Tuesday, September 2, 2014

"I believe independence terrifies some people because it requires a human being to challenge the unknown and take responsibility for the consequences if he fails."

Why Is Independence So Frightening To Some People?

by Brandon Smith

In past articles I have examined the nature of power and division in our society and have always come to the same conclusion, that there are only two types of people: the people who want control over others and the people who just want to be left alone. However, there are also subgroups that swim within the boundaries of each end of the spectrum. Often, psychologists and self-help gurus attempt to promote the idea that the defining quality of the average person’s life is whether he is a follower or a leader. I have seen this spectrum applied to every political and social organization.

Ironically, I have heard so-called “leftists” argue that the nature of their ideology makes them more adept at leadership and that conservatives are more prone to become followers (ostensibly because conservatives tend to be more religious). I have heard the same argument from people on the so-called “right,” only in reverse. The problem is that very few people in our society understand anymore what it actually means to be a leader. Most Americans today are followers, whether they know it or not.

The concept of leadership has become ridiculously warped. Many people feel that to become a leader, one must clamor his way through the system — be it government or corporate — and achieve artificial status, which others are conditioned to recognize and worship. One cannot become a designated “doctor” without earning the correct accolades from the establishment, accolades that are essentially bought at the right price or given as a pat on the head to those who excel at parroting the mainstream consensus. The same goes for scientists, economists, political authorities, etc. This creates a professional class, a percentage of the population whose opinions are treated with immediate reverence simply because of their titles.

Others in our culture assume that leadership is measured by level of influence. Influence, however, can be stolen, rather than earned. The number of fans and followers a person retains is not a true measure of the real man or woman. Some people lie about who they are to gain popularity, while other people devour such lies because they are desperate for an icon to show them the path to an imaginary promised land. Celebrity — whether by aid of media, finance or bureaucracy — is almost always superficial.

Still other men and women believe that leadership requires empty gestures of cultural rebellion. Do our style preferences, body art, sexual orientations, musical tastes, obscure philosophical hobbies and elitist attitudes really make us different or unique? No, they do not. These things are an expression of our orientation to others, not an expression of our inner selves. One can live a life immersed in what we believe to be the wildly eccentric and still be an empty follower, devoid of originality and independence.

Carl Jung, one of the few psychologists in history I actually find useful, once said that all human beings are in search of a particular treasure, a psychological or spiritual treasure that is unique to them and makes them whole. Many people spend the entirety of their lives searching for this treasure in the world around them, rather than looking within, and they end their days feeling mostly miserable and thwarted. They look for it in politics. They look for it in religious representatives (without ever understanding their true relation to the religion). They look for it in wealth and stature. And they always come up short. This is the life of the follower, a life of endless transference in which complete happiness is always outside of oneself, somewhere over the horizon or in the hands of others.

One might ask what any of this has to do with independence and liberty? Consider the implications.

How many socialists and collectivists in the world think their happiness is dependent on your savings, your acceptance, your submission to their ideal society. How many collectivists seek to complete themselves by forcing others to participate in their philosophical fantasies? They do not look within; they look without. And if you happen to be standing in their field of vision, you might become a prop in their self-serving theater.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are many within the liberty movement who also suffer from the follower’s disease. They are the relentless crybabies on message boards screaming: “We keep talking about the problem but when are YOU going to give us a solution!?” Or they ask: “When is EVERYONE going to stand up and do something about this!?” Notice the inclusiveness of such statements. These people are always waiting around for someone else to take action, while never taking action on their own. They are followers by default of their own apathy.

What can be done to instill independence and true leadership in Americans once again? The conundrum is that such values cannot be instilled; they can only be encouraged. Each individual must make the decision on his or her own to stop looking for the world to fix itself, or them. Each individual must take the first step toward the long journey of becoming a self-reliant and self-owned human being. When faced with this conundrum, I can do nothing but make suggestions:

Find a useful skill, something that you love, and master it completely. Try to become the foremost expert on just one thing — not to impress others, but to challenge yourself. When people assert the incredible effort required to master a skill, they grow their sense of self-worth instead of measuring their worth by the guidelines of the collective.
Never look for traditional leaders. Always look for teachers. A real teacher is someone who seeks to make each individual his own leader through knowledge and empowerment. A real teacher has no desire to rule others, only to help others so that they do not feel the need to be ruled.
Independence comes from self-leadership. As long as you are reliant on the system or its participating oligarchs to decide your future for you, you will never be anything more than a follower, even if the system has given you a “place at the table” and a title to make you feel special.
If you see a problem in the world, stop asking permission to fix it! Stop waiting for the establishment to police itself. Stop concerning yourself with the actions of others and take your own actions, however small they might be. Revolutions are sparked in the minds of individuals and implemented by the hands of the courageous few. There will be no mass awakening and there will be no grand march to glory, so stop holding your breath. If there is an unrelenting evil in the world, then you must fight it if you expect anything to change. If you are the only person who recognizes it, then you may have to fight it alone.
If you are going to lead others, lead by example. Show people how to achieve something more by building something of your own. There are far too many Americans who seek to falsely elevate themselves by attacking the solutions and achievements of others from the anonymous comfort of their computers, rather than doing anything constructive on their own merit. There was a time when Americans were respected as people of action, rather than talk. When you do talk, do so from a position of strength. Talk as someone who has actually done something worth talking about.
Make a list of your dependencies. Do you have the skills to survive without a job? Without money? Without utilities? Without consistent aid from others? Can you live without modern comforts if you had to? Do you have the fortitude to endure great hardship? Have you ever endured great hardship, or have you avoided it your whole life? The more self-sufficient you are, the less you will need to look to the system or other people to make your decisions for you. You will become fearless, and fearless people cannot be ruled.

I believe independence terrifies some people because it requires a human being to challenge the unknown and take responsibility for the consequences if he fails. Followers trade in their mental and spiritual freedom to governments, oligarchs and gatekeepers so that they never have to face these difficulties. Sometimes, they are simply lazy. Sometimes, they lack confidence in their own abilities. Sometimes, they are just cowards. In any case, the result is the same: a life of relative ease riding the tides in a vast school of self-serving minnows but always prey to the ever circling sharks. I say don’t be a minnow; be a man.


Mysterious ‘Fake’ Cell Phone Towers Found Across America...

JPMorgan Silver Manipulation ENDING?

Judge Napolitano: NSA More Interested In Spying On Americans Than ISIS...

Ron Paul and Peter Schiff Talk Iraq, Perry, Rand, Fed, IRS...

" The most significant beneficiaries of high minimum wages are unions, since the high minimum wage prevents competition from those willing to work for less."

Obama Calls for Minimum Wage Hike

Robert Wenzel

Yes, lets keep the low productivity urban primitives from ever experiencing what it is like to have a job and get a weekly pay check. Let's raise the minimum wage so high that there is no chance that they are ever legally hired by anyone.

President Obama earlier today renewed his call to raise the federal minimum wage. It is not an accident that he did so while addressing a crowd of about 6,000 people gathered in Milwaukee at a festival hosted by the local A.F.L.-C.I.O..

The most significant beneficiaries of high minimum wages are unions, since the high minimum wage prevents competition from those willing to work for less.

Once again we see that Obama is nothing but a black man's Mussolini. He is not about helping "the people," he is about helping the crones.


Are the global elites that stupid???

Has the U.S. Targeted Nuclear-Armed Russia with Regime Change?
by WashingtonsBlog

America Has Undertaken Regime Change In Many Countries Before

In 1957, the U.S. and British governments planned regime change in Syria … because it was drifting too close to the Soviet Union.

20 years ago, influential U.S. government officials decided to effect regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The countries targeted were “old Soviet regimes”.

The U.S. has, of course, already carried out regime change in Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Chile, Haiti and many other countries. The U.S. was also instrumental in the recent regime change in Ukraine.

Soviet leader Gorbachev allowed the Soviet Union broken up only after the U.S. and NATO promised they would not encircle Russia militarily. Ever since 1991, they have broken their promise and encircled Russia.
Is the U.S. Now Trying to Implement Regime Change In Russia?

New Republic writes:

There are now voices in Moscow saying that these sanctions are an attempt to force regime change in Russia.

Richard Becker – of the American anti-war group Answer Coalition – says:

Their (US and NATO) clear aim is to surround Russia, to weaken Russia in the long run [and] to bring about regime change in Russia…

DNA India argues:

Washington’s obvious plan is to get troublesome Putin out of the way. The expectation is that once Russians feel the crunch they will turn against the president.


Regime change has become the latest buzzword against rulers the West dislikes. It was Iraq’s Saddam Hussain at one time, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi at another time and now it is Russia’s Putin. The Russian leader may not be an easy prey.

Former Indian ambassador M.K.Bhadrakumar theorizes that it is Russia’s sheltering of Edward Snowden which is the motivation for the U.S. push for regime change in Russia:

The US is undoubtedly in a punishing mood. What accounts for it? Can’t be Syria. Can’t be Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Can’t be the Arctic, can’t be BRICS.

Yes, it has to be the unprecedented humiliation and damage caused to the US’ global standing and foreign and security policies by the Edward Snowden affair, which Washington believes was masterminded from the Kremlin. It’s payback time for the CIA.

Former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter Robert Parry wrote in April:

Now that the demonization of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is in full swing, one has to wonder when the neocons will unveil their plan for “regime change” in Moscow, despite the risks that overthrowing Putin and turning Russia into a super-sized version of Ukraine might entail for the survival of the planet.

There is a “little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly” quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme.

If the Palestinians and Lebanon’s Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with “regime change” – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your “regime change” in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran. [See’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

Just when you think you’ve cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear program.

So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia. [For details, see’s “What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis.”]

You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.

When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you’ve succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin’s resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of “regime change.”

And a former high-level CIA official says that Putin has to go, and the U.S. should assassinate him if he doesn’t leave voluntarily.

But every country we’ve regime changed have descended into chaos.

As Robert Parry warns, we might be very sorry if we succeed in forcing Putin out:

But what would it mean to destabilize Russia? Does anyone think that shattering the Russian political structure through a combination of economic sanctions and information warfare will result in a smooth transition to some better future? The Russians already have tried the West’s “shock therapy” under drunken President Boris Yeltsin – and they saw the cruel ugliness of “free market” capitalism.

Putin’s autocratic nationalism was a response to the near-starvation levels of poverty that many Russians were forced into as they watched well-connected capitalists plunder the nation’s wealth and emerge as oligarchic billionaires. For all Putin’s faults, it was his pushback against some of those oligarchs and his defense of Russian interests internationally that secured him a solid political base.

In other words, even if the neocons get the Obama administration – and maybe its successor – to ratchet up tensions with Russia enough to generate sufficient political friction to drive Putin from office, the likely result would be a dangerously unstable Russia possessing a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. Putin loyalists are not likely to readily accept a replay of the Yeltsin years.

But the neocons apparently think the risks are well worth it. After all, the end result might finally let them kill off that pesky fly, Israel’s near-in threat from the Palestinians and Hezbollah. But we might remember what happened to the little old lady in the ditty, when she swallowed the horse, she was dead, of course.


I guess we'll all find out soon enough...

Deciphering Henry

By Bionic Mosquito

Henry Kissinger is out with an essay in the Wall Street Journal “on the Assembly of a New World Order” (HT Ed Steer). Some parts of it are rather difficult to understand or interpret (is it written in code that only the elite can decipher?). I will attempt to go through it line by line (probably not every single line) and see if, by the time I finish, I can make some sense of it.

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan’s young democracy is on the verge of paralysis.

Translated: Pretty much everything touched by the US government in the last ten years has turned into a disaster.

To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination.

Translated: Look, Nixon and I handed China to you on a silver platter; the Soviets crumbled just as Mises said they must (whoops, I let that slip – is it too late to take it back? I meant because Reagan spent the Soviets into bankruptcy). So, basically, pretty much everything touched by the US government in the last ten years has turned into a disaster.

The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

Translated: How could the US government screw-up all of the work we have done to consolidate global governance?

Hopefully, my emphasis on this point has properly conveyed that I consider this opening paragraph to offer an important admission by Henry.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension.

Translated: The US government was sitting in the cat-bird’s seat coming out of World War Two, virtually unscathed and in control of every meaningful global institution.

A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace.

It is interesting that he uses the term “governance” and not government. In any case, here Henry is spitting out the party line that the US spread its influence far and wide only for the benefit of bringing “free and representative governance” to the downtrodden (brown and yellow, usually) people of the world.

The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen.

Europe always played it strategically via balance-of-power politics. This, of course, left one side out of Anglo-elite influence. The American approach (not to mention the American military and economic power) broadened the reach of the elite.

The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order.

Translated: Democracy fooled the Americans into thinking they were free; we thought that it would fool all of those brown and yellow people, too.

Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

Translated: This is why we never allowed free markets to develop.

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world’s territory.

Translated: The objective was to establish a plethora of superficially independent sovereign states governing all of the world’s territories. Through these sovereign states, control could be exercised over the people now being fooled into believing that the government represented their interests. And the states were allowed to remain superficially sovereign as long as they didn’t want to become actually sovereign (e.g. Hussein and Gadhafi).

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power.

Most of the period cited by Henry includes the so-called cold war with the Soviet Union. The period also included communist China supposedly apart from the west. Yet, here he declares something approaching victory. Were China and Russia in on the game? Or were they more like useful foils in extending the game?

Henry sees trouble brewing: “The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.” In different ways, Barzun and Van Creveld would say the same thing.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures.

Henry goes on to explain some of these “pressures,” for example, that the European amalgamation is not going so well, “…Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders.”

It is interesting how casually he mentions, almost as an aside, that the objective was to create a single, unified, European state.

Further, the Middle East is coming apart:

At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

While likely to have happened eventually anyway (arbitrary borders established in Paris at the end of the Great War were not going to last forever), clearly the US government moved this along significantly.

The international order…faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

This strikes me as a second important admission. Europe is one of the key battlegrounds in this “paradox.” Will the EU (and/or the common currency) be able to hold it together? Will the centralization be able to withstand the corresponding decrease in productivity and therefore standard-of-living? We are witnessing this battle being played out in real time in Europe.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues.

What?!?! I won’t bother mentioning here all of the global / international bodies put in place during the last century – and especially after the war ended in 1945. What is Henry talking about?

This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history.

That’s what I just said! This, I believe, is a third important admission.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance.

Two key takeaways here: first, the elite cannot afford “a major war between states” any more than the rest of us can – nukes don’t differentiate, and cannot be defended against; second, the idea of “spheres of influence” echoes Barzun’s speculation of what might lie ahead. From Barzun: “The numerous regions of the Occident and America formed a loose confederation obeying rules from Brussels and Washington in concert…”

“Loose confederation” of the west and “spheres of influence” globally seem rather the same thing.

Henry goes on to describe how difficult the task is of bringing billions of people under one umbrella – too many of us billions don’t always go along with the man behind the curtain, it seems. He asks a series of questions that he believes the US government must confront – none very important to me or this post. He then lays the challenge in front of the US government leaders:

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions’ histories, cultures and views of their security.

This objective is fundamental to the disasters that the US government has created in the Middle East and North Africa. Not “seemingly contradictory”; just plain old “contradictory.” An impossible task when those being “securitized” (for lack of a better word, yet actually perfectly appropriate in every sense; “The Securitization of Humanity” sounds like a good title for an upcoming post) do not choose to be.

So, I have identified what I believe to be several important admissions; I will pull these together here:

1) We were doing such a fine job of consolidating the new world order, yet in the last ten years or so the US government has pretty much messed up everything it has touched.

2) The new world order was supposed to globalize the economy under one over-arching government (via institutions put in place not later than the end of WWII).

3) The international bodies put in place over the last century – and especially since 1945 – have failed. The people aren’t going along, instead producing “a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.”

Now, I will admit that someone viewing Henry’s essay through a different lens could come to different conclusions. I admit I have a particular view on the goings-on around us: global governance and consolidation has seen its best days, at least for this era. Things are coming apart – and the primary tool used in the last 70 years (the US government) has not only failed, it is getting too dangerous for even the survival of the elite. There is no easily co-opted “next” (e.g. China) to ride on this parade toward global government. It is time to back off, at least for now.

I conclude Henry has this same view.


Actually he can't do any daamage there. He should golf everyday the rest of his term and take congress with him...

Monday, September 1, 2014

Expect anything different???

Obama Administration Punishes Oklahoma for Rejecting Common Core
Written by Raven Clabough

The Obama administration has punished the state of Oklahoma for repealing the Common Core standards despite assertions that the standards are entirely "voluntary." Last week Oklahoma became the second state to lose its waiver from the disastrous Bush-era No Child Left Behind (NCLB) scheme. Washington State was the first, losing its waiver in April after the state legislature failed to come up with a solution that would allow the state to tie its student test results to teacher evaluations.

Common Core State Standards Initiative is the official name of the scholastic standards copyrighted by the Washington, D.C.-based National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Common Core has come under significant fire from parents, teachers, and school administrators across the country this year, who declare that the standards are a bid by the federal government to take over the education system. Additionally, privacy advocates have voiced concerns over the distribution to contractors of personally identifiable information about students and their families. reports:

States that adopted "college- and career-ready standards" in math and English Language Arts that are "common to a significant number of states" or "certified by a state network of institutions of higher education" avoided education"NCLB requirements, which include providing school choice, tutoring, and reconfiguring failing schools. Most states simply adopted the Common Core to obtain the waivers, inviting even further federal intrusion into their education policies.

By contrast, when the state of Indiana repealed the Common Core standards, the Obama administration granted it a one-year extension of its waiver because Indiana's replacement standards remained close enough to those set by Common Core. Therefore, Indiana still met the requirements for the waiver.

The Department of Education's response to Oklahoma's repeal has major implications, as it ultimately disproves any claims by the Obama administration that the standards are voluntary and "state-led."

The Department of Education's response to Oklahoma marks the first time the agency stripped a state of its waiver on the grounds of academic standards, notes senior policy analyst for Bellwether Education Partners Anne Hyslop. "This is obviously dicey water for the Secretary [Arne] Duncan, given growing opposition to Common Core," she said.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin was a supporter of the Common Core standards, even defending the standards at a National Governors Association meeting that took place in January. She later rescinded her support.

Falin observed,

Unfortunately, federal overreach has tainted Common Core. President [Barack] Obama and Washington bureaucrats have usurped Common Core in an attempt to influence state education standards. What should have been a bipartisan policy is now widely regarded as the president’s plan to establish federal control of curricula, testing and teaching strategies.

In June Falin signed a bill repealing the standards and returning the state to its previous standards, the Oklahoma Priority Academic Student Skills standards. "We are capable of developing our own Oklahoma academic standards that will be better than Common Core," she said.

Fallin was not the only official in Oklahoma to experience a complete reversal on the standards. Oklahoma State Superintendent Janet Barresi, who once supported Common Core, said that once it became clear that the standards were tied to the federal government, she changed her mind. "At one time, as it was emerging from Republican and conservative ideas from individual states, I did support Common Core," Barresi said in a statement. "As it has become entangled with federal government, however, Common Core has become too difficult and inflexible."

The federal Education Department asked the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education to determine whether its old standards were high enough, but the agency failed to do so before Oklahoma filed its application for a waiver extension.

Education Department Press Secretary Dorie Nolt defends the department's decision. "Having college-and-career-ready standards matters because it provides critical thinking and problem solving skills — skills that students need to succeed in college and beyond," Nolt said. "Oklahoma was unable to demonstrate that its students are learning high standards this year, which the state committed to do under its ESEA flexibility request. State leaders still have the opportunity to demonstrate that their standards are rigorous or design new standards to ensure their students are ready for college, career and life — just like Indiana and several other states have done."

Politico notes that without the waiver from the Department of Education, 100 percent of students will have to perform at grade level in math and reading by this school year at most Oklahoma schools. The state will have to use test results from last year as the bar to measure achievement. Schools that do not meet the standard will have to take significant steps to improve scores.

Oklahoma will have to set aside nearly $30 million in federal Title I dollars to pay for tutoring and school choice.

Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute asserts that the experiences of Oklahoma and Washington highlight "what a lawless process" the waiver system has become. "I defy anybody to go through and find any shred of consistency in the decisions that have been made here," he said.

Hess added, "States were ushered into signing up for the Common Core en masse ... and it’s brought us to this predictable place. They’re now stuck in this place where they’re told if you move off the Common Core, you’re supposed to come up with new assessments and standards in a matter of weeks ... it’s a somewhat unreasonable expectation."

According to Fordham Institute President Michael Petrilli, the Department of Education's decision is a "terrible" one and Fallin has grounds for a lawsuit. "Nothing in ESEA gives the secretary of education the authority to push states around when it comes to their standards," Petrilli said.

A lawsuit may be the next step for Governor Fallin, whose anger was palpable in a statement she issued responding to the Department of Ed's move. "It is outrageous that President [Barack] Obama and Washington bureaucrats are trying to dictate how Oklahoma schools spend education dollars," she said. "Because of overwhelming opposition from Oklahoma parents and voters to Common Core, Washington is now acting to punish us. This is one more example of an out-of-control presidency that places a politicized Washington agenda over the well-being of Oklahoma students."


Inflation??? What inflation???

The Fed Is All Up In Your Grill (Labor Day Food Inflation)
By Chris Rossini

CNNMoney has the rundown:

Hamburgers +10.3%
Cheese +7.1%
Steaks +9%
Pork Chops +10.4%
Hot Dogs +6.9%
Chicken +3%

Tell them it's 2%


"ISIS Has Been Cutting Off Heads Of Syrians For 3 YEARS! And The U.S. Never Saw A Problem With That!"

Supporting the Troops...

Obama Has No Middle East Strategy? Good!

"No honest person who has followed the U.S.-Ukraine attacks on Russia and the U.S. wars against billions of people around the world believe anything the U.S. or its puppets say..."

Russia Faces Less Risk in Pushing the Ukrainian U.S. Puppets To Make Peace Now

By Jack D. Douglas

The massive, daily artillery shelling of civilians in the ethnic-Russian cities of E. Ukraine by the huge Ukrainian army and militias, which may well be most of the 150,000 troops of the Ukraine, has slaughtered and maimed thousands of ethnic Russian-Ukrainians and Russian citizens who crossed the border to become volunteer soldiers fighting the Ukrainians slaughtering ethnic Russian women and children. The Russian government has been remarkably cautious in using force, even by volunteers, to stop the slaughter of Ukrainian-Russians who have been betrayed by the Kiev Junta that used violence to overthrow the Ukrainian Constitutional government elected by Russian-Ukrainias and other Ukrainians.

The Russians have been cautious in spite of their fierce outrage at the slaughters because they are trying desperately to stop the U.S. WWIV against Russia, China, Iran and their many informal allies. Russia does not want wars like the U.S. does and is carefully avoiding them in spite of severe provocations and attacks on Russians. Russia is trying to rebuild from the Soviet Implosion, trade globally, develop education and science, and build good relations with friendly nations..

The Russians are still being very cautious, but the whole global situation has changed in a few weeks. The U.S. has decided to pin itself down in new, more intense wars against the vast Muslim World, from Indonesia where ISIS is suddenly growing rapidly, to Syria and Iraq and North Africa and Pakistan where the people are trying to overthrow the U.S. puppet. The risk to Russia of serious help for the Ukraine Puppets from the U.S. Empire is much lower. The Russians may now be pushing hard to bring the Ukrainian War Against Russia to an end.

No honest person who has followed the U.S.-Ukraine attacks on Russia and the U.S. wars against billions of people around the world believe anything the U.S. or its puppets say. They have vast psyops Big Lie factories, whole industries of them which have grown massively within the U.S. and globally for a century, certainly since WWI.

The U.S. and Ukraine always accuse their victims, like the Palestinians and Russians and Syrians and Iranians and Afghans and Iraqis, of attacking them and insist that their strangulations and air annihilations of whole nations and daily air murders of their leaders are “peace-keeping,” while any act of self-defense by the victims is “Terrorism!”

It is very easy for the U.S. Big Lie Industry to manufacture videos of Russian tanks and assert they are inside the Ukraine.

Forget U.S. Big Lies.

BUT there is some real evidence indicating the Russians may now suddenly be sending in small numbers of more heavily armed and extremely well trained “volunteers” who may or may not also still be Russian citizens in some of the Russian military units or super-trained Spetznetz forces of secret police units.

The German news service Reuters is not one of the U.S. Secret Puppet Media, as far as I have been able to tell. [All of the Big U.S. Media Corps. are Republicrat owned and operated--Puppets--and many foreign Media are obviously Puppet Media.] Reuters is reporting some Russian reports of the movement of Russian forces into the Ukraine, though they do not make clear whether they are still “volunteers” of some kind.

The Russians themselves do not want to Lie and destroy all credibility, as the U.S. has done globally. They are not really denying they may be sending more “volunteers” with heavy weapons like tanks. They are mostly making “Non Denial Denials,” a U.S. political trick to avoid outright lying.

Most importantly, the vast Ukrainian Army and “volunteer militias” slaughtering the ethnic Russian women and children by shelling their cities are beginning to panic and panicky crowds in Kiev have been demanding peace, of all things. Some Russian “volunteers” yesterday captured a large number of the Ukrainian forces by capturing a small city with weak resistance.

The Ukrainian military officers and enlisted men know perfectly well that if they face any serious military forces like the Russians have, rather than slaughtering unarmed women and children in cities by artillery fire, they are totally lost. This is why they are panicking. They think some more Russian help is coming their way. It may only be a thousand men, as they claim, but that makes them panicky.

I think Putin et al. are trying to convince the Candy Oligarch of Kiev to stop his slaughter of Russian women and children and make peace that includes serious autonomy for the ethnic Russian areas of E. Ukraine.

IF he refuses to get “reasonable” and make peace, the Russian “volunteers” might sweep the vast Ukrainian forces aside and let the Russian-Ukrainians set up their own New Russia all along the Black Sea and the Russian border, but, as much as Putin and Russia would love that, it does not fit the pattern of Cool-Hand Vladimir in this ghastly war the U.S. and its Puppet Ukrainians have been fighting against Russian-Ukrainians who want only freedom from such Satanic Madness.


Press Conference: Formation of a state - 24 Aug 2014...

Watershed press conference by top Novorussian officials (MUST SEE!)

Dear friends,

There is no overstating the importance of this press conference by by Alexander V. Zakharchenko, Chairman of The Council of Ministers of The Donetsk National Republic. As as soon as I saw it myself, I asked two of our Teams (Russian and Oceania) to work together on a translation as fast as possible. They did as stellar job and I can now share this video with you. I want to especially mention and thank the following people:

Transcription/Translation and Timecoding by Marina - Without Marina this would simply not be possible. Heavily indebted to her help!
English proofreading and editing by Erebus,Michael and Vaughan
French Translation and release by Jean-Jacques (in progress as we speak) @ The French Saker
English editing and video publishing: Augmented Ether

To all of you we all - and I personally - owe a huge THANK YOU for your fantastic work, professional skills and heroic dedication to bring the voice of Novorussia to the rest of the world. In this "information war" the speed at which you made this crucial press conference available is a major victory against the Empire's propaganda machine!

This is the first time that we hear what the new - post Strelkov - commanders have to say. This is the first time that the Novorussians are going on the offensive. And this is the first time that we get to hear the views, values and ideas of the people fighting against the Nazi junta. This is truly a watershed moment.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker

PS: There is an important error in the translation: at 16:53, the subtitles say "we did not capture any regional administrations". They SHOULD say "we were not THE FIRST to capture any regional administrations"

(please press on the 'cc' button to enable the English subtitles)


Related article...

The West, the Greatest Cause of War in Human History, Stands Stripped of all Legitimacy

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Donetsk National Republic States The Facts

“Every time you come to Russia with a sword, from a sword you will perish.”

The former Russian provinces, which Soviet party leaders carelessly attached to Ukraine at a time when it seemed to make no difference as all were part of the Soviet Union, are now independent republics with their own governments. The West pretends that this isn’t so, because Washington and its puppet capitals don’t recognize the independence of formerly captive peoples. But the West’s opinion no longer counts.

In the last couple of days the newly formed military units of the Donetsk National Republic have defeated and surrounded large portions of the remaining Ukrainian military. Russian President Putin asked the Donetsk Republic to allow the defeated Ukrainians to return home to their wives and mothers. The Donetsk Republic agreed to Putin’s mercy request as long as the Ukrainians left their weapons behind. The Donetsk Republic is short on weapons as, contrary to Western lies, the Donetsk Republic is not supplied with weapons by Russia.

Washington’s puppet government in Kiev declined the mercy extended to its troops and said they had to fight to the death. Shades of Hitler at Stalingrad. Western Ukraine has remained the repository of Nazism since 1945, and it is Western Ukraine with which Washington is allied against freedom and democracy.

Thanks to The Saker we are provided with a press conference with English subtitles that Alexander Zakharchenko, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Donetsk National Republic, held with media. Present are Russian and Western press.

You will be impressed with the ease with which Zakharchenko handles the ignorant and corrupt Western media representatives, and your sides will burst with laughter at his reply to the media question: “Are there there regular Russian military units fighting on your side?”

The British and American journalists were the most stupid, as we already knew. You will die laughing at the response to the question, “why did you parade the prisoners.”

This person Zakharchenko puts to shame every politician in the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, all of the puppet politicians of the American Empire. If only the United States had people of the character and quality of Zakharchenko.

Now that Zakharchenko has revealed himself and made mincemeat of the stupid Western media, he will be demonized and misrepresented. So use this opportunity to see for yourself who has integrity and character. Hint: no one in political and media circles in the West.

You might have to put the video on full screen to read the subtitles.


Sunday, August 31, 2014


Read more here:

" The central government, created by the Constitution, has become the most powerful government in human history. It has amassed the greatest debt in human history. It's on track to become the most dangerous government in human history. The Constitution that was intended to limit the Federal Government has become a dead letter. I believe Americans face a similar situation that the German people faced in the 1930s. They too were manipulated through government-created crisis and elected the Nazi Party out of desperation. In our case, we have two tyrannical political parties that are only superficially different from each other. The deception has to be sophisticated because of the American tradition of individual freedom."

Political myths that are destroying freedom: The myth of a limited-government Republican Party (Part 1)

Phil Pepin

I will be doing a series of articles exposing commonly held political myths that many Americans have come to accept as historic fact. These myths were intentionally created by those directly involved in government and by its admirers who benefit from the expansion of state power. Over time, these relatively small groups, compared to the general population, have learned that controlling the public perception of government is essential to achieve their agenda. History teaches that, when government grows in size and power, freedom is destroyed for those subject to its rule. Only a few elite enjoy its benefits at the expense of the majority. It's vitally important that the focus needs to be on the supremacy of individual freedom. It must be considered the most precious possession that we have. The critical lesson of human history is how rarely individual freedom has been obtained, and how relatively easily it is for it to be taken away.

The primary reason why America is rapidly transforming into a totalitarian police state is that a majority of Americans are ignorant of history. This has led to a lack of interest in the political system. America has become a victim of it's own success because modern generations don't understand the sacrifices it took to develop the economy that has produced this great abundance we have known all our lives. This ignorance of the political system has allowed the government, by it's nature a parasite, to grow so large that it threatens to kill its host. Governments do not create wealth; they profit from the work of others. To put that in simple modern terms, government is the ultimate welfare recipient.

Thomas Paine said, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." The Federal Government has long ago passed the point of being intolerable. It's only relatively recently that a significant number of Americans have started to realize just how intolerable it has become.

The central government, created by the Constitution, has become the most powerful government in human history. It has amassed the greatest debt in human history. It's on track to become the most dangerous government in human history. The Constitution that was intended to limit the Federal Government has become a dead letter. I believe Americans face a similar situation that the German people faced in the 1930s. They too were manipulated through government-created crisis and elected the Nazi Party out of desperation. In our case, we have two tyrannical political parties that are only superficially different from each other. The deception has to be sophisticated because of the American tradition of individual freedom.

Both political parties use the Fabian Socialist technique of incremental change using the political system. The Stalinist approach is to use brute force against its people to achieve their goals. Fabian Socialists only resort to violence in very limited ways. It's heavily cloaked with legislation to give the appearance of legitimacy. They take over the political parties, education system and media in a coordinated effort to keep the general public ignorant of reality. Unfortunately, they have been extremely successful.

The purpose of this article is not to be an in-depth analysis of the entire political system but to reveal the truth behind the facade of the modern Republican Party. A party that has been in decline for years and appears to be on the path toward extinction. I don't believe that it's going disappear in the near future but, rather like the expansion of government, decline incrementally until it reaches the finally stages where the collapse accelerates.

The simplistic narrative that has developed over the years, and amazingly persists today, is that the Democratic Party is Liberal and the Republican Party is Conservative. Those who know the history behind the words Liberal and Conservative are aware that the meaning related to their political use has changed.

Since I'm analyzing the history of the Republican Party, I'll start with conservatism's definition. Traditional Conservatism -- or as it's also referred to as, Paleoconservatism or "Old Right" -- believes in Laissez-faire capitalism, limited government and a non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. To many, that might sound like a modern Libertarian. There are lots of similarities, but there seems to be a few important differences. Paleoconservatives tend to be devout Christians, usually Non-Zionist Christians. They are critical of the libertine attitude of many modern Libertarians. They tend to agree with Libertarians that government should not intervene in most of these social issues but will speak out in the court of public opinion against those values. The major dividing line is over abortion. A significant amount of Libertarians are pro-choice, while Paleoconservatives tend to be pro-life.

The history of Paleoeoconservatives is best summed up in the abstract of an article by Sheldon L. Richman, "New Deal Nemesis: The 'Old Right' Jeffersonians" published in The Independent Review: "The Old Right began as a diverse group of politicians, writers and activists awakened by a common threat: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his unprecedented accretion of executive power. The Old Right was not truly right-wing or conservative, drawing as it did from the ranks of "progressive" isolationists, Republican "conservative" isolationists, libertarian iconoclasts regarded as leftist radicals in the 1920s, conservative Democrats, social democratic historians, and free-market liberal economists and journalists."

For a more in-depth look at Paleoconservatism, I recommend the book Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement by Justin Raimondo.

That's the history of Conservatism and what it used to mean, but that's not what modern mainstream conservatism represents now. The Democratic Party lost its Jeffersonian heritage with the infiltration of Progressives in the late 19th century. They were in reality Marxists who called themselves Progressives. This may be a shock to modern Republicans, but there was a time when Democrats, though not perfect, were the ones who were strong on state sovereignty, for low taxes and limited government. They weren't the Marxist extremists that they have become.

In my opinion, based on historical facts, the Republican Party didn't really have such an infiltration. They already were, for all practical purposes, "Progressives." From its birth in 1854, the Republican Party didn't respect state sovereignty and wanted an all-powerful central government. They were for high taxes. In the early days, that meant high tariffs. They promoted mercantilism, now referred to as "corporatism," or often called "crony capitalism." They wanted a national central banking system similar to the current Federal Reserve System, which is at the center of the destruction of the financial sector and threatens our entire economy with inflationary fiat dollars and all the distortions of the economy that it causes. Republicans created the first fiat dollar; in the United States, they were called "greenbacks" and were not backed by gold or silver. They enacted the first income tax in 1861, which was repealed in 1871. With deceptive tactics, they started an unconstitutional war of aggression against fellow Americans. I will talk about the war in more detail in part 2. I'll explain why what we call the "Civil War" was unnecessary to end slavery and wasn't even about ending slavery. The primary reasons involved tariffs and Southern independence.

Two concepts of government emerged after the American Revolution, or more accurately called the war of secession from the British Empire. There was Thomas Jefferson's concept, summed up by Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution -- and What It Means for America Today. As The Mises Review states:

"Thomas Jefferson supported the American Revolution in order to promote individual liberty. To secure this end, it was essential that the central government be strictly limited in its powers. America, in the Jeffersonian view, was an alliance of sovereign states, and the adoption of the Constitution, though it increased the power of the national government, did not fundamentally change this arrangement."

Professor DiLorenzo describes Hamilton's concept from his book Hamliton's Curse: "Hamilton proposed a kind of "king" who would yield supreme power over all people, who in turn would have essentially no say in how their government was run. The states would be mere provinces whose governors would be appointed by and loyal to the "king."Under such a regime, all political power in the nation would be exercised by the chief executive and his circle of advisors, which would undoubtedly have included Alexander Hamilton as perhaps the chief advisor."

Professor DiLorenzo points out that Hamilton did not secure what he wanted at the Constitutional Convention and called the Constitution "a frail and worthless fabric."

Hamilton's economic concepts were just as troubling. Professor DiLorenzo, in his article "The Founding Father of Crony Capitalism," describes his economic ideas: "It was Hamilton who coined the phrase 'The American System' to describe his economic policy of corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, central banking, and a large public debt, even though his political descendants, the Whig Party of Henry Clay, popularized the slogan. He was not well schooled in the economics of his day."

Professor DiLorenzo shows the connection between Hamilton's "American System" and the Whig Party of Henry Clay. The Whig Party base fractured, and eventually the party failed. It was replaced by the Republican Party. The name was changed, but the philosophy didn't.

In part two of "The myth of a limited-government Republican Party," I will expose the greatest myth in American history. It has proven to be one of the most dangerous to liberty.

Phil Pepin
Host of Pursuit Of Freedom

Learn more:

Secret bunker video from CDC captures moments after MMR vaccine confession...

Back in the USSR...


Friday, August 29, 2014

Another poster of the day...

Poster of the day...

The Covert Origins of ISIS...

American interventionists can't have it both ways...

What James Foley’s Murder Says about the U.S.
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Given that the Islamic State subjected American citizen James Foley to physical abuse, waterboarding, and extra-judicial execution, U.S. officials and American interventionists, including those in the mainstream media, are describing the Islamic State as savage and barbaric.

But wait a minute! When the U.S. government was doing those same things, weren’t U.S. officials and American interventionists saying that such actions weren’t any big deal? Didn’t they continuously refer to physical abuse and waterboarding of U.S. captives as nothing more than “harsh interrogation techniques”?

I’ll bet that when Foley was being physically abused and waterboarded by his captures, he didn’t think to himself, “Oh well, it’s nothing more than a harsh interrogation technique that I’m being subjected to.” I’ll bet he believed he was being brutally tortured. And it seems that U.S. officials and American interventionists believe the same thing.

Yet, isn’t that what the U.S. government has been doing to its captives at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and its super-secret prisoner installations in Poland and elsewhere? Hasn’t it been subjecting its captives to physical abuse and waterboarding? Indeed, haven’t many U.S. captives been kidnapped and whisked away for indefinite detention without trial and torture?

And let’s not forget rendition. That’s the program by which U.S. officials were sending people into the clutches of friendly dictatorial regimes to have them do the torturing instead. That’s what the partnership between the U.S. government and the Assad regime in Syria was all about—to enable a foreign team of friendly torturers to torture U.S. captives so that the U.S. government could say that they weren’t torturing people.

Kidnapping? That’s what ISIS did to Foley and its other captives. It’s a brutal criminal offense and has long been recognized as such by all civilized people.

But what about the U.S. government’s kidnapping of people? According to U.S. officials and American interventionists (including those in the mainstream media), when the U.S. government kidnaps people, it’s not really a crime because, well, it’s the U.S. government that is doing it for purposes of “national security.”

Recall the brutal kidnapping in Italy a few years ago committed by several CIA agents. They kidnapped a guy who they then transported to the Egyptian military dictatorship, which was serving as a partner in the U.S. government’s torture-rendition program, where he was brutally tortured. The Italian courts indicted and convicted the CIA agents of kidnapping, which, needless to say, is a criminal offense under Italian law, just as it is under U.S. law.

But did the CIA agents face justice in Italy for their crime? Did the U.S. government extradite them to Italy to face justice? Of course not. The reason is that under U.S. national-security state doctrine, either their kidnapping wasn’t considered a crime or, if it was, they were considered immune from criminal prosecution because they were engaged in a “national security” operation.

The execution of James Foley? A brutal murder, no doubt about it, as U.S. officials and American interventionists, including those in the mainstream media, are saying.

But where were those people when we libertarians were speaking out against the CIA’s murder of Manadel al-Jamadi, the Iraqi military officer who was a POW being held at Abu Ghraib prison? The CIA murdered him in cold blood, and yet no one ever been charged with that offense. That’s because it’s the CIA that murdered him, and no one is going to jack with the CIA, which has long had a license to kidnap, detain, assassinate, and execute anyone with impunity, at least insofar as they related it to “national security,” the term that has come to trump constitutional provisions, criminal law, civil law, and basic moral principles.

And let’s not forget the U.S. government’s assassination program, by which it kills people without any trial or due process of law. Is extra-judicial assassination really any different in principle from extra-judicial execution?

Ever since 9/11, libertarians have been arguing against the U.S. government’s moving our nation into the dark side as part of its “war on terrorism.” We have ardently opposed such things as kidnapping, torture, murder, assassination, and other criminal offenses.

Interventionists have scoffed, claiming the dark side was necessary to fight the “war on terrorism.” Of course, they said the same thing during the Cold War, when the U.S. national security state was embracing Nazis, subjecting unknowing Americans to drug experiments, entering into assassination deals with the Mafia, assassinating innocent people, partnering with brutal dictatorships, and engaging in other communist-like actions.

If the Cold War and the war on terrorism really necessitated moving into the dark side, then that, in and of itself, should cause Americans to question the entire Cold War and “war on terrorism” paradigms because nothing can justify such actions as kidnapping, torture, and murder, regardless of who is committing them. What the Islamic State did to Foley should serve as a wake-up call for what the U.S. national-security state and its pro-empire, interventionist foreign policy have done to America.


" Ferguson is a flash-point in the cycle of war. It is becoming the government against the people."

Ferguson – Missing the Point

By Martin Armstrong

A few people have sent emails justifying the killing of Brown saying they will prove he was dangerous and on drugs. It really is irrelevant. Aside from the fact there is the little Commandment that says thou shalt not kill with no exception if you have a badge, the only justifiable reason to kill someone is in self-defense. Ferguson is a flash-point. Justifying the shooting is irrelevant. This is no longer a race riot, it is being seen worldwide as war waged by military troops pretending to be police and this crosses the line for that same level of force will be used against white protesters when the economy turns down. The goal is to be so harsh and cruel, like in Donetsk, anyone who disagrees better not show their face.

Ferguson is a flash-point in the cycle of war. It is becoming the government against the people. Police have been mandated to militarize under 1033. We have the police forces going simply nuts. In Florida, police bought 8 Apache Attack Helicopters for Brevard County. When you have every person armed walking around town, shit happens.

I was in Washington DC and one of these police was walking around at the train station with a bullet-proof vest and a machine-gun. He did not look to be as smart as an average teenager, just mean, nasty, and looking for a fight. The typical school-yard bully type. He gave the impression that if you spit-out hot coffee on you and jumped up suddenly, he would shoot first and ask questions later. There was nothing going on there that day. Just this one power-crazed guy. I have been in countries like that. It is never a safe feeling.

This is not whether Brown was a good guy or bad. This is a flash-point and it is moving beyond racism. This is something that is spreading once again into 2017-2018.


"...sometimes they are accidents. Sometimes, they’re not."

Curious Car Crashes: Louis Freeh, The Man With The Secrets

By Russ Baker

Any serious student of history is on alert for “interesting accidents.” Because sometimes they are accidents. Sometimes, they’re not.

We have no opinion at the moment on the one-car-wreck that left former FBI director Louis Freeh badly injured around noon on August 25, other than to note some curious facts: the police were hours late informing the office of the governor of Vermont; Freeh was flown by helicopter to the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Hospital in New Hampshire under armed guard, and has remained under armed guard; the hospital has refused to confirm that he is a patient, even after reports of two surgeries; at least for the first few days no one has answered the phones at his company, Freeh Group International.

The Crash

From news reports available at press time, Freeh

was headed south on Vermont 12 in his 2010 GMC Yukon when he drove off the east side of the road. The vehicle struck a mailbox and a row of shrubs, then came to rest against the side of a tree, police said…

Louis Freeh

Louis Freeh epitomizes the risks attendant in a president’s decision to demonstrate bipartisanship by appointing or re-appointing figures associated with the opposing political party and/or prior regime. He also embodies the troubled legacy of the Bureau from its earliest days. (For a look at how the U.S. media cooperated with the Bureau to misleadingly burnish its image, see this)

Louis Freeh was appointed by George H.W. Bush to the federal bench in 1991. In the first year of Bill Clinton’s presidency, Clinton named Freeh head of the FBI.

Right from the start, the Freeh FBI was drenched in controversy. The “screw-ups” were legion—from the exposure of fraudulent FBI crime lab results to the wrongful blaming of an innocent man for the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics—to the bloody standoff and shootout at Ruby Ridge.

Freeh vs the Clintons

In order to move the heat off himself and his agency, Freeh made political peace with Newt Gingrich and his firebrand GOP Congressional operation, deflecting the political pressure back onto the White House. He did this via a Campaign Finance Task Force under the auspices of his parent agency, the Justice Department, established in December of 1996 after Clinton’s re-election. This became, prior to 9/11, what some say was the largest federal investigation in U.S. history.

Over 300 FBI agents were assigned to the investigation, which targeted both Clinton and Gore. No one was ever indicted but a steady drip of leaked stories pounded Gore particularly—feeding the damaging story line that he was a captive of the China Lobby and possibly even compromised by certain foreign intelligence services. This long-simmering PR crisis did serious damage to Al Gore’s prospects in 2000, and thereby aided the campaign of George W. Bush, son of Freeh’s original sponsor.

Freeh, the Saudis and Terrorism

Even more fraught was Freeh’s behavior during the investigation of the massive bombing of U.S. military facilities at the Khobar Towers development in Saudi Arabia. According to the former counterintelligence officials Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon in the book The Age of Sacred Terror, Clinton foreign policy officials felt that Freeh was deeply influenced by the Saudi power structure.

Eventually, Freeh, according to the authors, called the elder Bush and asked him to intervene with Crown Prince Abdullah to allow FBI agents to watch through a one-way mirror while Saudi agents questioned Khobar bombing suspects. They allege that he ignored the chain of command and Clinton’s National Security Council in bringing Bush Sr. into these sensitive negotiations.

In his memoirs, Freeh claimed that Clinton suspected the Saudis, while suggesting that he himself was convinced that Iranian operatives had executed the bombing. (It’s important here to note the Bush family’s long and close ties to the Saudi royal family and the political agenda at work in shifting blame to the hated Iranians.)

Freeh also curtailed FBI agent John P. O’Neill’s investigation into a possible Al Qaeda role in the Khobar bombing and the later attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen. Freeh even pulled O’Neill out of Yemen during the Cole investigation. By transferring O’Neill to New York City, Freeh sided with U.S. Ambassador Barbara Bodine, a Clinton holdover in the new Bush administration, and with Saudi officials who wanted O’Neill out of their way. The aim, it appears, was to shield certain suspects (and any possible sponsors) from over-zealous American investigators. Later, Freeh thwarted O’Neill’s efforts to become head of the FBI NYC field office.

In an extraordinary turn of events, John O’Neill died in the destruction of the Twin Towers—which were allegedly brought down by a group of hijackers dominated by Saudi nationals.


If he dared, Louis Freeh could shed a great deal of light on two decades of frequent security emergencies that have led to the greatest buildup of state power in the history of the United States—and limited Americans’ freedom and privacy as never before. Freeh’s strange crash—like most such incidents (see the bizarre one-car crash that killed national security reporter Michael Hastings) – will almost certainly be explained as a flukish accident.

And Freeh, the lucky survivor, is unlikely to volunteer to spread truth about the crash, or any of the other curious events in which he has been involved as the consummate intelligence-establishment insider.

See more at:

Where do they keep getting these people from???

Elizabeth Warren Finally Speaks on Israel/Gaza, Sounds Like Netanyahu
By Glenn Greenwald

The last time Elizabeth Warren was asked about her views on the Israeli attack on Gaza – on July 17 – she, as Rania Khalek put it, “literally ran away” without answering. But last week, the liberal Senator appeared for one of her regularly scheduled “office hours” with her Massachusetts constituents, this one in Hyannis, and, as a local paper reported, she had nowhere to run.

One voter who identified himself as a Warren supporter, John Bangert, stood up and objected to her recent vote, in the middle of the horrific attack on Gaza, to send yet another $225 million of American taxpayer money to Israel for its “Iron Dome” system. Banger told his Senator: “We are disagreeing with Israel using their guns against innocents. It’s true in Ferguson, Missouri, and it’s true in Israel . . . The vote was wrong, I believe.” To crowd applause, Bangert told Warren that the money “could have been spent on infrastructure or helping immigrants fleeing Central America.”

But Warren steadfastly defended her “pro-Israel” vote, invoking the politician’s platitude: “We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one.” According to the account in the Cape Cod Times by reporter C. Ryan Barber, flagged by Zaid Jilani, Warren was also asked about her Israel position by other voters who were at the gathering, and she went on to explain:

“I think the vote was right, and I’ll tell you why I think the vote was right. America has a very special relationship with Israel. Israel lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and a part of the world where there aren’t many liberal democracies and democracies that are controlled by the rule of law. And we very much need an ally in that part of the world.”

Warren said Hamas has attacked Israel “indiscriminately,” but with the Iron Dome defense system, the missiles have “not had the terrorist effect Hamas hoped for.” When pressed by another member of the crowd about civilian casualties from Israel’s attacks, Warren said she believes those casualties are the “last thing Israel wants.”

“But when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself,” Warren said, drawing applause.

Warren even rejected a different voter’s suggestion that the U.S. force Israel to at least cease building illegal settlements by withholding further aid: “Noreen Thompsen, of Eastham, proposed that Israel should be prevented from building any more settlements as a condition of future U.S. funding, but Warren said, ‘I think there’s a question of whether we should go that far.’”

In her defense, Warren has long been clear that this is what she would do. Her Senate campaign website still contains statements such as “it is a moral imperative to support and defend Israel” and ”as a United States Senator, I will work to ensure Israel’s security and success.”

During her time in the national spotlight, Warren has focused overwhelmingly on domestic issues, rarely venturing into foreign policy discussions. Many of those domestic views, particularly her strident-for-D.C. opposition to banks, have been admirable, elevating her to hero status for many progressives.

But when Warren has spoken on national security, she has invariably spouted warmed-over, banal Democratic hawk tripe of the kind that she just recited about Israel and Gaza. During her Senate campaign, for instance, she issued wildly militaristic – and in some cases clearly false – statements about Iran and its nuclear program that would have been comfortable on the pages of The Weekly Standard.

Even as conservative Democratic Senate candidates from red states such as Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey were vehemently condemning the threat of war against Iran during their campaigns, Warren was claiming (contrary to the U.S. Government’s own assessment) that “Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, adding: “I support strong sanctions against Iran and believe that the United States must also continue to take a leadership role in pushing other countries to implement strong sanctions as well.” Those claims about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons remained her position even after she was told that they squarely contradict the U.S. intelligence community’s clear assessment of Iran’s actions.

In related news, the British newspaper The Telegraph yesterday published the names of all 504 children who were killed in Gaza over the last 50 days by Israel. In the last week, Israel deliberately destroyed an entire large residential apartment building after giving its residents less than an hour to vacate, leaving more than 40 families homeless, and also destroyed a seven-story office building and two-story shopping center (the video of the apartment building destruction is online and ugly to watch).

Echoing Benjamin Nentayahu (and Hillary Clinton), Elizabeth Warren’s clear position is that Israel bears none of the blame for any of this. Or, to use her words, “when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals, next to schools, they’re using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at that point, to defend itself.” Such carnage is the ”last thing Israel wants.” The last thing. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your inspiring left-wing icon of the Democratic Party.


" Is any more evidence needed that Washington has gone stark raving mad...???"

Bombs Away Over Syria! Washington Has Gone Stark Raving Mad
By David Stockman

America’s spanker-in-chief is at it again—threatening to bomb Syria owing to the uncivilized actions of its inhabitants. And when it comes to Syria, Washington avers that there are punishable malefactors virtually everywhere within its borders.

Exactly one year ago Obama proposed to take Bashar Al Assad to the woodshed because he had allegedly unleashed a vicious chemical attack on his own citizens. That was all pretext, of course, because even the CIA
refused to sign-off on the flimsy case for Assad’s culpability at the time—-a reluctance corroborated since then by the considerable evidence that hundreds of Syrian civilians were murdered during a false flag operation staged by the rebels with help from Turkey. The aim of the rebels, of course, was to activate American tomahawk missiles and bombers in behalf of “regime change”, which was also the stated goal of the Obama Administration.

Now the White House is threatening to bomb Syria again, but this time its “regime change” objective has been expanded to include both sides! In 12 short months what had been the allegedly heroic Sunni opposition to the “brutal rule” of the Assad/Alawite minority has transmuted into the “greatest terrorist threat ever”, according to the Secretary of Defense.

So Obama has already unleashed the drones and surveillance apparatus to identify targets of attack that will help bring down a regime in northern and eastern Syria—the so-called Islamic State—which did not even exist a year ago. And a regime that is now armed to the teeth with America’s own latest and greatest weaponry as previously supplied to the disintegrated Iraqi army and the Syrian rebels trained by the CIA in Jordan.

Adding to this blinding farce is the warning of Syria’s Foreign Affairs minister that Obama should please to request permission before he rains destruction from the sky on the Opposition—-that is, the opposition to the very same Damascus regime which the White House has vowed to eradicate. Needless to say, the Washington apparatus is having nothing to do with aiding the enemy of its new enemy:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest on Monday tried to tamp down the notion that action against the Islamic State group could bolster Assad, saying, “We’re not interested in trying to help the Assad regime.” However, he acknowledged that “there are a lot of cross pressures

In fact, there is apparently an option emerging from the bowels of the war machine that calls for an odd/even day plan to bomb both sides, thereby making clear that Washington is an equal opportunity spanker. Apparently, whether you use a 12th century sword or 20th century attack helicopter as a means of rule, you will be bombed by the “indispensable nation”, as Obama put it, adding that “no other nation can do what we do”.

Well, that involves some “doing”. According to AP, it appears that Syrian airstrikes are imminent, but could be carried out under the odd/even day plan:

“In an effort to avoid unintentionally strengthening the Syrian government, the White House could seek to balance strikes against the Islamic State with attacks on Assad regime targets.”

Is any more evidence needed that Washington has gone stark raving mad than even the possibility that such an absurd option could be under consideration? Has not the imperial city on the Potomac become so inured to its pretensions of global hegemony and to instant resort to deployment of its war machine that any semblance of rationality and coherence has been dissolved?

Indeed, in the context of Syria’s fractured and riven tribal, religious and political splinters how could anyone in their right mind think that a bombing campaign without boots on the ground will accomplish anything other than function as a potent recruiting tool for ISIS, and a generator of jihadist blowback for years to come. By the same token, the White House’s polling machine surely documents that an outright Iraq-style invasion of the Islamic State is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people, and rightly so.

Accordingly, the silly, hapless man in the Oval Office stumbles forward, apparently unaware that he’s not merely playing video games during his sojourns in the Situation Room. Indeed, the make-believe “nuanced” bombing options that are likely to be ground out by the national security machinery are destined to fail and drag Washington ever deeper into the violent cauldron of Mesopotamia and the Levant. The trillions of treasure wasted, the millions of lives lost and the venomous tribal enmities resulting from Washington’s misbegotten ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan provide all the proof that is needed.

The fact is, the artificial states created by the Sykes-Picot map drawn up by the French and British foreign offices in 1916—- as they carved up the Ottoman empire— are now destined for the dustbin of history. The fracturing remnants of Syria and Iraq cannot be fused back together by means of lethal deposits of metal and chemicals delivered by tomahawks and F-16s.

So let the region rearrange itself without Washington’s unwelcome meddling and mayhem. If Turkey and an independent Kurdistan can make mutually acceptable political and economic arrangements, which are already well-advanced, so be it. If the Shiite south in Iraq and the Alawite/Shiite southwest in Syria break-off from their present Europe-bequeathed boundaries and form independent regimes, how does that jeopardize the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE and Spokane WA?

And, yes, if the Islamic State temporarily manages to coalesce within the Sunni lands of the Euphrates Valley and the upper Tigress why is that really a national security threat which requires launching an unwinnable war, a new round of hostility to America in the Islamic world and the blowback of legions of jihadi with a score to settle?

Now that you know about the Yazidis, did you ever hear of the Sheitaat tribe of Sunnis who inhabit the minor oil province around Deir al-Zor in northeastern Syria? There appear to be about 100,000 members of that sect in the region and they have been declared apostates by the medieval butchers who run ISIS:

Hundreds of members of the Sheitaat clan have been executed after their tribe refused to submit to Islamic State. The entire tribe have been deemed “hostile apostates” by the group, an offshoot of al Qaeda that has declared a “caliphate” in the territory it holds.
Islamic State has declared the Sheitaat tribe “an unbelieving sect” that should be fought as if they were infidels, according to a report from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks violence in the Syrian war.
At least 700 hundred members of the tribe have already been executed, the Observatory reported on Aug. 16.
Another 1,800 are still missing after being detained by Islamic State, according to the Observatory, which gathers information from all sides in the Syrian war. Its efforts to pledge allegiance to Islamic State have been rebuffed.
Pictures of the bodies of men apparently slain by Islamic State fighters in Sheitaat areas are surfacing every day, said Rami Abdelrahman, founder of the Observatory. “We have repeatedly expressed concerns about extermination,” he said.
“It is the first time that the Islamic State has used these (religious) concepts against an entire tribe,” he said.
Three Sheitaat villages seized by Islamic State have been designated as a military zone, the rebel and another activist from the area said. The clan’s property and livestock have also been seized, another person from the area said.
Islamic State has declared that no truce is possible with the Sheitaat, that its prisoners can be killed, and its women are unfit for marriage, according to the Observatory.
“We’re still seeing Islamic State trucks loaded up with furniture and rugs from Sheitaat homes in those villages, which are now totally abandoned,” said one person from the area contacted by internet link, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Islamic State has started to use house demolitions as a punishment. A video posted over the weekend shows what appears to be the detonation of a rural home as the narrator, who identifies himself as from Islamic State, explains that the home belongs to Sheitaat “apostates”.

Why would you believe that a viable state can be built in today’s world on the tactics of Genghis Kahn? The Islamic State, such as it is, is not rich, does not have enough oil to make a difference, will soon be bogged down in the insuperable problems of governance by the sword and will flounder on the impoverished economics of the dusty villages and desert expanse which comprise its natural territory. And it will eventually mobilize its neighbors—-Turkey, Hezbollah, the rump regime of Assad’s Alawite Syria, Kurdistan, the Shiite alliance of Iran and lower Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia and the oil sheikdoms—to contain its external ambitions.

So Washington should call off the bombers and get out of harm’s way. The American Imperium has failed and the prospect of bombing both sides of an irrelevant non-country’s ancient tribal wars ought, at last, to make that much clear.


Thursday, August 28, 2014

Better than pouring ice water over your head...

Proof That People Are Reversing ALS, Lou Gehrig's
Heather Callaghan
Activist Post

I mentioned the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in a recent article highlighting the social guiding that came with all the "disease awareness" we've been involuntarily immersed in via the media in the last few weeks. ALS meaning Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease,” meaning in short, a progressive neurodegenerative disease. Those challenged during the campaign were compelled to dump a bucket of ice water on their heads while video recording and challenging three more people to do the same, or else pay $100 to ALS research for the cure.

As Dr. Scott Graves points out in "Why I'm Not Participating in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge," it's been 60 years of funneling money into cancer research - with what results? According this the ALS Association, it "has received $62.5 million in donations compared to $2.4 million during the same time period last year..." From the Ice Bucket Challenge alone...can you believe that?

One of my friends had this to say:

For those doing ice bucket challenges for ALS, here is some relevant information you should know. The National Institute for Health allocated $40 million dollars for ALS research in 2014. It allocated $39 million in 2013. In 2012 it allocated $44 million. Over a 3 year period $123 million was allocated to ALS research by the NIH.

Is it reasonable to presume throwing more money at the problem is going to solve it?

Then Nick Brannigan, in his newest article, "Boycott the Ice Bucket Challenge and Truly Support Those with ALS," reminds us of a few reasons not to simply "throw money." Whereas I was rubbed the wrong way by the public shaming/humiliation aspect of the campaign, he demonstrates that the ALS Association supports research that is unusually cruel to animals - again with what results? It translates into drugs that are often not effective in humans, and the ones currently available might slow down the deterioration but not reverse the disease. Furthermore, I was disappointed, but not surprised, to see his information about dietary recommendations for ALS patients that are rife with processed junk and sugar. It reminded me of the time someone I know researched recipes through a large cancer society only to find a chocolate milkshake recipe with encouragement to indulge.

But the most encouraging reason to boycott such campaigns is the fact that people are reversing this and other neurodegenerative diseases naturally. Unfortunately, a campaign to get that important and potentially life-saving information out to the public at large has been shadowed by a giant ice bucket.

I stand in agreement with Nick, that if you are interested in truly helping those with ALS, please consider helping to sponsor the making of this new documentary about people who did not accept the death sentence prognosis, to show others real hope, and provide real-time tangible results for them.

As Coco Newton said in the preview:

How can anybody graduate from hospice and still be alive today if they haven't done something really dramatic other than the conventional medical system?


Pentagon Has 'Everything Must Go' Sale...

Please share!!!


A couple of weeks ago, Ukraine bought some old T-72's from Hungary for 8,500 dollars each, their value as scrap metal. Now Ukraine does not use the T-72, it uses the later t-80 and t-84. But Russia still uses the T-72.

Did Ukraine buy these tanks to plant near the border and frame Russia for an invasion?

These photos were made in Nyíregyháza railway station on August 2. Train headed to Záhony and crossed the state border to the Ukraine.

UPDATE: Yes, that was the plan. Today the BBC (Buggering British Children), the news network that reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 twenty six minutes BEFORE it actually happened, is showing photos of T-72s painted with Russian markings in Eastern Ukraine and insisting this is proof of a Russian invasion.

Please post this information everywhere you see the story that "Russian" tanks have been found in eastern Ukraine.


Use it or lose it...

Tanks on the Streets? Police Required to Use Military Equipment within a Year or Return It

Noel Brinkerhoff

The militarization of America’s police forces has been the result of federal policy that not only provides the means to give men-in-blue the same tools as combat soldiers, but in fact requires law enforcement to “use it or lose it” when it comes to military equipment.

Specifically, the Department of Defense’s 1033 program—which funnels all kinds of military surplus goods to police—has a provision that clearly says that any participating law enforcement agency must use its equipment within one year of receiving it. If they don’t, they have to give it up.

This from the state of Missouri’s “application to participate” in 1033: “Property obtained under this SPO must be placed into use within one (1) year of receipt, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable, in which case the property can be returned to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site. If property is not put into use by the LEA (law enforcement agency) within one (1) year, the State/LEA must coordinate a transfer of property to another LEA or request a turn-in to return the property to the nearest DLA Disposition Services Site.”

Another problem with the Pentagon’s decision to shower police forces with military hardware is that it’s not accompanied by training, Amanda Taub noted at Vox.

Kara Dansky, a senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, who wrote the organization’s report on police militarization, told Taub she was unaware “of any training that the government provides in terms of use of the equipment,” or of “any oversight in terms of safeguards regarding the use of the equipment by the Defense Department.”

While SWAT teams from large police departments train with their equipment regularly, small-town forces often don’t have the resources to spare officers for such exercises. Thus, often the only time they use the surplus equipment is during an emergency.