The Empty Chair is going Viral around the World

Subject: FW: The Empty Chair is going Viral around the World.

Initially the Democrats had a field day ridiculing Eastwood's routine with the empty chair.

It appears Eastwood may have been somewhat more clever than they anticipated.

Look at what his routine spawned

Thanks Clint...

Obama Gains Endorsement of Communist Party

Man cannot be governed and self-governing at the same time.  He must choose. 

---

Obama Gains Endorsement of Communist Party

September 12, 2012 by Tim Brown

An Obama campaign supporting website recent touted Barack Obama’s “accomplishments,” but it wasn’t an actual Barack Obama campaign site. It was the Communist Party USA site.

Here’s the endorsement of one Barack Hussein Obama in an article titled “Why vote?”

The biggest dirty trick of all is fooling voters into thinking there is no difference. The huge voter surge in 2008 elected President Barack Obama, the first African American president. In the face of non-stop opposition, he pushed through:

·  Affordable Health Care Act extends coverage to 35 million uninsured people, outlaws denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and extends until age 26 coverage of children under their parents plans.

·  Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for equal pay for women.

·  Stabilized the economy with $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that saved or created 3 million jobs. Invested billions in clean energy jobs, saved the auto industry.

·  Unemployment benefits for millions of workers despite Republican threats to shut down the government. Obama was forced to yield on Bush-era tax cuts for the rich that he wanted to terminate.

·  Appointed two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Latina woman, who support the rights of working people.

·  Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used a recess-appointment to name the director over Republican opposition.

·  Created a new food safety agency to protect people from food-borne illness.

·  Ended profit-grab by private banks on students loans, reestablishing Federal control on these loans and used the savings to extend loans to more students.

·  Doubled the funding for Pell Grants to $32 billion, increasing size of the grant $819 to a maximum of $5,500.

·  Ended the war in Iraq and moved toward ending the war in Afghanistan.

Before providing the above “accomplishments” they issued a warning:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and many others, died for a most precious human right, the right to vote. Now, the same racists who denied Black voters ballot rights in the 1960s are trying to keep voters from the polls in 2012.

In the old days, they called it a “poll tax.” They rode at night and wore white sheets. Today, they wear expensive suits. But they still steal elections by cutting off early voting, by imposing photo ID requirements that poor voters can’t afford. It’s called “voter suppression.”

It will take a fight to defeat these dirty tricks. Voter suppression tactics violate the letter and spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Everything from sit-ins to mass rallies on state capitol steps are called for.

Ask yourself if this rhetoric we read on the Communist Party’s website doesn’t sound identical to the Democrat’s rhetoric we have been hearing for years. It’s because Allen West was right when he blew the whistle on the number of Democrats in the Congress that are actually Communists.

The CPUSA has endorsed Obama on several occasions. There are two examples where this has been pointed out: Here and here.

Daren Jonescu writes,

We must not allow the extreme rhetoric in which the endorsement is couched to distract us from a more fundamental issue, which is this: the CPUSA endorses Barack Obama on the very same grounds — even in the same words — that Obama uses in defense of himself.

If a communist were operating under the official umbrella of the Democratic Party, and were thus forced to use Democrat talking points rather than speak his own radical mind, we would interpret this as typical leftist cynicism and subterfuge. But this time the words appear on the CPUSA’s own website. These are the words the official voice of international communism in America is choosing to use to explain its reasoning to its own target audience. No one visiting the CPUSA site is confused about the nature of the organization. The website’s slogan is “Radical Ideas. Real Politics.” The Party’s prominently displayed self-description appears just under the Obama endorsement:

A better and peaceful world is possible — a world where people and nature come before profits. That’s socialism. That’s our vision. We are the Communist Party USA.

The issue here is not to point out guilt by association. Rather one must ask themselves why the Communist Party not only supports Obama’s policies, but they encourage their own members to support Barack Obama. There can only be one answer to that: his policies are like the slogan on their website: “Radical ideas. Real politics.” In other words, his policies align with those of the Communist Party, by their own claims.

This is not a right wing publication endorsing Obama. It’s the Communist Party USA.

I’m sure the Democrats would love to keep this under wraps and not herald the fact that their nominee has been endorsed by Communists, but apparently Communism feels right at home in the Democrat Party, so much so that they endorse their nominee.

2 minute video - Medicare Advantage

This is a must watch video.  Seniors...this affects YOU!!!

http://my.brainshark.com/The-President-s-8-Billion-Coincidence-356086344 

2 minute video - Medicare Advantage � Watch this short 2 minute video and pass it on to all the seniors you know. Medicare Advantage cuts begin in mid-October of this year. Seniors vote, and they need to know this cut is coming before the election. Time is running out for seniors unaware of this. Transparency in action? I think you should know this President's $8 Billion Coincidence. Forward this to every senior you know and ask them to pass this along. Very important they all know what is going to happen..... Remember what FDR said, "There are no coincidences in politics..." � Click here: The Presidents $8 Billion Coincidence | myBrainshark =

Thanks Obama – The Terrorists You Used To Topple Regimes In Egypt And Libya Are Now Attacking Our Embassies

theintelhub.com
September 12, 2012

Contributed by The End of the American Dream Blog

Many of us tried to warn Barack Obama that using militants from al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to overthrow governments in the Middle East would not end well.

The Obama administration was so determined to get rid of Mubarak and Gaddafi that they didn’t even really stop and think about who would be replacing them.
Our leaders assured us that those opposed to Mubarak and Gaddafi were “freedom fighters” that just wanted “liberty” and “democracy” in those countries.
Well, of course it turns out that the folks that took control of both Egypt and Libya bear no resemblance to George Washington whatsoever.
They have simply replaced one form of tyranny with an even worse form of tyranny.  Sadly, the last couple of days have been a huge wake up call for all of us.  Radical Islamic militants stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt and replaced the American flag with the al-Qaeda flag.
In Benghazi, Libya the U.S. consulate was attacked by a crowd equipped with guns, homemade bombs and rocket-propelled grenades.  They torched the consulate, looted it, and killed the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. officials.
Apparently they are not as grateful for our help in “liberating” their homelands as the Obama administration thought they would be.  Unfortunately, our politicians fundamentally misunderstand what is going on in the Middle East, and this is going to continue to lead to more policy errors.
For years, our politicians told us that “al-Qaeda” was the big enemy in the “War on Terror”.
But then during the “Arab Spring” the U.S. government was openly working with “al-Qaeda” and a bunch of other similar organizations all over the Middle East to overthrow established governments.
To say that our approach to the Middle East has been “inconsistent” would be a massive understatement.
After the protesters stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo, they made it very clear who they are aligned with.  They tore down the U.S. flag and desecrated it, and they put up a black Islamic flag in its place.

So what did the black flag have on it?  The following is how CNN described the flag….

The black flag, which hangs atop a ladder inside the compound, is adorned with white characters that read, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger,” an emblem often used in al Qaeda propaganda.

This is very reminiscent of what happened in Libya in the days after the toppling of Gaddafi.  At the time, the Daily Mail and other international media organizations posted pictures of the black al-Qaeda flag flying high and proud over the courthouse in Benghazi….

The black flag of Al Qaeda was hoisted in Libya yesterday as Nato formally ended its military campaign.
The standard fluttered from the roof of the courthouse in Benghazi, where the country’s new rulers have imposed sharia law since seizing power.
Today, the new government in Egypt is completely dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  They hold 47 percent of the seats in parliament and the new president of Egypt belongs to the organization.
So how are they responding to this incident?
Well, they have issued a half-hearted condemnation of the attacks in English, and they have also announced that new protests against the anti-Islam film that originally sparked the violence will be held in Tahrir Square on Friday.
I’m sure that a new round of mass protests will definitely calm everyone down.
Or not.
Hopefully the U.S. embassy in Egypt will have significantly strengthened security by Friday.
In Libya, the U.S. consulate has been essentially destroyed.

You can see pictures of what the U.S. consulate in Benghazi looks like after the attack right here.

Looters took off with whatever they were able to carry.  Reporters saw some people carrying desks, chairs and even washing machines away from the consulate.
The U.S. ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed along with three other U.S. officials.

You can see a photo of an unconscious Stevens being carried through the streets after the attack right here.

So who was responsible for the attack?

Once again, it appears to have been Islamic radicals associated with al-Qaeda.  The following is from a Reuters article about this incident….

The attack was believed to have been carried out by Ansar al-Sharia, an al Qaeda-style Sunni Islamist group that has been active in Benghazi, a Libyan security official said. Witnesses said the mob also included tribesmen, militia and other gunmen.
Ansar al-Sharia cars arrived at the start of the protest but left once fighting started, Hamam said. “The protesters were running around the compound just looking for Americans, they just wanted to find an American so they could catch one.”
Most Americans thought that it was a good idea for the Obama administration to back “the rebels” that were fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, but perhaps more people should have been asking what those “rebels” actually stand for.

The following is what former CIA officer Bruce Riedel once said about the composition of the fighters that were attempting to overthrow Gaddafi….

“There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

The leader of the Libyan rebel forces even admitted that some of the very same militants that were shooting at U.S. troops in Iraq were among those that were seeking to “liberate” Libya.  The following is from a 2011 article in the Telegraph….

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

You can find much more on the link between al-Qaeda and the rebel forces in Libya right here.

So we were shooting at them in Iraq but we supplied them with weapons and gave them air support in Libya?
What kind of nonsense is that?
The truth is that the U.S. government has absolutely no idea what it is doing in the Middle East.
And it looks like more trouble is ahead.

There were other anti-U.S. protests in Sudan, the Gaza Strip and Tunisia on Wednesday.

Sadly, even the top officials in our own government fail to grasp why these militants hate us.  In response to the torching of the consulate in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton asked the following question….

“Today, many Americans are asking, indeed I ask myself … How could this happen in a country we helped liberate in a city we helped save from destruction?”
And of course foreign policy has never been a point of emphasis for Barack Obama.

In fact, it has been reported that he skips more than half of his daily intelligence meetings.

So the blind are leading the blind and we continue to make mistake after mistake in the Middle East.
When will we ever learn?

We Are Change ---- GOOD SITE TO CHECK OUT

http://wearechange.org/

America’s Secret Deal with the Mexican Drug Cartels

You know John, this is NOT a big secret deal as many would like to think. I also know there are alot of people who don't know about this. That's why the US Government want the Talabani killed because they are burning the cocaine fields.

I wonder what the Mexican drug cartel would do if someone let it out that all the money they are being paid with is COUNTERFEIT.. I wonder if we would see them in our White House along with the rest of the bad boys ???

I don't know about you but I am really tired of seeing my friends, family and others die because of these guys. I have known this stuff for a very long time. I am also tired of being called a liar and asked what I am smoking now besides cigarettes.  I think it's time to fire back.

Thanks,

xxxx

 

America’s Secret Deal with the Mexican Drug Cartels

By Tom Burghardt
theintelhub.com
September 12, 2012

In a story which should have made front page headlines, Narco News investigative journalist Bill Conroy revealed that “A high-ranking Sinaloa narco-trafficking organization member’s claim that US officials have struck a deal with the leadership of the Mexican ‘cartel’ appears to be corroborated in large part by the statements of a Mexican diplomat in email correspondence made public recently by the nonprofit media group WikiLeaks.”

A series of some five million emails, The Global Intelligence Files, were obtained by the secret-spilling organization as a result of last year’s hack by Anonymous of the Texas-based “global intelligence” firm Stratfor.

Bad tradecraft aside, the Stratfor dump offer readers insight into a shadowy world where information is sold to the highest bidder through a “a global network of informants who are paid via Swiss banks accounts and pre-paid credit cards. Stratfor has a mix of covert and overt informants, which includes government employees, embassy staff and journalists around the world.”
One of those informants was a Mexican intelligence officer with the Centro de Investigación y Seguridad Nacional, or CISEN, Mexico’s equivalent to the CIA. Dubbed “MX1″ by Stratfor, he operates under diplomatic cover at the Mexican consulate in Phoenix, Arizona after a similar posting at the consulate in El Paso, Texas.

His cover was blown by the intelligence grifters when they identified him in their correspondence as Fernando de la Mora, described by Stratfor as “being molded to be the Mexican ‘tip of the spear’ in the U.S.”

In an earlier Narco News story, Conroy revealed that “US soldiers are operating inside Mexico as part of the drug war and the Mexican government provided critical intelligence to US agents in the now-discredited Fast and Furious gun-running operation,” the Mexican diplomat claimed in email correspondence.

Those emails disclosed “details of a secret meeting between US and Mexican officials held in 2010 at Fort Bliss, a US Army installation located near El Paso, Texas. The meeting was part of an effort to create better communications between US undercover operatives in Mexico and the Mexican federal police, the Mexican diplomat reveals.”
“However,” Conroy wrote, “the diplomat expresses concern that the Fort Bliss meeting was infiltrated by the ‘cartels,’ whom he contends have ‘penetrated both US and Mexican law enforcement’.”

Such misgivings are thoroughly justified given the fact, as Antifascist Calling reported last spring, that the Mexican government had arrested three high-ranking Army generals over their links to narcotrafficking organizations.

In Conroy’s latest piece the journalist disclosed that the “Mexican diplomat’s assessment of the US and Mexican strategy in the war on drugs, as revealed by the email trail, paints a picture of a ‘simulated war’ in which the Mexican and US governments are willing to show favor to a dominant narco-trafficking organization in order to minimize the violence and business disruption in the major drug plazas, or markets.”
A “simulated war”? Where have we heard that before? Like the bogus “War on Terror” which arms and unleashes throat-slitting terrorists from the CIA’s favorite all-purpose zombie army of “Islamist extremists,” Al Qaeda, similarly, America’s fraudulent “War on Drugs” has been a splendid means of managing the global drug trade in the interest of securing geopolitical advantage over their rivals.
That major financial powerhouses in Europe and the U.S. (can you say Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, HSBC, ING and Wachovia) have been accused of reaping the lions’ share of profits derived from the grim trade, now a veritable Narco-Industrial Complex, the public continues to be regaled with tales that this ersatz war is being “won.”

While the Mexican body count continues to rise (nearly 120,000 dead since 2006 according to the latest estimates published by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, or INEGI, as reported by the Paris daily Le Monde in a recent editorial) the United States is escalating its not-so-covert military involvement in Mexico and putting proverbial boots on the ground as part of the $1.6 billion U.S.-financed Mérida Initiative.

But have such “initiatives” (in actuality, taxpayer-funded boondoggles for giant military contractors), turned the corner in the drug war? Not if estimates published the United Nations are accurate.

According to the 2011 World Drug Report, published by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC): “US authorities have estimated for the last couple of years that some 90% of the cocaine consumed in North America comes from Colombia, supplemented by some cocaine from Peru and limited amounts from the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

For the year 2009, results of the US Cocaine Signature Program, based on an analysis of approximately 3,000 cocaine HCl samples, revealed that 95.5% originated in Colombia (down from 99% in 2002) and 1.7% in Peru; for the rest (2.8%), the origin could not be determined.
The trafficking of cocaine into the United States is nowadays largely controlled by various Mexican drug cartels, while until the mid-1990s, large Colombian cartels dominated these operations.”

Despite more than $8 billion lavished on programs such as Plan Colombia, and despite evidence that leading Colombian politicians, including former President Álvaro Uribe and his entourage had documented links to major drug trafficking organizations that go back decades, the myth persists that pouring money into the drug war sinkhole will somehow turn the tide.

But drug seizures by U.S. agencies only partially tell the tale.

As UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov pointed out in the introduction to the agency’s 2011 report, Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Crimes, “all criminal proceeds are likely to have amounted to some 3.6 per cent of GDP (2.3-5.5 per cent) or around US$2.1 trillion in 2009.”

UNODC analysts disclosed that illicit money flows related to “transnational organized crime, represent the equivalent of some 1.5 percent of global GDP, 70 percent of which would have been available for laundering through the financial system. The largest income for transnational organized crime seems to come from illicit drugs, accounting for a fifth of all crime proceeds.”
“If only flows related to drug trafficking and other transnational organized crime activities were considered,” UNODC asserted, “related proceeds would have been equivalent to around US$650 billion per year in the first decade of the new millennium, equivalent to 1.5% of global GDP or US$870 billion in 2009 assuming that the proportions remained unchanged.
The funds available for laundering through the financial system would have been equivalent to some 1% of global GDP or US$580 billion in 2009.”
“The results,” according to UNODC, “also suggest that the ‘interception rate’ for anti-money-laundering efforts at the global level remains low. Globally, it appears that much less than 1% (probably around 0.2%) of the proceeds of crime laundered via the financial system are seized and frozen.”

Commenting on the nexus between global drug mafias and our capitalist overlords, former UNODC director Antonio Maria Costa told The Observer in 2009, “that the proceeds of organised crime were ‘the only liquid investment capital’ available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year.

He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.”
Would there be an incentive then, for U.S. officials to dismantle a global business that benefits their real constituents, the blood-sucking gangsters at the apex of the capitalist financial pyramid? Hardly.
Nor would there be any incentive for American drug warriors to target organizations that inflate the balance sheets of the big banks. Wouldn’t they be more likely then, given the enormous flows of illicit cash flooding the system, to negotiate an “arrangement” with the biggest players, particularly the Sinaloa Cartel run by fugitive billionaire Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán?

In fact, as Narco News disclosed last December, a “quid-pro-quo arrangement is precisely what indicted narco-trafficker Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, who is slated to stand trial in Chicago this fall, alleges was agreed to by the US government and the leaders of the Sinaloa ‘Cartel’–the dominant narco-trafficking organization in Mexico. The US government, however, denies that any such arrangement exists.”

Narco News reported that according to “Zambada Niebla, he and the rest of the Sinaloa leadership, through the US informant Loya Castro, negotiated an immunity deal with the US government in which they were guaranteed protection from prosecution in exchange for providing US law enforcers and intelligence agencies with information that could be used to compromise rival Mexican cartels and their operations.”
In court pleadings, Zambada Niebla’s attorneys argued that “the United States government considered the arrangements with the Sinaloa Cartel an acceptable price to pay, because the principal objective was the destruction and dismantling of rival cartels by using the assistance of the Sinaloa Cartel–without regard for the fact that tons of illicit drugs continued to be smuggled into Chicago and other parts of the United States and consumption continued virtually unabated.”

Those assertions seem to be borne out by emails released by WikiLeaks. Conroy disclosed: “In a Stratfor email dated April 19, 2010, MX1 lays out the Mexican government’s negotiating, or ‘signaling,’ strategy with respect to the major narco-trafficking organizations as follows:

The Mexican strategy is not to negotiate directly.
In any event, “negotiations” would take place as follows:
Assuming a non-disputed plaza [a major drug market, such as Ciudad Juarez]:
• [If] they [a big narco-trafficking group] bring [in] some drugs, transport some drugs, [and] they are discrete, they don’t bother anyone, [then] no one gets hurt;
• [And the] government turns the other way.
• [If] they [the narco-traffickers] kill someone or do something violent, [then the] government responds by taking down [the] drug network or making arrests.
(Now, assuming a disputed plaza:)
• [A narco-trafficking] group comes [into a plaza], [then the] government waits to see how dominant cartel responds.
• If [the] dominant cartel fights them [the new narco-trafficking group], [then the] government takes them down.
• If [the] dominant cartel is allied [with the new group], no problem.
• If [a new] group comes in and start[s] committing violence, they get taken down: first by the government letting the dominant cartel do their thing, then [by] punishing both cartels.
“MX1,” Narco News revealed, “then goes on to describe what he interprets as the US strategy in negotiating with the major narco-trafficking players in Ciudad Juarez–a major Mexican narco-trafficking ‘plaza’ located across the border from El Paso, Texas:”
… This is how “negotiations” take place with cartels, through signals. There are no meetings, etc. …
So, the MX [Mexican] strategy is not to negotiate. However, I think the US [recently] sent a signal that could be construed as follows:
“To the VCF [the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes] and Sinaloa cartels: Thank you for providing our market with drugs over the years. We are now concerned about your perpetration of violence, and would like to see you stop that.
In this regard, please know that Sinaloa is bigger and better than [the] VCF. Also note that CDJ [Juarez] is very important to us, as is the whole border. In this light, please talk amongst yourselves and lets all get back to business. Again, we recognize that Sinaloa is bigger and better, so either VCF gets in line or we will mess you up.”
I don’t know what the US strategy is, but I can tell you that if the message was understood by Sinaloa and VCF as I described above, the Mexican government would not be opposed at all.
In sum, I have a gut feeling that the US agencies tried to send a signal telling the cartels to negotiate themselves. They unilaterally declared a winner [the Sinaloa Cartel], and this is unprecedented, and deserves analysis. If there was no strategy behind this, and it was simply a leaked report, then I will be interested to see how it plays out in the coming months.
Keep in mind that this “analysis” is from a senior CISEN officer describing U.S. “strategy” for managing, not putting a stop to the flood of narcotics crossing the border.

“In a separate Stratfor email dated April 15, 2010,” Conroy wrote, “MX1′s views on the US strategy with respect to the drug organizations in Juarez, essentially favoring the Sinaloa ‘Cartel,’ is referenced yet again:”

We believe that when the US made an announcement that was corroborated by several federal spokespersons simultaneously (that Sinaloa controlled CDJ [Juarez]), it was a message that the DEA wanted to send to Sinaloa.
The message was that the US recognized Sinaloa’s dominance in the area [Juarez], although it was not absolute. It was meant to be read by the cartels as a sort of ultimatum: negotiate and put your house in order once and for all.
One dissenting analyst thinks that the message is the opposite, telling Sinaloa to take what it had and to leave what remains of VCF. Regardless, the reports are saying that the US message to the cartels was to negotiate and stop the violence.
It says that the US has never before pronounced that a cartel controls a particular plaza, so it is an unusual event.
“Unusual” perhaps, but not surprising given the secret state’s documented history of close collaboration with major drug trafficking networks that serve as unofficial, though highly-effective instruments, for advancing U.S. imperial strategies.

In a recent piece published by Global Research, analyst Peter Dale Scott observed that America’s two “self-generating wars” on “terror” and “drugs” have “in effect become one.”

“By launching a War on Drugs in Colombia and Mexico,” Scott wrote, “America has contributed to a parastate of organized terror in Colombia (the so-called AUC, United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia) and an even bloodier reign of terror in Mexico (with 50,000 killed in the last six years).”
And by “launching a War on Terror in Afghanistan in 2001, America has contributed to a doubling of opium production there, making Afghanistan now the source of 90 percent of the world’s heroin and most of the world’s hashish.”
“Americans should be aware of the overall pattern that drug production repeatedly rises where America intervenes militarily–Southeast Asia in the 1950s and 60s, Colombia and Afghanistan since then,” Scott noted. “(Opium cultivation also increased in Iraq after the 2003 US invasion.) And the opposite is also true: where America ceases to intervene militarily, notably in Southeast Asia since the 1970s, drug production declines.”
“Both of America’s self-generating wars are lucrative to the private interests that lobby for their continuance,” Scott averred. “At the same time, both of these self-generating wars contribute to increasing insecurity and destabilization in America and in the world.”
In this light, Narco News revelations make perfect sense. As the global financial crisis deepens, brought on in no small part by the massive frauds perpetrated by leading capitalist institutions, they have inflated their balance sheets with a veritable tsunami of hot cash generated by the Narco-Industrial Complex.
In turn, the American secret state, working to recapitalize financial markets beset by a seemingly insolvable liquidity crisis resulting from massive bank frauds, turn a blind eye as these same institutions become major centers of organized crime, monopoly enterprises which could not survive without the trillions of dollars of illicit funds parked in offshore accounts.

This article originally appeared on Global Research

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano’s Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Boone on Obama...Simply outstanding

Boone on Obama...Simply outstanding

When you have read what Pat Boone wrote about Obama (below), you may want to click on the link to "Snopes", which brings up a page telling you that this is an actual letter written by Pat Boone - and very well written, I might add. This is an excellent commentary that should be read by every American.

The President Without A Country
- Pat Boone

"We're no longer a Christian nation." - President Barack Obama, June 2009

" America has been arrogant." - President Barack Obama

"After 9/11, America didn't always live up to her ideals."- President Barack Obama

"You might say that America is a Muslim nation."- President Barack Obama, Egypt 2009

Thinking about these and other statements made by the man who wears the title of president, I keep wondering what country he believes he's president of.

In one of my very favorite stories, Edward Everett Hale's "The Man without a Country," a young Army lieutenant named Philip Nolan stands condemned for treason during the Revolutionary War, having come under the influence of Aaron Burr. When the judge asks him if he wishes to say anything before sentence is passed, young Nolan defiantly exclaims, "Damn the United States ! I wish I might never hear of the United States again!"

The stunned silence in the courtroom is palpable, pulsing. After a long pause, the judge soberly says to the angry lieutenant: "You have just pronounced your own sentence. You will never hear of the United States again.. I sentence you to spend the rest of your life at sea, on one or another of this country's naval vessels - under strict orders that no one will ever speak to you again about the country you have just cursed."

And so it was. Philip Nolan was taken away and spent the next 40 years at sea, never hearing anything but an occasional slip of the tongue about America. The last few pages of the story, recounting Nolan's dying hours in his small stateroom - now turned into a shrine to the country he foreswore - never fail to bring me to tears. And I find my own love for this dream, this miracle called America , refreshed and renewed. I know how blessed and unique we are.

But reading and hearing the audacious, shocking statements of the man who was recently elected our president - a young black man living the impossible dream of millions of young Americans, past and present, black and white - I want to ask him, "Just what country do you think you're president of?"

You surely can't be referring to the United States of America, can you? America is emphatically a Christian nation, and has been from its inception! Seventy percent of her citizens identify themselves as Christian. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were framed, written and ratified by Christians. It's because this was, and is, a nation built on and guided by Judeo-Christian biblical principles that you, sir, have had the inestimable privilege of being elected her president.

You studied law at Harvard, didn't you, sir? You taught constitutional law in Chicago ? Did you not ever read the statement of John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and an author of the landmark "Federalist Papers": "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers - and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation - to select and prefer Christians for their rulers"?

In your studies, you surely must have read the decision of the Supreme Court in 1892: "Our lives and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."

Did your professors have you skip over all the high-court decisions right up till the mid 1900's that echoed and reinforced these views and intentions? Did you pick up the history of American jurisprudence only in 1947, when for the first time a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson about a "wall of separation between church and state" was used to deny some specific religious expression - contrary to Jefferson 's intent with that statement?

Or, wait a minute: were your ideas about America 's Christianity formed during the 20 years you were a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ under your pastor, Jeremiah Wright? Is that where you got the idea that " America is no longer a Christian nation"? Is this where you, even as you came to call yourself a Christian, formed the belief that America has been arrogant"?

Even if that's the understandable explanation of your damning of your country and accusing the whole nation (not just a few military officials trying their best to keep more Americans from being murdered by jihadists) of "not always living up to her ideals," how did you come up with the ridiculous, alarming notion that we might be "considered a Muslim nation"?

Is it because there are some 2 million or more Muslims living here, trying to be good Americans? Out of a current population of over 300 million, 70 percent of whom are Christians? Does that make us, by any rational definition, a "Muslim nation"?

Why are we not, then, a "Chinese nation"? A "Korean nation"? Even a "Vietnamese nation"? There are even more of these distinct groups in America than Muslims. And if the distinction you're trying to make is a religious one, why is America not "a Jewish nation"? There's actually a case to be made for the latter, because our Constitution - and the success of our Revolution and founding - owe a deep debt to our Jewish brothers.

Have you stopped to think what an actual Muslim America would be like? Have you ever really spent much time in Iran ? Even in Egypt ? You, having been instructed in Islam as a kid at a Muslim school in Indonesia and saying you still love the call to evening prayers, can surely picture our nation founded on the Quran, not the Judeo-Christian Bible, and living under Shariah law. Can't you? You do recall Muhammad's directives [Surah 9:5,73] to "break the cross" and "kill the infidel"?

It seems increasingly and painfully obvious that you are more influenced by your upbringing and questionable education than most suspected. If you consider yourself the president of a people who are "no longer Christian," who have "failed to live up to our ideals," who "have been arrogant," and might even be "considered Muslim" - you are president of a country most Americans don't recognize.

Could it be you are a president without a country?
______________________________________________
All who love their Christian beliefs, and their country, should forward to all in your address books.

Video: AFTER 9/11: TEN YEARS OF WAR - The Unanswered Questions of 9/11 - All In Plain Sight

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

Video: AFTER 9/11: TEN YEARS OF WAR - The Unanswered Questions of 9/11 - All In Plain Sight

Posted By: Lion [Send E-Mail]
Date: Wednesday, 12-Sep-2012 22:18:45

-------------- The Unanswered Questions of 9/11 By James Corbett Global Research, September 11, 2012 Url of this article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-unanswered-questions-of-911/ In his latest weekly address to the nation, President Obama asserts that America’s questions about 9/11 have been answered. If only it were so. The questions of 9/11 have only continued to pile up higher since that fateful day, and despite official platitudes we are no closer to having those questions answered today then we were when they first arose. In fact, for some of the most important 9/11 questions, the government’s own documents and records that could conceivably answered them have been destroyed, meaning we may never have answers. The unanswered questions of 9/11 are too numerous to enumerate, but they include: -Why has NIST classified the data that they used to make their computer animation of the WTC7 collapse? Would knowledge of how NIST believes the building collapsed really “jeopardize public safety“? -Why did the DIA destroy more than 2.5 terabytes of data on their Able Danger investigation that reportedly identified four of the alleged hijackers years in advance of the attack? Why did the Pentagon buy up and burn the entire first print run of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer’s book on the program? -Why did the SEC destroy their records on the 9/11 insider trading question, presumably the most important investigation in the agency’s history? -Why did the alleged “mastermind” of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, confess not only to plotting 9/11 “from A to Z” but also confess to masterminding numerous crimes that he could not have committed? -Why did Osama bin Laden repeatedly deny any involvement in the attacks until a series of mistranslated and otherwise manipulated videos came along appearing to portray him as taking credit for those attacks? -Why was the report of US State Department official Frank Taylor supposedly proving the case for Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11, which NATO used to justify its invasion of Afghanistan, presented in a classified briefing? Why is that report still classified to this day? -Why did the 9/11 commission rely so heavily on the confessions extracted through torture which even the Senate’s Armed Services committee points out is specifically used to extract false confessions? -Why did the CIA destroy 92 videotapes of their illegal torture sessions after being specifically ordered by a court not to do so? Why did the courts eventually absolve the CIA of any culpability for this crime? -Why did Donald Rumsfeld announce a new “war” on September 10, 2001? What was the reason for the 2.3 trillion missing dollars which the Pentagon had lost up until that point, what did Rumsfeld’s “war on bureaucracy” hope to achieve, how was that “war” hindered when the budget analyst office in the Pentagon was destroyed the following morning, and where are the public records into this accounting scandal? -Why did Rumsfeld go into a regularly scheduled meeting with a CIA officer in his office on the morning of 9/11, after both of the Twin Towers had been struck by airplanes and it had been determined that “America was under attack.” Why did the highest ranking official in the US military remain in that meeting and unavailable for contact even by his highest staff members as the worst attack on US soil in history continued to unfold? Why did he suddenly come out for a photo op on the Pentalawn after the explosion instead of helping to coordinate the defense of the nation? -Why is there such a massive discrepancy between the 9/11 commission’s official finding of the time of entry of Dick Cheney into the Presidential Emergency Operation Center on the morning of 9/11 and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony of the timing of that arrival? -Why did the US government contract with Ptech, an enterprise architecture software firm, to install its backdoor access software on some of the most sensitive databases in the US government? Why did they continue to use Ptech even after it was discovered that its sweetheart investor was a specially designated global terrorist on the Treasury’s own terror list? Why did they declare that there was nothing untoward in the software mere hours after raiding Ptech’s offices in 2002? And what was Ptech doing in the basement of the Pentagon on 9/11? What interoperability tests was it running on the link between FAA and NORAD systems on 9/11, and how did that interfere with the FAA and NORAD’s response? -And, perhaps most tellingly of all, how did four highjacked aircraft fly so wildly off course for such lengthy periods of time without being confronted by a single fighter interceptor, and why did the Pentagon admittedly and on the record lie to the American public about the timing of its response that day? These and many, many questions like them have been asked by the victims’ family members, the first responders, members of the US military, American congressmen and women, intelligence agents, foreign dignitaries and heads of state, and concerned members of the public across America and around the globe. And still, 11 years after the events themselves, the American president has the gall to suggest that all questions have been answered and it is time for Americans to move on. See our GRTV Feature 9/11 Video http://youtu.be/ikKxE_HXrzg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikKxE_HXrzg&feature=player_embedded On the contrary, Mr. President. Those who are concerned with 9/11 truth and justice will continue to fight on, to answer the questions that your government cannot and will not answer, whether those answers come now, 11 years from now, or generations from now. Those who fight for 9/11 truth will not give up until these questions have been answered. Echoing the words of those brave souls in the wake of that other great American tragedy, the OKC bombing: “We search for the truth. We seek justice. The courts require it. The victims cry for it. And God demands it.” For more on the unanswered questions of 9/11 truth, please watch the latest episode of The Corbett Report podcast, “The Meaning of 9/11 Truth“: Copyright © 2012 Global Research

CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie"

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie"

Posted By: RumorMail [Send E-Mail]
Date: Wednesday, 12-Sep-2012 14:40:42

CBS Scot Paulsen on "2016: The Movie" http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/17/2016-obamas-america-movie-is-disturbingly-necessary/#blogbio The Right Politics This past week, “2016: The Movie” about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see. I’m glad I saw the film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nation’s trust in him with the Oval Office. To watch this movie and realize – or simply be reminded of – all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romney’s taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current President’s past? The man influences the entire globe, but liberal Americans want to know how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes in the past rather than learn about the man who they have entrusted with the country. Unbelievable. The movie undeniably links Obama to persons of suspicious-interest due to their past actions and statements, such as former radical activist and Chicago educator Bill Ayers. While the media and blinded-liberals cast such facts aside, the movie does not. No, this portion of the movie is not propaganda – it is the display of factual information about relationships between people that cannot be denied. Yet, the “left” does deny the facts that are right in front of them. Quite disturbing is the talk of the United States economy in the film. The current national debt which has increased two-fold during Obama’s presidency and the horrendous economy is suggested to be part of the plan to strip the nation of democracy – reasonable cause to make citizens totally dependent on the government. The “left” is aghast at this suggestion of the current economy. They actually believe that Obama is unintelligent enough to let this economy just happen. Ironically, it’s many of the people on the “right” who know Obama’s not stupid, and much of what has happened to the United States in the past four years is part of Obama’s plan. How could one so-highly educated and intelligent as Obama not know what he was doing when he incurred such debt? I left the movie thinking more strongly than I had in the past that the current debt and this economy was part of Obama’s plan all along. Increasingly making Americans dependent on the government is the plan. What’s more, he knew his blind followers would believe it was not the plan and, of course, was all Bush’s fault. He must be laughing at his blind followers all the way to the “new America” they’re allowing him to create. My belief is that Obama continues to prey on his die-hard followers’ stupidity to accomplish his personal goals for America. The most disturbing part of the film to me was the interview with President Obama’s half-brother George Obama from Nairobi, Kenya. How can Obama claim to want to help people when he has done absolutely nothing for his own family? It makes me wonder if he really cares about anybody if he can’t find it in his heart to help his own family. As the closing credits started to role upward across the screen, the audience applauded. Me, I just walked out – reasonably upset. Those who have already decided to vote for Obama will probably not even see the movie. It’s sad but they probably don’t want to know the truth when it is laid out so clearly for them in this documentary. The independents who are still deciding who they are going to vote for ought to see this film. I’m quite confident that any undecided voter who sees this film will know who to vote for after viewing this documentary. If you know you’re not going to support the “left” in this coming election, see the film out of interest if you like. But, fair warning, it’s disturbing – and quite frightening – to say the least.