Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. And I have more information on the Barack Obama at Columbia University mystery. The plot thickens.
My life has crossed paths with Obama on multiple occasions. According to Obama, we were Columbia University classmates, both pre-law and political science majors in the Class of ’83. I also ran against Obama in 2008 on the Libertarian Party Presidential ticket. What are the odds?
But something about the Obama at Columbia story has always bothered me. Last week, at Personal Liberty, I wrote about having just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates — everyone except Obama. As usual, he wasn’t there — not a trace, not a video greeting, not a letter. I could not find any classmates who knew him.
I called Obama “the ghost of Columbia University.” I pointed out (just as I’ve said in the media for many years now) that Obama may have been registered at Columbia and may have graduated from Columbia, but he was rarely (if ever) seen for the two years in between. It’s a strange, mysterious and frightening story.
Is he the real-life “Manchurian Candidate”? What explains Obama having just enough skeletal proof that he was there (one photo, one roommate, one professor, one friend)… but never seen in a class, never on anyone’s radar screen, almost invisible? A total two-year blackout. It’s like a story straight out of a novel about the CIA or KGB. He graduated Columbia, but it’s almost as if he never went there.
To make matters even more mysterious, Obama’s college records are sealed. He’s had plenty of opportunities to authorize the release, to clear the air. He has never chosen to do so. But why? What has he got to hide? Funny enough Obama has never had a problem ripping open the sealed records of his political opponents. Every step of his career Obama has beaten his opponents by having sealed documents just happen to be publicly exposed by anonymous sources. But not Obama. His records are always unavailable (and never leaked). Obama always seems to have powerful forces on his side.
Did he attend Columbia as a foreign student? That was the educated guess I made in my appearance on “Hannity” on FOX News a year ago. The only photo of Obama from his Columbia days was in his off-campus apartment with a roommate described by USA Today as a Pakistani foreign student, pot smoker, and cocaine abuser. If you’re a foreign student, you live in housing off-campus with other foreign students.
That would also explain how he transferred into Columbia. Transferring into an Ivy League school is all but impossible. I did a little digging and found out only three transfer students in all of America were accepted into Columbia in the past academic year — three students out of 315 million Americans. Yet those who knew Obama at Occidental called him a pot smoker and partier who rarely attended class. You’re telling me that a student with that record, at an average college, was accepted for transfer into prestigious Columbia University? Only if he was an exotic, Indonesian foreign student transferring into a college that desperately wanted to claim an ethnically and globally diverse student body.
Still, that might explain how Obama got into Columbia. But where was he for those two years? My gut instincts say something is wrong with the Obama at Columbia story. Very wrong. Rancid.
But until now, I was the only Columbia-attached person publicly voicing my suspicions. That just changed in a big way. Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was the American history and diplomatic history professor at Columbia for 46 years. And he is more emphatic than yours truly that there are no Obama footprints at Columbia.
I was put on Graff’s trail by another Columbia classmate skeptical about Obama’s story. He told me that Graff had been the speaker for the Class of ’53 last weekend at Columbia. My friend was watching Graff answer questions from the crowd when he was asked about Obama at Columbia. Graff said, “I have my doubts he ever went here.”
I did some digging and located Graff’s home phone number. I called him. Now retired, he was delighted to hear from me. He agreed to go on the record about Obama. Unlike Obama, Graff clearly remembered me. He was thrilled to hear from his former student. I was in several of Graff’s classes, and he remembered me like it was yesterday. He sounded great — like he hasn’t lost any of his trademark sharpness in the 30 years since we last met.
I was honored to learn that this legendary historian has been following my political career for many years. But he had no cheery things to say about the President. Graff said: “I taught at Columbia for 46 years. I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American history and diplomatic history, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”
Even more importantly, Graff knew the other history and political science professors. “None of the other Columbia professors knew him either,” said Graff.
Graff concluded our interview by saying: “I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.”
There is something wrong with Obama’s story; I know that. Many of my classmates at last weekend’s 30th reunion feel queasy too — even though they are mostly Obama supporters. They know in their guts he wasn’t there. Now the most beloved professor ever at Columbia joins us in publicly questioning the story. Obama is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia. Rotten like dead fish.
It’s hard to come to any other conclusion, but Obama is purposely trying to destroy capitalism, kill the American Dream and undo American values, as well as shred the Constitution. Now that you realize he has a mysterious background, it all fits, doesn’t it? The question is: Who controls Obama? Who is pulling the purse strings? Who has the motive and desire to destroy America? Who benefits by the destruction of the greatest democracy in world history? Who wants to see a one world government, with no America getting in the way?
I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. Same time, same place. God bless America. We’ll need all the blessings we can get with Obama in the White House.
Link:
http://personalliberty.com/2013/06/13/legendary-columbia-professor-never-heard-of-obama/
Medical privacy a thing of the past...
Written by Michael Tennant
If you’re planning on buying health insurance on an ObamaCare exchange next year, be forewarned: Your personal health information (PHI) will be made available to a variety of government agencies, quite possibly including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
According to the Washington Examiner, a proposed Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation “requires state, federal and local agencies as well as health insurers to swap the protected personal health information of anybody seeking” insurance on an exchange. “PHI includes an individual's medical history, test and laboratory results, insurance information and other data,” the paper explains.
Beginning in January, Americans not obtaining coverage via their employers will be required to purchase it on the individual market or pay a tax penalty. The exchanges — some run by the states, others by the federal government — are supposed to provide marketplaces for individuals to shop for the ObamaCare-compliant insurance that best suits their needs. Depending on their household income, individuals buying insurance on an exchange may be eligible for premium-assistance subsidies. They will also, under the new rule, find their medical history subject to bureaucrats’ — and possibly others’ — prying eyes.
If an individual applies for insurance on an exchange, says the rule, “the exchange would submit specific identifying information to HHS and HHS would verify applicant information with information from the federal and state agencies or programs that provide eligibility and enrollment information regarding minimum essential coverage.”
“HHS will work with the appropriate federal and state agencies to complete the appropriate computer matching agreements, data use agreements, and information exchange agreements which will comply with all appropriate federal privacy and security laws and regulations,” the rule adds. “The information obtained from federal and state agencies will be used and re-disclosed by HHS as part of the eligibility determination and information verification process.”
In other words, in order to obtain insurance on an exchange, an individual must surrender his PHI to the exchange, which will forward that information to HHS, which will then share it with other state and federal agencies. (The Examiner notes that the rule “does not mention any requirement that applicants first OK the release of their PHI.”) Since income is the main criterion for subsidy eligibility, this information will almost certainly be shared with the IRS, which is also tasked with enforcing the individual mandate.
The IRS’ enforcement role is cause for grave concern even for those not buying insurance on an exchange. Americans for Tax Reform has warned that every taxpayer will have to submit a new form with his annual income-tax return to prove that he is complying with the individual mandate. “This new tax information document,” the group argues, “must, at a minimum, contain: the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s ‘exchanges.’” From there, it would be child’s play for an IRS agent — perhaps at the behest of the party in control of the executive branch — to obtain anyone’s medical history and use it against him.
With Americans’ PHI traveling around computer networks, it would also be relatively simple for hackers to get hold of it and employ it for their own nefarious purposes, others have cautioned.
“Hackers stole millions of medical records from the Veterans Administration, and patients were at risk for identity theft,” observed Elizabeth Lee Vliet of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. “David Blumenthal, M.D., the President’s former ‘health information czar,’ admitted that ‘no infrastructure exists in most areas of the country for secure health information exchange among providers and between providers and consumers.’”
“Free” healthcare, it appears, comes at a price: the confidentiality of one’s medical records. How many Americans will be willing to make that trade?
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/15738-say-goodbye-to-medical-privacy-under-obamacare
"The legacy of the 9/11 crime—the greatest intelligence success in history (not an intelligence “failure”)—is a permanent state of emergency, a criminal military-intelligence-war apparatus (exemplified by the CIA, the NSA) of unimaginable scope and unlimited power, and endless war."
By Larry Chin
The US government is a criminal syndicate, openly committing atrocities on a global scale. The rule of law is a memory, buried in the rubble left by the false flag terror attack of 9/11, the manufactured “war on terrorism”, and the monstrosity of the Patriot Act.
The legacy of the 9/11 crime—the greatest intelligence success in history (not an intelligence “failure”)—is a permanent state of emergency, a criminal military-intelligence-war apparatus (exemplified by the CIA, the NSA) of unimaginable scope and unlimited power, and endless war.
This genuine evil is aided and abetted by the illiterate, willfully ignorant and acquiescent American majority.
The average American is uninformed, uninvolved, and well-conditioned to support wars abroad, and enthusiastically welcome their own oppression. They applaud the security forces that commit atrocities, asking no questions but begging these same forces to be “make them safe”.
A majority of Americans believe the original 9/11 lie, and enthusiastically approve of police state mobilizations within US borders. The unprecedented lockdown of Boston in the wake of the highly questionable Boston Marathon bombing incident was a dress rehearsal.
A majority of Americans approve of being under surveillance, monitored and tracked, their privacy willingly surrendered.“Big Brother” now openly proudly and promotes a police state. Washington’s leaders bray about the greatness of militant fascism, and win votes for it.
A majority of Americans, their brains addled with us-versus-them science fiction/monster movies and pro-CIA entertainment propaganda,still cling to the fantasy that they are “the good guys”, who are endlessly “under attack”.
So brazen, so certain that the passive US populace does not care, USofficials and the CIA are not even bothering to tell halfway believable lies. They know, based on its success with 9/11, that questions in the wake of any “terror” incident will not be asked by the majority, no matter how many suspicious facts are left hanging.
Today, they can even openly admit their criminality and feel confident that there will be no consequences.
The US government now openly supports and arms Al-Qaeda all over the world. As written by Michel Chossudovsky, “those who lead the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ in the same of ‘Democracy’ are those who are supporting and financing terrorist organization, which they themselves created.
Yet Americans do not care, and scarcely notice, that the official fairy tale has been routinely flipped this way and that, that way and this. The original 9/11 myth is so embedded into the brain synapses that subsequent distortions of the Big Lie, no matter how outrageous or obvious, do not even register.
Washington’s war machine, foaming at the mouth to topple Syria, shipping yet more chemical weapons to Al-Qaeda—is accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, while it rains chemical weapons on Syrian government forces defending their nation from toppling. And Obama and Netanyahu accuse Syria of “crossing red lines”. This would be a comedy, if not for the apocalyptic realities.
War criminal and former president Bill Clinton is calling Obama a “wuss” and a “total fool”if he does not take “decisive action” in Syria to assist the “rebels”—the Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda terrorists. The fact that Clinton is calling for the massacre to escalate does not register in the American psyche. The American public loves Bill Clinton, and know little if anything about the large scale war crimes he committed as president.
Adding to the spectacle, witness those who are running interference for the war/security apparatus, and laying waste to the illusion that there is no bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, in the most loathsome and truculent fashion, defends the NSA’s domestic spying, pounding the podium and proclaiming “It’s called protecting America”. She is a liar, and a war monger, and she damned well knows it. Her loyal liberal supporters do not.
Robert Mueller, who was intimately involved with 9/11,has declared that 9/11 itself would have been prevented, had domestic spying been pervasive prior to 9/11/01.
Perhaps the key mastermind of 9/11, Dick Cheney himself, has repeated the same talking point lies as Mueller: that 9/11 would have been prevented, had the US been a total surveillance state on his watch.
Mueller and the malignant Cheney damned well know that the only way 9/11 “would have been prevented” is if they, George W. Bush, and their intelligence cut-outs had not planned and executed the operation.
They know damned well that America was already a total surveillance state well before 9/11, and that today, the spying power of the intelligence apparatus is even greater.
As fully detailed in numerous books authored by James Bamford, the NSA has had overwhelming surveillance power for decades.As Michael C. Ruppert detailed in Crossing the Rubicon, the US government has used its otherworldly technological advantages (PROMIS software, for example) to commit untold crimes. 9/11 simply opened the pandora’s box for even greater applications.
The Edward Snowden affair (whether it is genuine whistle blowing, ora set-up designed tofurther manipulate the American populace) is but the tip of this horrifying iceberg.
Surveillance, like war crimes and “terror”, will simply become even more pervasive and all-encompassing. To most Americans, it is like having new Facebook friends listening in.
American ignorance is the intelligence-war machine’s ultimate fuel.
Obama is the ultimate political monster. America continues to approve of him. Under his direct orders, the Bush/Cheney agenda has been expanded exponentially. Now in his second term, even less concerned about re-election or public image, Obama’s barbarity is out of the closet. He is confident that his cult of personality—those in his huge delusional fan base—cannot see past his dark skin and slick public persona. They will support his every act, no matter how callous or lawless.
And here is the most telling sign of American times: George W. Bush is now a popular figure. A majority of Americans view him favorably.
His crimes and enduring legacy of destruction and terror, has already been forgotten.Similarly, his father, George H.W. Bush, the CIA godfather and venom-spitting mass murderer, is now viewed by most Americans as a kindly old harmless grandpa. And it will certainly not be long before the Bush crime family takes back (or is handed back) the reins of world criminal power again. Jeb Bush is angling for the presidency. The next generation, George P. Bush,is moving up the ranks in Congress, a nightmarish Bush scion of politically useful Latin descent.
The post-9/11 Bush/Cheney/Obama dystopiais worsening.
These are the fruits of 9/11.
The military-intelligence-security machine marches on. With hearty American approval.
Link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-military-intelligence-security-machine-towards-a-permanent-state-of-emergency-in-america/5339495
"U.S. government: Keep everything secure except voting..."
Mike Adams
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona's state law requiring potential voters to show proof of citizenship while registering to vote is illegal. The court ruled that Arizona, like every other state, cannot add ID requirements to the federal voter registration form which simply asks the person to check a checkbox to indicate whether they are a citizen. No proof of citizenship is required, anywhere across America, to register to vote.
As the LA Times reports, "The Supreme Court threw out an Arizona law Monday and by a surprisingly lopsided vote, ruling state officials may not demand a proof of citizenship from residents who register to vote."
This may come as a shock to those who thought the U.S. elections process was fair and just. But here's why it's all being engineered this way: The federal government, which has been caught conspiring against conservative groups via the IRS, intentionally wants as many non-citizens as possible to register to vote. This is how the democratic party expects to win future elections. Their strategy is rooted in voter registration fraud, which is why no proof of citizenship is required. They call it a "voting rights" issue, laughing off camera at the fact that they are helping huge numbers of people who have no right to vote in America -- because they aren't Americans -- still vote in elections.
Remember: If UN election observers ever came to watch a U.S. election, they would call the outcome complete fraud. Nearly everywhere else around the world, voters are required to show their ID when registering to vote. This is essential to the integrity of elections, making it a key civil rights protection for all citizens. Without an ID being required, the door is open for massive voter fraud. That's exactly what keeps happening, year after year, in the USA... and it's happening by design.
U.S. government: Keep everything secure except voting
It seems bizarre that the U.S. Supreme Court would bar Arizona from tightening the integrity of its voter registration requirements. In an age of total government paranoia when we're all told, "if you see something, say something," and we're constantly reminded that security is desperately needed to keep America safe, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court all but openly endorses widespread voter registration fraud is shocking.
And why doesn't the federal voter registration form require proof of citizenship to begin with? You have to show your ID to travel by air, to enter a state capitol building and just to walk down the street with a video camera because a police officer might demand to see your ID. But you don't have to show an ID to register to participate in what is one of the most sacred acts of any free society? Why is all security selectively dropped from voter registration?
The answer to this is that the idea of an endless expansion of Big Government can only be supported through fraud, not through real votes cast by real people. And in order for democrats to keep getting elected even as they are destroying America's economy, jobs, human rights and civil rights, a system of widespread voter fraud needs to be put in place. That's the federal voter registration form, which requires no ID.
And that's only part one of the plan to keep democrats in power, no matter what the cost to the nation. The other part of that plan is to grant citizenship to 11 million currently-illegal immigrants who have no connection to the U.S. Constitution and American history. Most of them will therefore almost always vote for socialist policies (and democrats) because that's what they were taught in Mexico: government handouts, obedience to Big Brother, subsisting in poverty while worshipping the ultra-wealthy corrupt politicians, etc. If you want to see the result of such policies, just take a trip through Mexico and open your eyes: mass poverty, runaway corruption, a nation ruled by armed gangs, abysmal living conditions and so on. A similar fate awaits America if democrats are allowed to keep running things. They will drive this nation into poverty while completely destroying the middle class.
With these two plans -- widespread voter fraud and the instant citizenship of 11 million undocumented immigrants -- democrats may very well be able to continue to hold power in Washington as they drive America into complete financial bankruptcy. But they don't care about the long-term impact of their actions. The only thing that matters to them is to stay in power and keep milking the system for as long as possible before total economic collapse arrives.
But there's something they've neglected to consider in all this -- something that will actually shift the demographics strongly away from Latinos in the next coming crisis. And that's the fact that Latinos tend to have little or no long-term preparedness or survival planning. Ever notice that nearly all the preppers and survivalists are white folks? And that the most (but not all) working-class Latino immigrants are extremely resistant to the idea of long-term financial planning, tending to live paycheck to paycheck instead of setting money aside? This has enormous implications in a collapse scenario. It turns out that white people are imprinted with concepts of preparedness and survival because they come from colder climates where surviving deadly winters requires long-term strategic thinking. I will discuss the demographic repercussions of all this in more detail in a future article.
In the mean time, rest assured that democratic operatives in Arizona and elsewhere across the country are trying to register as many non-citizens to vote as possible. This is their key strategy for the 2014 and 2016 elections. If you can't win on merit, try to win on fraud.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040824_voter_registration_Supreme_Court_Arizona.html#ixzz2WZFt7q3H
"Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations)."
by John W. Whitehead
There’s a reason George Orwell’s 1984 is a predominant theme in my new book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (available now on Amazon.com and in stores on June 25). It’s the same reason Orwell’s dystopian thriller about a futuristic surveillance society has skyrocketed to the top of book charts in the wake of recent revelations by former CIA employee and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden that the nefarious spy agency is collecting the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers, with the complete blessing of the Obama administration.
Orwell understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan flag-waving, are still struggling to come to terms with: that there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people – even the best intentions among those in government inevitably give way to the desire to maintain power and control at all costs.
The fact that the U.S. government now has at its disposal a technological arsenal so sophisticated and invasive as to render any constitutional protections null and void, and these technologies are being used by the government to invade the privacy of the American people should not come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention over the past decade.
Spearheaded by the NSA, which has shown itself to care little for constitutional limits or privacy, the “security/industrial complex” – a marriage of government, military and corporate interests aimed at keeping Americans under constant surveillance – has come to dominate our government and our lives. At three times the size of the CIA, constituting one third of the intelligence budget and with its own global spy network to boot, the NSA has a long history of spying on Americans, whether or not it has always had the authorization to do so.
What many fail to realize, however, is that the government is not operating alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy. For example, USA Today reports that five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the homeland security business was booming to such an extent that it eclipsed mature enterprises like movie-making and the music industry in annual revenue. This security spending by the government to private corporations is forecast to exceed $1 trillion in the near future.
We have, so to speak, gone from being a nation where privacy is king to one where nothing is safe from the prying eyes of government. In search of terrorists hiding amongst us--the proverbial “needle in a haystack,” as one official termed it--the government has taken to monitoring all aspects of our lives, from cell phone calls and emails to Internet activity and credit card transactions. Much of this data is being fed through fusion centers across the country. These are state and regional intelligence centers that collect data on you.
Wherever you go and whatever you do, you are now being watched--especially if you leave behind an electronic footprint. When you use your cell phone, you leave a record of when the call was placed, who you called, how long it lasted and even where you were at the time. When you use your ATM card, you leave a record of where and when you used the card. There is even a video camera at most locations. When you drive a car enabled with GPS, you can be tracked by satellite. And all of this once-private information about your consumer habits, your whereabouts and your activities is now being fed to the U.S. government.
As I document in A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the government has nearly inexhaustible resources when it comes to tracking our movements, from electronic wiretapping devices, traffic cameras and biometrics to radio-frequency identification cards, satellites and Internet surveillance.
In such a climate, everyone is a suspect. And you’re guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. To underscore this shift in how the government now views its citizens, just before leaving office, President Bush granted the FBI wide-ranging authority to investigate individuals or groups, regardless of whether they are suspected of criminal activity.
Total Internet surveillance is merely the next logical step in the government’s attempts to predict and, more importantly, control the populace--and it’s not as far-fetched as you might think. For example, the NSA is now designing an artificial intelligence system that is designed to anticipate your every move. In a nutshell, the NSA will feed vast amounts of the information it collects to a computer system known as Aquaint (the acronym stands for Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence), which the computer can then use to detect patterns and predict behavior.
No information is sacred or spared. Everything from cell phone recordings and logs, to emails, to text messages, to personal information posted on social networking sites, to credit card statements, to library circulation records, to credit card histories, etc., is collected by the NSA. One NSA researcher actually quit the Aquaint program, “citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.”
Thus, what we are witnessing, in the so-called name of security and efficiency, is the creation of a new class system comprised of the watched (average Americans such as you and me) and the watchers (government bureaucrats, technicians and private corporations).
Clearly, the age of privacy in America is coming to a close. If Orwell’s predictions prove true, what follows will be even worse. “If you want a picture of the future,” he forewarned, “imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.”
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead90.1.html
The market is about to crash...
Whenever Margin Debt Goes Over 2.25% Of GDP The Stock Market Always Crashes
Michael Snyder
What do 1929, 2000 and 2007 all have in common? Those were all years in which we saw a dramatic spike in margin debt. In all three instances, investors became highly leveraged in order to “take advantage” of a soaring stock market. But of course we all know what happened each time. The spike in margin debt was rapidly followed by a horrifying stock market crash. Well guess what? It is happening again. In April (the last month we have a number for), margin debt rose to an all-time high of more than 384 billion dollars. The previous high was 381 billion dollars which occurred back in July 2007. Margin debt is about 29 percent higher than it was a year ago, and the S&P 500 has risen by more than 20 percent since last fall. The stock market just continues to rise even though the underlying economic fundamentals continue to get worse. So should we be alarmed? Is the stock market bubble going to burst at some point? Well, if history is any indication we are in big trouble. In the past, whenever margin debt has gone over 2.25% of GDP the stock market has crashed. That certainly does not mean that the market is going to crash this week, but it is a major red flag.
The funny thing is that the fact that investors are so highly leveraged is being seen as a positive thing by many in the financial world. Some believe that a high level of margin debt is a sign that “investor confidence” is high and that the rally will continue. The following is from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal…
The rising level of debt is seen as a measure of investor confidence, as investors are more willing to take out debt against investments when shares are rising and they have more value in their portfolios to borrow against. The latest rise has been fueled by low interest rates and a 15% year-to-date stock-market rally.
Others, however, consider the spike in margin debt to be a very ominous sign. Margin debt has now risen to about 2.4 percent of GDP, and as the New York Times recently pointed out, whenever we have gotten this high before a market crash has always followed…
The first time in recent decades that total margin debt exceeded 2.25 percent of G.D.P. came at the end of 1999, amid the technology stock bubble. Margin debt fell after that bubble burst, but began to rise again during the housing boom — when anecdotal evidence said some investors were using their investments to secure loans that went for down payments on homes. That boom in margin loans also ended badly.
Posted below is a chart of the performance of the S&P 500 over the last several decades. After looking at this chart, compare it to the margin debt charts that the New York Times recently published that you can findright here. There is a very strong correlation between these charts. You can find some more charts that directly compare the level of margin debt and the performance of the S&P 500 right here. Every time margin debt has soared to a dramatic new high in the past, a stock market crash and a recession have always followed. Will we escape a similar fate this time?
What makes all of this even more alarming is the fact that a number of things that we have not seen happen in the U.S. economy since 2009 are starting to happen again. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “12 Clear Signals That The U.S. Economy Is About To Really Slow Down“.
At some point the stock market will catch up with the economy. When that happens, it will probably happen very rapidly and a lot of people will lose a lot of money.
And there are certainly a lot of prominent voices out there that are warning about what is coming. For example, the following is what renowned investor Alan M. Newman had to say about the current state of the market earlier this year…
“If anything has changed yet in 2013, we certainly do not see it. Despite the early post-fiscal cliff rally, this is the same beast we rode to the 2007 highs for the Dow Industrials. The U.S. stock market is over leveraged, overpriced and has been commandeered by mechanical forces to such an extent that all holding periods are now affected by more risk than at any time in history.”
Unfortunately, most Americans never get to hear such voices. Instead, most Americans rely on the mainstream media to do much of their thinking for them. And right now the mainstream media is insisting that we are not in a stock market bubble…
Forbes: “Why Stocks Are On Solid Footing And This Is No Bubble”
ABC News: “AP Survey: Economists See No Stock Market Bubble”
Businessweek: “Prognostications: It’s Not a Stock Bubble”
Yahoo: “This Is NOT a Stock Bubble! Says Ben Stein”
MarketWatch: “Is a stock bubble coming? No, say economists”
So what do you think?
Do you believe that we are in a stock market bubble that is about to burst, or do you believe that everything is going to be just fine?
Please feel free to express your opinion by posting a comment below…
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/whenever-margin-debt-goes-over-2-25-of-gdp-the-stock-market-always-crashes
Michael Snyder
What do 1929, 2000 and 2007 all have in common? Those were all years in which we saw a dramatic spike in margin debt. In all three instances, investors became highly leveraged in order to “take advantage” of a soaring stock market. But of course we all know what happened each time. The spike in margin debt was rapidly followed by a horrifying stock market crash. Well guess what? It is happening again. In April (the last month we have a number for), margin debt rose to an all-time high of more than 384 billion dollars. The previous high was 381 billion dollars which occurred back in July 2007. Margin debt is about 29 percent higher than it was a year ago, and the S&P 500 has risen by more than 20 percent since last fall. The stock market just continues to rise even though the underlying economic fundamentals continue to get worse. So should we be alarmed? Is the stock market bubble going to burst at some point? Well, if history is any indication we are in big trouble. In the past, whenever margin debt has gone over 2.25% of GDP the stock market has crashed. That certainly does not mean that the market is going to crash this week, but it is a major red flag.
The funny thing is that the fact that investors are so highly leveraged is being seen as a positive thing by many in the financial world. Some believe that a high level of margin debt is a sign that “investor confidence” is high and that the rally will continue. The following is from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal…
The rising level of debt is seen as a measure of investor confidence, as investors are more willing to take out debt against investments when shares are rising and they have more value in their portfolios to borrow against. The latest rise has been fueled by low interest rates and a 15% year-to-date stock-market rally.
Others, however, consider the spike in margin debt to be a very ominous sign. Margin debt has now risen to about 2.4 percent of GDP, and as the New York Times recently pointed out, whenever we have gotten this high before a market crash has always followed…
The first time in recent decades that total margin debt exceeded 2.25 percent of G.D.P. came at the end of 1999, amid the technology stock bubble. Margin debt fell after that bubble burst, but began to rise again during the housing boom — when anecdotal evidence said some investors were using their investments to secure loans that went for down payments on homes. That boom in margin loans also ended badly.
Posted below is a chart of the performance of the S&P 500 over the last several decades. After looking at this chart, compare it to the margin debt charts that the New York Times recently published that you can findright here. There is a very strong correlation between these charts. You can find some more charts that directly compare the level of margin debt and the performance of the S&P 500 right here. Every time margin debt has soared to a dramatic new high in the past, a stock market crash and a recession have always followed. Will we escape a similar fate this time?
What makes all of this even more alarming is the fact that a number of things that we have not seen happen in the U.S. economy since 2009 are starting to happen again. For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled “12 Clear Signals That The U.S. Economy Is About To Really Slow Down“.
At some point the stock market will catch up with the economy. When that happens, it will probably happen very rapidly and a lot of people will lose a lot of money.
And there are certainly a lot of prominent voices out there that are warning about what is coming. For example, the following is what renowned investor Alan M. Newman had to say about the current state of the market earlier this year…
“If anything has changed yet in 2013, we certainly do not see it. Despite the early post-fiscal cliff rally, this is the same beast we rode to the 2007 highs for the Dow Industrials. The U.S. stock market is over leveraged, overpriced and has been commandeered by mechanical forces to such an extent that all holding periods are now affected by more risk than at any time in history.”
Unfortunately, most Americans never get to hear such voices. Instead, most Americans rely on the mainstream media to do much of their thinking for them. And right now the mainstream media is insisting that we are not in a stock market bubble…
Forbes: “Why Stocks Are On Solid Footing And This Is No Bubble”
ABC News: “AP Survey: Economists See No Stock Market Bubble”
Businessweek: “Prognostications: It’s Not a Stock Bubble”
Yahoo: “This Is NOT a Stock Bubble! Says Ben Stein”
MarketWatch: “Is a stock bubble coming? No, say economists”
So what do you think?
Do you believe that we are in a stock market bubble that is about to burst, or do you believe that everything is going to be just fine?
Please feel free to express your opinion by posting a comment below…
Link:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/whenever-margin-debt-goes-over-2-25-of-gdp-the-stock-market-always-crashes
He's no Rhodes scholar...
Who is Ben Rhodes?
Daniel McAdams
Everyone is wondering (at least I am) who is Ben Rhodes, a 30-something who ascended from literally nowhere to be what seems a main driving force behind Obama’s foreign policy. He is credited with convincing the president to embrace the Arab Spring, convincing the president to bomb Libya, and, now, convincing the president to start yet another war, this time against Syria.
Who is he? How did a 24-year old aspiring fiction-writer in 2002 suddenly become one of the drafters of not only the 9/11 Commission report but also the Iraq Study Group Report? Then move on to Obama’s presidential campaign as a speechwriter and then to Deputy National Security Advisor, from which he announced the beginning of a US war on Syria while the president met with supporters in the East Room of the White House? Those familiar with Washington know that such miraculous ascents rarely happen on their own and are equally rarely the result of pure, raw talent.
There might be some clues to his brother David’s also improbable rise — from a lowly production assistant at Fox News at the end of the 1990s to covering presidential elections for Fox News (including the one where his brother was writing Obama’s speeches) to the lofty position of president of CBS news by 2011!
The excellent Russ Baker was wondering about all this way back in March, when he noticed a typical New York Times gloss-over article on Rhodes.
Aside from his quite unbelievable rise, we do know that he was catastrophically wrong on Libya, where a Time Magazine article pointed out at the time that he was the strong counter-weight to those who argued for more caution on the use of force.
Here is how Time put it back in 2011, when the interventionists were on the verge of their triumph:
Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It’s a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi. They also know that the U.S. will have to rely on other countries for the crucial task of rebuilding Libya and that the region may in fact be further destabilized by intervention. Outweighing that, the National Security Council’s Ben Rhodes says, are the long-term benefits of saving lives, protecting the possibility of democratic change elsewhere in the region and—tellingly—ensuring “the ability of collective action to be a tool in circumstances like this.”
Rhodes carried the day on Libya and he was completely incorrect in his assessment, his analysis, his prediction, and his prescription. Anyone who bothers to look at Libya today, which is run by gangs of roving extremist death squads would see what a fool Ben Rhodes is for his promise of “democratic change” in Libya — and how much more foolish is the president for following the advice of such a person.
Rhodes is named as the source of the White House-altered CIA talking points on Benghazi, where references to the Islamist extremist role in the attack on US Ambassador Chris Stevens were erased. It is understandable why the fiction writer Rhodes would want to toss that reference in the circular file: that particular sub-plot did not fit in with the main theme he had already painstakingly written, namely that the US attack on Libya would end the killing, stabilize the country, and bring about a democratic revolution that would continue to spread through the region. Fiction writers understand that a sub-plot could take your readers too far off the main narrative of the story and cause serious structural problems. That is why there are so many rounds of re-writes. The killing of Stevens and the rise of murderous – and racist — extremists did not fit the plot, so it had to be deleted.
Being wrong on war when you are on the sending end of death and destruction is less obvious to your countrymen than when you are on the receiving end. But anyone living in Libya after Rhodes’ “life-saving” mission knows full well the kind of liberation that comes at the tip of a US missile. And neighboring countries know as well what happens when a nation armed to the teeth with weapons, including chemical weapons, completely implodes after its infrastructure is destroyed by foreign attack.
In Washington, though, being catastrophically wrong on Libya eminently qualifies Ben Rhodes to take the lead on US Syria policy.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139836.html
Daniel McAdams
Everyone is wondering (at least I am) who is Ben Rhodes, a 30-something who ascended from literally nowhere to be what seems a main driving force behind Obama’s foreign policy. He is credited with convincing the president to embrace the Arab Spring, convincing the president to bomb Libya, and, now, convincing the president to start yet another war, this time against Syria.
Who is he? How did a 24-year old aspiring fiction-writer in 2002 suddenly become one of the drafters of not only the 9/11 Commission report but also the Iraq Study Group Report? Then move on to Obama’s presidential campaign as a speechwriter and then to Deputy National Security Advisor, from which he announced the beginning of a US war on Syria while the president met with supporters in the East Room of the White House? Those familiar with Washington know that such miraculous ascents rarely happen on their own and are equally rarely the result of pure, raw talent.
There might be some clues to his brother David’s also improbable rise — from a lowly production assistant at Fox News at the end of the 1990s to covering presidential elections for Fox News (including the one where his brother was writing Obama’s speeches) to the lofty position of president of CBS news by 2011!
The excellent Russ Baker was wondering about all this way back in March, when he noticed a typical New York Times gloss-over article on Rhodes.
Aside from his quite unbelievable rise, we do know that he was catastrophically wrong on Libya, where a Time Magazine article pointed out at the time that he was the strong counter-weight to those who argued for more caution on the use of force.
Here is how Time put it back in 2011, when the interventionists were on the verge of their triumph:
Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It’s a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi. They also know that the U.S. will have to rely on other countries for the crucial task of rebuilding Libya and that the region may in fact be further destabilized by intervention. Outweighing that, the National Security Council’s Ben Rhodes says, are the long-term benefits of saving lives, protecting the possibility of democratic change elsewhere in the region and—tellingly—ensuring “the ability of collective action to be a tool in circumstances like this.”
Rhodes carried the day on Libya and he was completely incorrect in his assessment, his analysis, his prediction, and his prescription. Anyone who bothers to look at Libya today, which is run by gangs of roving extremist death squads would see what a fool Ben Rhodes is for his promise of “democratic change” in Libya — and how much more foolish is the president for following the advice of such a person.
Rhodes is named as the source of the White House-altered CIA talking points on Benghazi, where references to the Islamist extremist role in the attack on US Ambassador Chris Stevens were erased. It is understandable why the fiction writer Rhodes would want to toss that reference in the circular file: that particular sub-plot did not fit in with the main theme he had already painstakingly written, namely that the US attack on Libya would end the killing, stabilize the country, and bring about a democratic revolution that would continue to spread through the region. Fiction writers understand that a sub-plot could take your readers too far off the main narrative of the story and cause serious structural problems. That is why there are so many rounds of re-writes. The killing of Stevens and the rise of murderous – and racist — extremists did not fit the plot, so it had to be deleted.
Being wrong on war when you are on the sending end of death and destruction is less obvious to your countrymen than when you are on the receiving end. But anyone living in Libya after Rhodes’ “life-saving” mission knows full well the kind of liberation that comes at the tip of a US missile. And neighboring countries know as well what happens when a nation armed to the teeth with weapons, including chemical weapons, completely implodes after its infrastructure is destroyed by foreign attack.
In Washington, though, being catastrophically wrong on Libya eminently qualifies Ben Rhodes to take the lead on US Syria policy.
Link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/139836.html
"The government’s logic on spying on you is that it’s okay since you have nothing to hide. But then why wouldn’t the same logic apply to the government? If they have nothing to hide, then why not come out and disclose the full extent of the phone tapping, the email scanning and electronic surveillance?"
Snow job: If government spying on all Americans is such a good thing, then why is it being conducted in secret?
Mike Adams
In the run up to the 2012 election, why didn’t Obama campaign on the promise that he would keep Americans safe by spying on all our phone calls, emails and electronic communications? After all, Obama says he completely endorse the program, insisting that Americans will have to put up with a “little inconvenience” in order to be more secure.
So why not run on that platform? “Hey, America, I’m the SPY President! Vote for me and have all your emails read by caring government professionals who keep you safe!” Instead of being the “Hope and Change” candidate, Obama could have been an advocate for “Snoop and Chains!”
Obama didn’t run on that platform, of course, because he would have lost the election if he admitted the things he really supports: secret military prisons and illegal torture, secret kill lists of American citizens, unarmed drone strikes on women and children, the continued criminalization of pot and industrial hemp, the continued Big Pharma monopoly over medicine, the DHS arming against the American people, and of course the over-the-top NSA surveillance machine that listens to all your phone calls and reads all your emails.
A candidate who openly admitted to supporting all the things Obama is now doing would be ridiculed… laughed off the debate stage and maybe even run out of the country. But by lying to the American public about all these things, Obama got elected. And once elected, he pushed the expansion of these programs, blowing out trillions of dollars in federal spending while multiplying the power and reach of the Big Brother police state surveillance grid.
But it’s all okay, he says. You didn’t need to know about all these details because the government was keeping you safe. And yes, you can trust government as long as Obama is in charge, you see.
Besides, you don’t have anything to hide, do ya?
YOU have nothing to hide, but WE do!
The government’s logic on spying on you is that it’s okay since you have nothing to hide. But then why wouldn’t the same logic apply to the government? If they have nothing to hide, then why not come out and disclose the full extent of the phone tapping, the email scanning and electronic surveillance?
The government wants to have it both ways: YOU don’t need any secrets because you have nothing to hide, right? But WE (the government) need all sorts of secrets. And why? Because our secrets keep you safe!
The very idea that only guilty people have something to hide turns out to indict the government itself: the very fact that they are running all these surveillance activities in total secrecy practically guarantees they’re guilty. That’s the trick, you see: use their own logic against them. When the government says, “Trust us, we’re keeping you safe by keeping an eye on you,” your answer should be, “Well who’s keeping an eye on YOU?”
StopWatching.us
So now, in one of the most hilarious examples of hypocrisy we’ve yet seen from the world of high tech, Google is using its home page to promote the Stop Watching Us website which calls for Congress to “reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying programs.”
The reason this is so hilarious is because Google was founded with help from the NSA and remains one of the NSA’s most important front-end psychological profiling tools. For Google to point the finger at the NSA and say, “how dare they spy on us!” should be met with obscene laughter.
Google calling for the NSA to stop spying on people would be like McDonald’s calling on the fast food industry to stop feeding fried foods to consumers.
Why Obama won’t demand progress
The StopWatching.US website itself is a project of the non-profit called Demand Progress (www.DemandProgress.org), which sounds like some sort of uber-liberal activist site but really isn’t. It’s actually a group that opposes CISPA, the NDAA and Hollywood monopolistic controls over the internet. They’re also helping promote the petition for President Obama to pardon Ed Snowden as well as demanding justice for internet activist Aaron Swartz.
I completely agree with Demand Progress on all these points, but Obama completely disagrees with everything the site stands for. Obama, despite what he says, actually stands for more secret prisons, more government spying on Americans, more secret kill lists and the continued destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of “security.”
Interestingly, about half the democratic party has surrendered to the Obama police state and is idiotically backing nearly all of Bush’s favorite policies now that Obama is the new front man. To truly brain-damaged individuals like Sen. Al Franken and Bill Maher — both of whom smoked WAY too much weed to be believed on anything — government abuse of power was bad under Bush, but now it’s perfectly okay under Obama. I’m not sure how much pot, crack, smack or meth you have to smoke in order to come to that conclusion, but somebody in the democratic party seems to be handing all that out for free.
No, the only reasonable, rational response to all of this — regardless of your political leanings — is that secret government surveillance of the American people was criminal under Bush, and it’s still criminal under Obama. It can’t suddenly be morally okay just because a democrat sits in the Oval Office, and any democrat who attempts to argue this point is only discrediting themselves.
Because this brings us back to the original question of this article: if government spying on the American people is so great and dandy, then why wasn’t it announced with great fanfare as if it were some sort of amazing new “benefit” of compassionate government?
Why wasn’t government surveillance mentioned as a selling point in the presidential debates?
Why didn’t television ads brag about how much each candidate believed in domestic spying on everyday Americans?
So enough with the bullshit from Obama, Feinstein, Boehner, Cheney, McCain, Clapper, Franken and every other nitwit who’s now trying to say this is all a wonderful government program being run by honest people who would never abuse all these billions of secret files they’re gathering on you.
My message to those crooks and liars? Nobody believes you anymore. You’re finished. Your government is finished. Your credibility has been shattered and your false, flowery rhetoric makes people want to vomit.
As NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently said:
It’s important to bear in mind I’m being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are.
I couldn’t agree more.
ACTION ITEM: Sign the petition to demand Obama pardon Snowden:
http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vG…
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040826_government_spying_NSA_surveillance_President_Obama.html
Mike Adams
In the run up to the 2012 election, why didn’t Obama campaign on the promise that he would keep Americans safe by spying on all our phone calls, emails and electronic communications? After all, Obama says he completely endorse the program, insisting that Americans will have to put up with a “little inconvenience” in order to be more secure.
So why not run on that platform? “Hey, America, I’m the SPY President! Vote for me and have all your emails read by caring government professionals who keep you safe!” Instead of being the “Hope and Change” candidate, Obama could have been an advocate for “Snoop and Chains!”
Obama didn’t run on that platform, of course, because he would have lost the election if he admitted the things he really supports: secret military prisons and illegal torture, secret kill lists of American citizens, unarmed drone strikes on women and children, the continued criminalization of pot and industrial hemp, the continued Big Pharma monopoly over medicine, the DHS arming against the American people, and of course the over-the-top NSA surveillance machine that listens to all your phone calls and reads all your emails.
A candidate who openly admitted to supporting all the things Obama is now doing would be ridiculed… laughed off the debate stage and maybe even run out of the country. But by lying to the American public about all these things, Obama got elected. And once elected, he pushed the expansion of these programs, blowing out trillions of dollars in federal spending while multiplying the power and reach of the Big Brother police state surveillance grid.
But it’s all okay, he says. You didn’t need to know about all these details because the government was keeping you safe. And yes, you can trust government as long as Obama is in charge, you see.
Besides, you don’t have anything to hide, do ya?
YOU have nothing to hide, but WE do!
The government’s logic on spying on you is that it’s okay since you have nothing to hide. But then why wouldn’t the same logic apply to the government? If they have nothing to hide, then why not come out and disclose the full extent of the phone tapping, the email scanning and electronic surveillance?
The government wants to have it both ways: YOU don’t need any secrets because you have nothing to hide, right? But WE (the government) need all sorts of secrets. And why? Because our secrets keep you safe!
The very idea that only guilty people have something to hide turns out to indict the government itself: the very fact that they are running all these surveillance activities in total secrecy practically guarantees they’re guilty. That’s the trick, you see: use their own logic against them. When the government says, “Trust us, we’re keeping you safe by keeping an eye on you,” your answer should be, “Well who’s keeping an eye on YOU?”
StopWatching.us
So now, in one of the most hilarious examples of hypocrisy we’ve yet seen from the world of high tech, Google is using its home page to promote the Stop Watching Us website which calls for Congress to “reveal the full extent of the NSA’s spying programs.”
The reason this is so hilarious is because Google was founded with help from the NSA and remains one of the NSA’s most important front-end psychological profiling tools. For Google to point the finger at the NSA and say, “how dare they spy on us!” should be met with obscene laughter.
Google calling for the NSA to stop spying on people would be like McDonald’s calling on the fast food industry to stop feeding fried foods to consumers.
Why Obama won’t demand progress
The StopWatching.US website itself is a project of the non-profit called Demand Progress (www.DemandProgress.org), which sounds like some sort of uber-liberal activist site but really isn’t. It’s actually a group that opposes CISPA, the NDAA and Hollywood monopolistic controls over the internet. They’re also helping promote the petition for President Obama to pardon Ed Snowden as well as demanding justice for internet activist Aaron Swartz.
I completely agree with Demand Progress on all these points, but Obama completely disagrees with everything the site stands for. Obama, despite what he says, actually stands for more secret prisons, more government spying on Americans, more secret kill lists and the continued destruction of the Bill of Rights in the name of “security.”
Interestingly, about half the democratic party has surrendered to the Obama police state and is idiotically backing nearly all of Bush’s favorite policies now that Obama is the new front man. To truly brain-damaged individuals like Sen. Al Franken and Bill Maher — both of whom smoked WAY too much weed to be believed on anything — government abuse of power was bad under Bush, but now it’s perfectly okay under Obama. I’m not sure how much pot, crack, smack or meth you have to smoke in order to come to that conclusion, but somebody in the democratic party seems to be handing all that out for free.
No, the only reasonable, rational response to all of this — regardless of your political leanings — is that secret government surveillance of the American people was criminal under Bush, and it’s still criminal under Obama. It can’t suddenly be morally okay just because a democrat sits in the Oval Office, and any democrat who attempts to argue this point is only discrediting themselves.
Because this brings us back to the original question of this article: if government spying on the American people is so great and dandy, then why wasn’t it announced with great fanfare as if it were some sort of amazing new “benefit” of compassionate government?
Why wasn’t government surveillance mentioned as a selling point in the presidential debates?
Why didn’t television ads brag about how much each candidate believed in domestic spying on everyday Americans?
So enough with the bullshit from Obama, Feinstein, Boehner, Cheney, McCain, Clapper, Franken and every other nitwit who’s now trying to say this is all a wonderful government program being run by honest people who would never abuse all these billions of secret files they’re gathering on you.
My message to those crooks and liars? Nobody believes you anymore. You’re finished. Your government is finished. Your credibility has been shattered and your false, flowery rhetoric makes people want to vomit.
As NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently said:
It’s important to bear in mind I’m being called a traitor by men like former Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a man who gave us the warrantless wiretapping scheme as a kind of atrocity warm-up on the way to deceitfully engineering a conflict that has killed over 4,400 and maimed nearly 32,000 Americans, as well as leaving over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein, and King, the better off we all are.
I couldn’t agree more.
ACTION ITEM: Sign the petition to demand Obama pardon Snowden:
http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vG…
Link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/040826_government_spying_NSA_surveillance_President_Obama.html
"Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see as inevitable. Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies."
Paul Craig Roberts
In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the American people control their government has been completely shattered. Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear that the American people don’t even influence, much less control, the government. As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing but chaff in the wind.
Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes US intervention in Syria. Despite this clear indication of the people’s will, the Obama regime is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington’s mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and for a “no-fly zone” over Syria, which, if Libya is the example, means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground, thus serving as the air force of Washington’s imported mercenaries, euphemistically called “the Syrian rebels.”
Washington declared some time ago that the “red line” that would bring Syria under Washington’s military attack was the Assad government’s use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against Washington’s mercenaries. Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence that Assad had used chemical weapons, just as Washington presented to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass destruction. Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice’s image of a “mushroom cloud over American cities?” Propagandistic lies were Washington’s orders of the day.
And they still are. Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president Obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria’s Assad has used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150 “of his own people,” a euphemism for the US supplied foreign mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.
Think about that for a minute. As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths “mass destruction?” According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts to 0.0016.
In other words, 92,850 of the deaths did not cross the “red line.” But 150 did, allegedly.
Yes, I know. Washington’s position makes no sense. But when has it ever made any sense?
Let’s stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about Washington’s “red line.” It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason for attacking Syria. Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against him?
As the Russian government made clear, Washington’s accusation is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it. No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves will fall for Washington’s latest lie, but no one else in the world will. Even Washington’s NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know that the justification for the attack is a lie. For the NATO puppets, Washington’s money overwhelms integrity, for which the rewards are low.
The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian Foreign Minister Larov said: “The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn’t driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use chemical arms–especially in such small amounts.”
Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia’s main diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed in their dismissal of Washington’s latest blatant lies. Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said: “The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought that it was not convincing. We wouldn’t like to invoke references to [the infamous lies of] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN alleging Iraqi WMD], but the facts don’t look convincing in our eyes.” Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign Affairs Committee, cut to the chase. “The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s path.”
Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from the US presstitutes.
Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States government. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Assad for harming “peace talks” while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.
Washington’s double-speak is now obvious to the world. Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying through its teeth. The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth. What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the presstitutes, a large majority of the American population opposes Obama’s war on Syria.
This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.
What the neocon nazis, the Bush/Obama regime, and the presstitute media have made
clear is that Washington is going to push its agenda of world hegemony to the point of
starting World War III, which, of course, means the end of life on earth.
Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States, have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted. The Libyan “no-fly” policy to which Russia and China agreed turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.
Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting Washington’s assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a “civil war.” If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.
Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy imports. Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls, they are next. There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.
Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see as inevitable. Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen bombs whose combined population is five times the US population. In such a conflict everyone dies.
Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington, if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle. All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits is meaningless. There will be no one here to collect the benefits.
Addendum: If the report below from RT is accurate, it seems obvious that the ignorant and evil denizens of Washington, D.C., are driving the world to World War III. http://rt.com/news/iran-troop-deployment-syria-782/
Addendum: Russia says it will not allow Syria no-fly zones.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35318.htm
Addendum: Once again Washington demonstrates that it is home to the most stupid people on earth:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-to-send-4000-troops-to-aid-president-assad-forces-in-syria-8660358.html?printService=print
Link:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Your cash is not safe if it is in a bank...
Mac Slavo
When the Cypriot government forced account holders to cover bank losses earlier this year most of the world assumed this was a one-off event, limited only to the people of Cyprus.
Though warnings urging depositors to get their money out of banks spread across the world, few have taken them seriously.
Perhaps now they’ll reconsider.
We’re all familiar with bail-outs, as in the government rescuing failed institutions, namely banks, by injecting them with tens of billions of dollars to prevent collapse.
But have you ever heard of a bail-in?
Japan’s Financial Services Agency will enact new rules that will forced failed bank losses on investors, if needed, via a mechanism known as a “bail-in,” according to The Nikkei. Mitsubishi UFJ (MTU), Mizuho Financial (MFG) and Sumitomo Mitsui (SMFG) are among those proposing amendments to allow them to issue the types of preferred shares or subordinated bonds that would be used in such cases, the report noted.
Cyprus was a test run. It worked.
This is now the official policy of the country of Japan, and is a serious considerationthroughout the Eurozone and the United States.
Euro zone finance ministers will discuss on Thursday how to decide which creditors will lose money and in what order during future bank rescues by the bloc’s bailout fund, the European Stability Mechanism.
Just so we’re clear, we are all bank creditors by these definitions, thus the regulations being created apply not to just large bond holders, but every individual depositor.
Notice how they didn’t say “in case future bank rescues are necessary.” That’s because they know what’s coming.
The collapse of the global financial system is a foregone conclusion and it has just been confirmed by finance ministers around the world.
When the next banking crisis hits the United States you can be assured that creditors (i.e. individual depositors) will be forced to ‘bail them in.’
Given that that billionaire insiders are rapidly unloading millions of shares of financial stocks as we speak, there is a strong possibility that this scenario may soon unfold.
So, if you’ve got any significant amount of money at financial institutions, you’d better think twice about how safe it is.
Of course, this is the United States of America, where nothing of the sort could ever happen. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, here in the U.S. thecrisis is contained and poses no risks to the broader economy or financial markets.
So, you can probably just move along and ignore this warning.
Nothing to see here… It’s just Japan and Europe, after all, and they are all the way on the other side of the ocean.
Link:
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/watch-your-cash-new-bail-in-rules-will-force-failed-bank-losses-on-investors_06182013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)