r3volution! News

Real ID Act deadline approaching, passports may be required to travel anywhere for LA residents

If you’re a frequent-flier, come January all Louisiana residents could be required to have a passport when boarding a plane, no matter the destination. It all has to do with a federal law, called the Real ID Act. It was signed into law back in 2005 in the wake of the September 11th terror attacks. It requires states to have enhanced driver’s licenses and state ID’s to boost security at airports. Louisiana has been able to get around the law since 2005, but that might be coming to an end.

There’s now a new deadline for states to comply, and it’s coming up very soon on January 15th. Louisiana is one of a handful of states, which currently does not meet the requirements of the Real ID Act. The state’s been able to get around it thanks to a law signed in 2008 by Governor Bobby Jindal. But now, the state may be forced to comply with the new deadline. As it stands right now, come January 15th, Louisiana residents would be required to have a passport, should they want to fly, even for domestic travel.

“It is a multi-million dollar change, revision to our system to do that,” said DMV Commissioner Stephen Campbell. “That system won’t be fully operational until October 2013. So with the progress that we’ve made, the things we’re doing and will have done later on next year, we’re hopeful that Homeland Security will continue to allow the Louisiana document to satisfy those requirements.”

So, if Homeland Security decides to stick to their deadline, the big question is, how will this affect the travel industry in Louisiana?

“People have to travel for business, and pleasure, but certainly if people find out on January 14th that they can’t use their driver’s license, and have not prepared by getting another ID, that’s going to create a problem,” said Robbie Bush, owner of Associated Travel Group.

The Department of Homeland Security issued this statement:

“As of January 15, 2013, if presented with a state-issued driver’s license or identification card, federal agencies can only accept driver’s licenses or identification cards for official purposes from states that have been found by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be in compliance with the minimum standards established by REAL ID. Official purposes, as defined in statute and regulation, are accessing a Federal facility, boarding federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants.

DHS strongly encourages states to submit information certifying their progress or as much information as possible to aid DHS in making a determination about compliance. Based on that submission, DHS retains authority to provide extensions on a case-by-case basis if circumstances warrant.”

We reached out to Governor Jindal’s office, who did not return our repeated phone calls.

/0/” target=”_blank”>http://www.katc.com/news/real-id-act-deadline-approaching-passports-may-be-required-to-travel-anywhere-for-la-residents/#!prettyPhoto

/0/

ADHD Drugs Prescribed to Poor Children to ‘Help’ in School

By Dr. Mercola

Medicating children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a double-edged sword, not only because of the steep health risks posed by the medications themselves, but also because many kids labeled with “ADHD” actually do not have ADHD at all.

Diagnosing ADHD really comes down to a matter of opinion, as there is no physical test, like a brain scan, that can pinpoint the condition.

There’s only subjective evaluation, based on signs nearly every child will display at some point (fidgeting, easily distracted, difficulty waiting his or her turn, and so on).

But a recent report from the New York Times highlights an equally concerning, if not more so, practice that is endangering some low-income families: pediatricians using the ADHD diagnosis as “an excuse” to prescribe powerful drugs like Adderall to kids simply because they are struggling in school.

Mind-Altering Drugs to Boost Elementary School Grades?

One pediatrician told the New York Times that because society has decided not to modify a child’s school environment to promote better learning, there is no choice left but to “modify the kid,” which is done by prescribing drugs.

Adderall, which contains amphetamine (aka “speed”) and dextroamphetamine, is a stimulant drug that is often prescribed to improve attention and focus and reduce impulsiveness and hyperactivity in patients with ADHD.

Because of its stimulant properties, it’s become a black-market drug of choice for college kids looking to pull all-nighters to boost their grades. An estimated one in 10 college students abuse Adderall as a way to gain a competitive edge in their studies, often comparing it to athletes who use steroids.1 But the pills have a dark side, often quickly leading to addiction and causing other side effects like mood swings, insomnia, depression and panic attacks.

College students who use Adderall as a “study drug” is a large enough problem on its own, but for pediatricians to prescribe these drugs to children for the same purpose is shocking, and dangerous. Even more alarming is that one particular physician interviewed by the New York Times said he views the drugs as a tool for “evening the scales a little bit,” to give poor children a leg up in their schooling…

Prescriptions for Adderall on the Rise

The use of psychotropic drugs in children has been on a steep upward trend for decades. Writing in the Huffington Post, Lawrence Diller, MD said:2

Given the current CDC data, one can safely estimate (based on previously detailed distribution curves) that one of six 11-year-old white boys with medical insurance currently take a stimulant drug at least during the school week… we are the only society currently managing our under performing/misbehaving children with drugs to this degree.”

Many of the children prescribed ADHD drugs do not have ADHD at all. One study determined that about 20 percent of children have likely been misdiagnosed.3 That’s nearly 1 million children in the United States alone.

The study found that many of the youngest children in any given grade level are perceived as exhibiting “symptoms” of ADHD, such as fidgeting and inability to concentrate, simply because they’re younger and being compared to their older, more mature classmates. In fact, the youngest students were 60 percent more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than the oldest in the same grade. And when you take into account the maturity level, and in large part normal behavior of a 6- versus a 7-year old, you can easily see why.

Even if they did have ADHD, there are many superior alternatives for treatment than mind-altering drugs (which I’ll get to shortly).

But it is especially appalling when a physician openly admits that the ADHD diagnosis is simply a ruse to give kids drugs for the purpose of boosting their academic performance. In some cases, three and four children from the same family are all put on the medications, usually along with a prescribed sleep aid, as the pills often cause insomnia – as well as a long list of other serious side effects.

The Downward Spiral of Psychotropic Drug Use

Drugs like Adderall are powerful, mind-altering medications linked to growth suppression, increased blood pressure and psychotic episodes. In children, the impacts of their long-term use are completely unknown, although given the drug’s addictive nature, it’s quite possible these kids could become life-long addicts.

The New York Times featured the case of one family whose four children (ranging in age from 9 to 12) were prescribed either Adderall or Risperdal (an antipsychotic drug) along with sleep aids. After taking Adderall for years, one of the boys began seeing people and hearing voices that weren’t there – a known side effect of the drug. He became suicidal and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where he was then taken off Adderall and put onto Risperdal – another mind-altering drug with serious side effects.

Despite the child’s psychotic reaction, the parents continued to use the drugs in their other children, even though they acknowledged some of them did not have ADHD and were using Adderall “merely to help their grades.” Perhaps they are not aware, as many aren’t, that Adderall can cause potentially life-threatening side effects – the risks of which simply can’t be justified when used only to boost grades. Among them:4

Aggressive behavior or hostility Bipolar illness Worse behavior or thought problems
Psychotic symptoms (hearing voices, believing things that are not true) or manic symptoms Sudden death in patients who have heart problems or heart defects Stroke or heart attack
Increased blood pressure and heart rate Seizures and eyesight changes Slowing of growth in children

Does Adderall Steal Your Ability to Enjoy Life?

Many who start taking Adderall in high school or college as a way to boost their success find it does help them to excel in school and, later, in the job market. But the easy path to success comes at a price…

Former addicts explain the feeling that the drug took over their lives, allowing them to work and concentrate with a robot-like efficiency, but causing them to ignore the physical, emotional and social aspects of life, as well as their former creative passions.5 If they’re lucky, those affected are able to break free from Adderall’s spell – a process one former addict described as a “horrible, horrible process”6 – but what becomes of the child who started Adderall at the age of 8 or 9, during some of his or her key formative years?

Do these children grow up never knowing who they really are? What passions they may have had if not under the drug’s influence? And will they be able to quit when they are older, or will they be turned into life-long addicts? The answers to these questions are unknown.

Dr. William Graf, a pediatrician and child neurologist, told the New York Times he’s concerned the rising use of stimulant drugs may impact “the authenticity of development:”

“These children are still in the developmental phase, and we still don’t know how these drugs biologically affect the developing brain. There’s an obligation for parents, doctors and teachers to respect the authenticity issue, and I’m not sure that’s always happening.”

If You Have a “Hyper” Child You Want to Help Excel at School…

Before resorting to drugs, please understand that behavioral problems in children – including what might appear to be serious mental disorders – are very frequently related to improper diet, emotional upset and exposure to toxins.

Increasingly, scientific evidence shows that nourishing your gut flora with the beneficial bacteria found in traditionally fermented foods (or a probiotic supplement) is extremely important for proper brain function, and that includes psychological well-being and mood control. Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride has successfully demonstrated the power and effectiveness of this theory. In her Cambridge, England clinic, she treats children and adults with a range of conditions, including autism, ADD/ADHD, neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, immune disorders, and digestive problems using the GAPS (Gut and Psychology Syndrome) Nutritional Program, which she developed.

Her GAPS theory – which is fully explained in her excellent book, Gut and Psychology Syndrome – is an elegant description of how such conditions can develop as a direct result of gastrointestinal toxicity. Another helpful tool is my three-part interview with renowned children’s health expert, the late Dr. Lendon Smith, on Non-Drug Treatment of ADD/ADHD.

Advice from a World-Class Expert

Dr. Lendon Smith was one of the pioneer physicians in the treatment of ADHD. He had been effectively using nutrition and dietary interventions to help relieve the symptoms of ADHD for decades. He realized that drugs like Ritalin were not the answer for ADHD right from the start. Over ten years ago I did an extensive interview with him on this topic and I would encourage you to review it if you have an interest in this area. He stated in the interview:

“It is too bad psychiatrists have failed to recognize that if a stimulant acts as a calming agent, then they must shore up the flagging enzyme that is under-producing. This all fits with the damage that we have done to the top soil. It is washing and blowing away and with it, the magnesium. The psychiatrists have made ADD/ADHD a disease, like pneumonia.

It is actually a syndrome due to a defect in the screening device of the brain. I understand that since they had made it a disease they can be compensated for treating it. Another rule they have used: ‘If the Ritalin works, they need it.’ Sort of like a Ritalin deficiency.”

According to Dr. Smith, stimulant drugs like Ritalin have a calming effect in children with ADHD because there is not enough norepinephrine, a hormone and neurotransmitter, in their limbic system, the part of the brain that is supposed to filter out unimportant stimuli. Because of this, one common denominator that Dr. Smith often used as a diagnostic criterion for ADHD was being extremely ticklish. In other words, they were unable to disregard unimportant stimuli.

Dietary and Lifestyle Interventions to Help Relieve ADHD Symptoms Naturally

As mentioned, dietary interventions can be incredibly effective in helping alleviate the symptoms of ADHD. Dr. Smith also said in our interview:

“When I became familiar with nutrition, I found that if a stimulant drug had a calming effect [as is the case with ADHD], it meant that the child did not have enough norepinephrine (a stimulant) in his limbic system, and that I could help with a good diet and some supplements which should shore up the enzymes in his brain that make that neurotransmitter.

  • If he had ever had ear infections, I stopped his dairy products, and added calcium – 1,000 mg – usually at bedtime. (Note that while I think removing the milk is a great idea, adding the calcium is not. Adding magnesium typically is far more effective)
  • If he was ticklish, I added magnesium – 500 mg is usually safe for a child or adult.
  • If he was a ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ type of person (severe mood swings), he had intermittent low blood sugar and he needed to nibble all day to keep his blood sugar up. Or at least eat some additional protein and fewer carbohydrates for better maintenance of blood sugar levels. No sugar or white-flour junk food.
  • If he could not remember his dreams, he needed vitamin B6 – 50 mg is about right.
  • If he ever had eczema or dry scaly skin, he is to take the essential fatty acids [omega-3 fats like krill oil].
  • If he had dark circles under his eyes, he was eating something to which he is sensitive. Milk, wheat, corn, chocolate, eggs, citrus. Usually it is his favorite food.”

Here are a few additional guidelines to help you address underlying toxins in your child, without, or at least BEFORE, you agree to any kind of drug therapy:

    1. Severely limit or eliminate fructose from your child’s diet as sugar/fructose has been linked to mental health problems such as depression and schizophrenia.
    2. Avoid giving your child ANY processed foods, especially those containing artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives. This includes lunch meats and hot dogs, which are common food staples in many households.
    3. Replace soft drinks, fruit juices, and pasteurized milk with pure water. This is HUGE since high fructose corn syrup is a primary source of calories in children.
    4. Make sure your child is getting large regular doses of healthy bacteria, either with high-quality fermented organic foods and/or high quality probiotic supplements.
    5. Give your child plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. Also, make sure to balance your child’s intake of omega-3 and omega-6 fats, by simultaneously limiting their intake of vegetable oils.
    6. Include as many whole organic foods as possible in your child’s diet, both to reduce chemical exposure and increase nutrient content of each meal.
    7. Also reduce or eliminate grains from your child’s diet, especially wheat. Beyond the fact that even healthy organic whole grains can cause problems as they too break down into sugars, gluten-containing grains have pharmacologically active peptides that can cause cognitive and behavioral issues in susceptible children.7

Additionally, whole and even sprouted wheat contains high amounts of wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), which can have adverse effects on mental health due to its neurotoxic actions. Wheat also inhibits production of serotonin, the largest concentration of which can, again, be found in your intestines, not your brain. Try eliminating them first for 1-2 weeks and see if you don’t notice a radical and amazing improvement in your child’s behavior.

    1. Avoid artificial sweeteners and colors of all kinds.
    2. Make sure your child gets plenty of exercise and outdoor playtime.
    3. Get them out into the sun to help maintain optimal vitamin D levels. Scientists are now beginning to realize vitamin D is involved in maintaining the health of your brain, as they’ve recently discovered vitamin D receptors in the brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system. There’s even evidence indicating vitamin D improves your brain’s detoxification process. For children and pregnant women, getting enough vitamin D is especially crucial, as it may play a major role in protecting infants from autism.

If natural sun exposure is not feasible, for whatever reason, you can use either a safe tanning bed or an oral vitamin D3 supplement. For more details on how to safely optimize your and your child’s vitamin D levels, please see this previous article.

    1. Give your child a way to address his or her emotions. Even children can benefit from the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which you or an EFT practitioner can teach them to use.

Be sure you are also providing positive praise to your child. Dr. Smith believed parents should be able to say nice things to their child twice as often as they give commands or ask questions. If you are shouting and scolding more than you are complimenting and rewarding your child, it could be contributing to psychiatric problems.

  1. Prevent exposure to toxic metals and chemical by replacing personal care products, detergents and household cleaners with all natural varieties. Metals like aluminum, cadmium, lead and mercury are commonly found in thousands of different food products, household products, personal products and untold numbers of industrial products and chemicals. The presence of toxic metals in your child’s body is highly significant for they are capable of causing serious health problems by interfering with normal biological functioning. The health effects range from minor physical ailments to chronic diseases, and altered mood and behavior.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/10/24/children-adhd-drugs.aspx?e_cid=20121024_DNL_art_2

US Third Party Presidential Debate

In response to widespread blackout from both the mainstream media and political establishment alike, RT is honored to be presenting a platform for the major third-party candidates also vying for the White House this election year to debate. We are offering the event live in cooperation with the debate’s organizers, the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

The event is moderated by multi-award winning broadcast journalist Larry King.

How Psychologists Subvert Democratic Movements

By the 1980s, as a clinical psychology graduate student, it had become apparent to me that the psychology profession was increasingly about meeting the needs of the “power structure” to maintain the status quo so as to gain social position, prestige, and other rewards for psychologists.

Academic psychology in the 1970s was by no means perfect. There was a dominating force of manipulative, control-freak behaviorists who appeared to get their rocks off conditioning people as if they were rats in a maze. However, there was also a significant force of people such as Erich Fromm who believed that an authoritarian and undemocratic society results in alienation and that this was a source of emotional problems. Fromm was concerned about mental health professionals helping people to adjust to a society with no thought to how dehumanizing that society had become. Back then, Fromm was not a marginalized figure; his ideas were taken seriously. He had bestsellers and had appeared on national television.
However, by the time I received my PhD in 1985—from an American Psychological Association-approved clinical psychology program—people with ideas such as Fromm’s were at the far margins. By then, the focus was on the competition as to what treatment could get patients back on the assembly line quickest. The competition winners that emerged—owing much more to public relations than science—were cognitive-behavioral therapy in psychology and biochemical psychiatry. By the mid-1980s, psychiatry was beginning to become annexed by pharmaceutical companies and forming what we now have—a “psychiatric-pharmaceutical industrial complex.” Increasingly marginalized was the idea that treatment that consisted of manipulating and medicating alienated people to adjust to this crazy rat race and thus maintain the status quo was a political act—a problematic one for people who cared about democracy.
My Tactical Withdrawal
After graduating, it seemed clear to me that academic clinical psychology and psychiatry departments, hospitals, and the mainstream clinical institutional worlds were going to depress, damage, and enrage me more than I was going to make a dent in reforming them, so I made a “tactical withdrawal” into private practice. Only several years later, in the late 1990s, did I begin to go public—writing articles and books, giving media interviews and talks about the problems in the mental health profession.
A major motivation for going public was that I was embarrassed by the direction of my profession and I wanted to separate myself from it. I remember thinking, half seriously, that when all these kids who were having a difficult time fitting into dehumanizing environments and who were getting increasingly drugged—first with psychostimulants and then with antidepressants and antipsychotics—grew up and figured out what had happened to them, they would get pretty enraged. If ever there was a revolution and it resembled the French Revolution, then instead of kings, queens, and priests’ heads being placed in guillotines, it would be shrinks’ heads; and I thought that if I spoke out, maybe I might get spared.
Over the years, I discovered a handful of other psychologists—and even a few courageous psychiatrists—who were also speaking out against mainstream psychology and psychiatry. Most of them had paid the severe professional price of marginalization. I also came across psychologist authors who were not routinely discussed by mainstream mental health professionals, but whom I respected. One such psychologist author/activist was Ignacio Martin-Baró, a social psychologist and priest in El Salvador who popularized the term “liberation psychology” and who was ultimately assassinated by a U.S. trained Salvadoran death squad in 1989. One observation by Martin-Baró about U.S. psychology was that “in order to get social position and rank, it negotiated how it would contribute to the needs of the established power structure.” We can see that in many ways.
Meeting the Needs of the Power Structure
On the obvious level, we can see psychologists meeting the needs of the power structure for social position and rank in the recent policies of the American Psychological Association (APA). For several years, the APA not only condoned but actually applauded psychologists’ assistance in interrogation/torture in Guantánamo and elsewhere. When it was discovered that psychologists were working with the U.S. military and the CIA to develop brutal interrogation methods, the APA assembled a task force in 2005 to examine the issue and concluded that psychologists were playing a “valuable and ethical role” in assisting the military. In 2007, an APA Council of Representatives retained this policy by voting overwhelmingly to reject a measure that would have banned APA members from participating in abusive interrogation of detainees. It took until 2008 for APA members to vote for prohibiting consultations in interrogations.
At the tip of this iceberg, are the efforts of perhaps the most famous academic psychologist in the U.S., who is also a former president of the APA, a man who once did some worthwhile work with learned helplessness. Of course, I’m talking about Martin Seligman, who more recently consulted with the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program—this for not only social position and rank but for several million dollars for his University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, which quoted Seligman saying, “We’re after creating an indomitable military.”
To give you an example of how positive psychology is used in this Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, in one role play, a sergeant is asked to take his exhausted men on one more difficult mission and the sergeant is initially angry, saying, “It’s not fair”; but in the role play, he’s “rehabilitated” to reframe the order as a compliment, concluding, “Maybe he’s hitting us because he knows we’re more reliable.”
This kind of “positive reframing” and the use of psychology and psychiatry to manipulate and medicate people—one in six U.S. armed service members are taking at least one psychiatric drug, many in combat zones—so as to adjust to dehumanizing environments has concerned many critical thinkers for quite some time, from Aldous Huxley in Brave New World to Erich Fromm in The Sane Society to, more recently, Barbara Ehrenreich in Bright-Sided.
How Psychologists Subvert  Democratic Movements
One major area that concerns me is the everyday pathologizing and diseasing of anti-authoritarians. This is quite scary because anti-authoritarians are absolutely vital for democracy and democratic movements. I want to talk about how this is being done, but first let me define authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism
Authoritarianism is unquestioning obedience to authority. Authoritarians in control demand unquestioning obedience and authoritarian subordinates give them that unquestioning obedience. In contrast, anti-authoritarians question the legitimacy of an authority before taking it seriously. Does the authority know what it’s talking about or not? Does it tell the truth or lie? Does it care about the people who are taking it seriously or is it exploitative? And if anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they then challenge and resist it. By pathologizing and “treating” anti-authoritarians, psychologists and other mental health professionals are taking them off “democracy battlefields.”
I began to think about this problem of psychologists pathologizing anti-authoritarians when I was in graduate school in the early 1980s. In the 1970s—when mental health professionals were moving forward instead of backward—psychiatry, in response to the pressure of gay activists, removed homosexuality as a mental illness from their diagnostic bible, the DSM. But 1980 was a sad year—Erich Fromm died, Ronald Reagan became president, and DSM III was published in 1980, my second year of graduate school.
DSM III had a huge expansion of psychiatric disorders, with many more child and adolescent diagnoses and I immediately noticed that DSM III was pathologizing stubbornness, rebellion, and anti-authoritarianism. Some of these new diagnoses subtly pathologized rebellion, but one diagnosis was an in-your-face obvious pathologizing of rebellion—“oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD).
ODD kids are not doing anything illegal. ODD kids are not the kids who once were labeled “juvenile delinquents”—that’s “conduct disorder.” Rather, the official symptoms of ODD include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”
When I discovered ODD, I told some of my professors that I was already a little embarrassed by the profession, but now I’m really embarrassed—didn’t psychologists realize that just about every great American activist from Saul Alinsky to Harriet Tubman to many great artists and scientists to scientist-activists such as Albert Einstein would have been diagnosed with ODD? In response, they diagnosed me as having “issues with authority.” I definitely do have issues with authorities who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. This was another reason that I withdrew from the mental health professional world.
Anti-Authoritarians
So, I went into private practice, where I received many referrals for teenagers diagnosed with ODD from colleagues who were uncomfortable with these kids. As I worked with the kids, I found that not only did I like most of them, but I also respected the vast majority of them, as they had real courage. They don’t comply with authorities whom they consider to be illegitimate and, most of the time, I concurred with their assessment. If they do respect an authority, they aren’t obnoxious and usually they clamor for adults whom they can respect and who genuinely respect them. Not only are these kids not mentally ill, many of them are what I consider to be the hope of the nation.
Over the years, I have worked not only with ODD teens, but also with adults diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and substance abuse, and with psychiatric survivors who have been previously diagnosed with various psychoses. What’s impossible to ignore is how many of the individuals diagnosed with mental disorders are essentially anti-authoritarians. This was potentially a large army of anti-authoritarian activists that mental health professionals are keeping off democracy battlefields by convincing them that their depression, anxiety, and anger are a result of their mental illnesses and not, in part, a result of their pain over being in dehumanizing environments.
Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for AlterNet called“Would We Have Drugged Up Einstein?” about why anti-authoritarians are diagnosed with mental illness. I received a huge response, including many emails from people who have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder who positively resonated with this particular sentence: “Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized, but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.”
So, over the years, I have become increasingly confident that there is a huge group of anti-authoritarian activists who are being pacified by the mental health profession and taken off democracy battlefields. I think this is one important reason why the number of Americans actively involved in democratic movements is so low.
Psychologists’ Unavoidable Political Choice
If you look at the history of hierarchical civilization, the reality is that there have always been power structures. There has been the ruling power structure of the combination of the monarchy and the church. Today in the U.S. and many other nations, the ruling power structure is the corporatocracy—giant corporations, the wealthy elite, and their politician collaborators.
All power structures throughout history have sought to use groups of people, especially among so-called professionals, who will control the population from rebelling against injustices. Power structures have used clergy—that’s why clergy who cared about social justice and who were embarrassed by their profession created “liberation theology.” Power structures have certainly used police and armies, as has been done throughout American history to try to break the U.S. labor movement. The U.S. power structure now uses mental health professionals to manipulate and medicate people to adapt and adjust and thereby maintain the status quo, regardless of how insane the status quo has become.
So, mental health professionals have a choice. They can meet the needs of the power structure by only focusing on adjusting and adapting to what I think is an increasingly insane U.S. society. By insane, I mean multiple senseless wars that Americans don’t even know why we are fighting. By insane, I mean prisons-for-profit corporations such as Correction Corporation of America buying prisons from states and demanding in return a 90 percent occupancy guarantee (this actually occurred recently in my state of Ohio). And so on.
Mental health professionals can act very differently. Clinicians can recognize that many among their clientele diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and substance abuse are not essentially biochemically ill, but are essentially anti-authoritarians. Not all of them are anti-authoritarians but many of them are. And that self-destructive behaviors are fueled by a variety of pains, with one such pain being the direct and indirect impact of illegitimate authorities at all kinds of levels in people’s lives. And pained anti-authoritarians can be exposed to the idea that throughout history many people—famous and not-so-famous, from Buddha to Malcolm X—have transformed their pain and their self-destructive behaviors to constructive behaviors through art, spirituality, and activism.
Once anti-authoritarians have their pain and their anti-authoritarianism validated and feel more whole, they are likely to become less on the defensive and more secure. That’s when the real fun begins, as we can move to the next level—we can learn to get along with one another. When anti-authoritarians regain the energy to do battle with the corporatocracy and learn to get along with one another—we might actually achieve something closer to democracy in the United States.

Vote your conscience not the lessor of two evils

Israel neck deep in perpetrating cyberterrorism

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Israeli regime will construct an iron dome to counter cyber attacks from Iran. In a security meeting, Netanyahu noted that Israel’s infrastructure system and computers are the objectives of Iran, claiming his cybernetics office staff seeks to develop a digital iron dome to address such leaks.

Israel resorts to iron dome cyberattacks against Iran

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Israeli regime will construct an iron dome to counter cyber attacks from Iran.

In a security meeting, Netanyahu noted that Israel’s infrastructure system and computers are the objectives of Iran.

He said that the Israeli cybernetics office staff, formed last year, seeks to develop a digital iron dome to address such leaks.

The Israeli official added that the operation needs time to be developed. However, he indicated that the Tel Aviv regime has started.

The newspaper The Washington Post revealed in a recent report that the Israeli regime and the U.S. created the “flame”  computer virus to spy on Iran.

The virus is among the most sophisticated and subversive pieces of malware to be exposed to date. Experts said the program was designed to replicate across even highly secure networks, then control everyday computer functions to send secrets back to its creators. The code could activate computer microphones and cameras, log keyboard strokes, take screen shots, extract geo­location data from images, and send and receive commands and data through Bluetooth wireless technology.

Also in June the newspaper The New York Times brought to light that President Barack Obama had secretly ordered a computer attack against Iran through the Stuxnet virus in order to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.

“This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today.

The two destructive viruses that infiltrated Iranian computers over the past two years were neutralized in Iran after developing software capable of disabling them.

On the other hand, Netanyahu has said that to relieve against jihad activities and the recent attacks on the Gaza Strip that left three people dead, regime forces continue operations of a similar nature.

Since Saturday, three people have been killed by the wave of air strikes by the Israeli regime against the Gaza Strip

It’s rather notable that they announce a “defensive” program, playing the victim role, when they are the perpetrators of massive cyberterrorism.  One comes to expect such Orwellian doublespeak from the FUKUS/Israel axis.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/24-10-2012/122551-israel_deep-0/

Romney: I will have Israel’s back, including militarily

In final debate, Repubican nominee attacks president for sidelining Israel to curry favor with regional players • Obama vows Iran will not get nuclear bomb on his watch and touts unprecedented U.S. aid, says visit to Yad Vashem and Sderot had great impact on him.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney squared off on Monday in their final debate, which focused on foreign affairs.|Photo credit: Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney sparred on Monday over who was Israel’s strongest defender but both agreed that a military strike over Iran’s nuclear program must be a “last resort.”

Tehran’s nuclear program, which the West suspects is for developing weapons and that economic sanctions have so far failed to stop, is almost certain to be among the top foreign policy challenges facing the next president.

Yet Romney and Obama, in their foreign policy debate, did not offer sharply contrasting policies to address the challenge. They agreed on the need for tough economic pressure — and for safeguarding Israel. “If Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily,” Romney said. “I will stand with Israel if they are attacked,” Obama said. Both were responding to a question on whether they would consider an attack on Israel an attack on the United States.

Obama later called Israel “a true friend and our greatest ally in the region,” and said Israel and the U.S. maintain “unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.” Obama went on to say that a nuclear Iran would be a national security threat to the United States. He stressed he would not let Iran obtain a nuclear bomb so long as he is president and would not let Iran “perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere.”

Iran’s leaders have from time to time threatened to eradicate Israel, and Israeli leaders see an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat. The question that has risen repeatedly this year is whether Israel would conduct a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear sites, which would put the United States in a difficult position of whether to enter another Middle East conflict.

The candidates did not say what they would do if Israel conducted a unilateral strike on Iran. Pressed by the moderator on how he would react if Israel were to launch a unilateral strike against Iran, Romney said, “Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel [Benjamin Netanyahu] is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way.” Romney and Netanyahu both worked for a Boston-based consulting firm in the 1970s. The two still maintain a close friendship, which was clearly on display during Romney’s visit to Israel over the summer.

Obama accused Romney of rushing to conclude that a military strike was necessary. “The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that, during the course of this campaign, he’s often talked as if we should take premature military action,” Obama said at Monday’s debate, which was the final such encounter before the Nov. 6 election. “I think that would be a mistake, because when I send young men and women into harm’s way, I always understand that is the last resort, not the first resort,” he said.

“We need to increase pressure, time and time again, on Iran because anything other than … a solution to this … which stops this, this nuclear folly of theirs, is unacceptable to America,” Romney said. “And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only … consider if all of the other avenues had been … tried to their full extent,” he said.

Romney challenged the effectiveness of Obama’s Iran policy, saying his perceived weakness has strengthened the ayatollahs’ resolve. “They have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be,” Romney said. “I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength.” “We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran. We’re four years closer to a nuclear Iran,” Romney continued. “And — and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they’ve — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.”

Obama bluntly said newspaper reports that Iran and the United States had agreed to hold bilateral talks on Tehran’s nuclear program were not true. Iran has also denied that bilateral negotiations on its nuclear program had been scheduled.

Romney went on to attack the president for sidelining the relations with Israel as part of the effort to curry favor with other Middle East players, evident by what the governor called an “apology tour.”

“You went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by [the] way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations,” Romney said. “And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations and on Arabic TV you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Romney also attacked Obama for not acting to shore-up relations with Israel even after 38 members of Congress had sent him a letter urging him to do so. “They asked him, please repair the tension — Democrat senators — please repair the damage,” Romney said.

Obama said his administration and he personally consider Israel’s security paramount, in part owing to the impression left by his visit there as a candidate in 2008. “I went down to the border town of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children’s bedrooms, and I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.” Obama also attacked Romney for using his recent trip to Israel to benefit his campaign war chest rather than to study the region. “When I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn’t take donors, I didn’t attend fundraisers, I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself [of] the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable.”

Speaking on Egypt, Obama said he would make sure Egypt’s pro-Islamic regime would uphold the country’s long-standing peace treaty with Israel. “That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels,” Obama said.

On Syria, Romney tried to put Obama on the defensive by saying the administration has not led in the crisis in which thousands of Syrians have died and President Bashar al-Assad remains in power. “What I’m afraid of is, we’ve watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, well, we’ll let the U.N. deal with it,” Romney said. “We should be playing the leadership role there.”The United States should work with partners to organize the Syrian opposition and “make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves,” he said.

“I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered,” Obama said. “But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term.” Obama also used Monday night’s debate to criticize Romney’s support for beginning the war in Iraq, for opposing his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq, for inconsistent stances on Afghanistan and for opposing nuclear treaties with Russia. “Every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong,” Obama said. Romney responded that “attacking me is not an agenda” for dealing with a dangerous world.

If and how the debate would affect the Nov. 6 presidential election was not clear. Foreign policy, the theme of the debate at Lynn University, in Boca Raton, Florida, has not been a major issue in a race centered on the U.S. economy. But both candidates were determined to appear to be strong leaders, rallying their supporters and winning over the remaining undecided voters.

Romney appeared more measured than Obama, agreeing with the president on a number of issues, perhaps seeking to appear more moderate to centrist voters who may determine the election’s outcome. Obama, from the opening moments, wasn’t as subdued. He said Romney would reinstate the unpopular foreign policies of President George W. Bush.

“Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s,” Obama said.

Romney said that despite early hopes, the ouster of despotic regimes in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere over the past year has resulted in a “rising tide of chaos.” He said the president has failed to come up with a coherent policy to grapple with the change sweeping the Middle East.

Foreign policy is generally seen as Obama’s strength and he highlighted two of his campaign’s main points, that he gave the order leading to the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and fulfilled a promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq. Romney, a multimillionaire businessman, has little foreign affairs experience. Romney congratulated Obama “on taking out Osama bin Laden and taking on the leadership of al-Qaida.” But he added, “we can’t kill our way out of this mess. … We must have a comprehensive and robust strategy.”

The election is a state-by-state contest and the outcome in a small number of states that are not predictably Democratic or Republican will determine the winner. With the final debate behind them, both men are embarking on a two-week whirlwind of campaigning. The president is slated to speak in six states during a two-day trip that begins Wednesday. Romney intends to visit two or three states a day. Already four million ballots have been cast in early voting in more than two dozen states. Just hours before the debate CNN published the latest “poll of polls,” showing Romney has been able to maintain his momentum. The poll, which is the average of five polls conducted over the past week, has both Obama and Romney locked in a dead heat — each garnering 47 percent support among likely voters. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from Monday night (before the debate) also had both candidates tied at 46% in a sample that included both registered and likely voters. Gallup’s daily tracking poll has Romney holding on to a 6% advantage among likely voters.

The last debate could turn out to be decisive in such a close race. One Democratic activist told Politico on Monday that the voters who had yet to make up their minds “go back and forth every day”. “One day they are for Romney, and one day they are for the president. Right now they have gone back to Obama. The last thing they hear matters. … It’s extremely fluid outside the base.”

For the first time since May, The Politico/George Washington University Battleground Tracking Poll has Romney ahead in ten competitive swing states, with the former governor commanding a 50% to 48% lead among likely voters. This marks an upset from last week, when the president was at 49% to Romney’s 48%. In all-important Ohio, with its 18 electoral votes, Obama still maintains a 50% to 45% advantage among likely voters according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS poll, although Romney has been able to narrow the gap lately.

Meanwhile, real estate magnate Donald Trump, who is a Romney supporter, announced on Monday that he will release as early as Wednesday a political bombshell the could decide the race. Speaking on Fox News, Trump described it as “something very, very big concerning the president of the United States.” “It’s going to be very big. I know one thing — you will cover it in a very big fashion,” Trump said. Trump has been one of Obama’s most vocal critics and even questioned Obama’s claim that he was born in the United States. The U.S. constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural-born” U.S. citizen.

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=6180

Ron Paul Outted Drug King Pin George H.W. Bush 25 Years Ago

Ron Paul exposes George H.S. Bush and US Government Drug Trafficking

“Once a CIA member, always a CIA member.”

Watch interview of Ron Paul outting George H.W. Bush as CIA Drug King Pin on August 26, 1988

No one has made it to the White House since Reagan who is not enthusiastic about continuing the bogus drug war.

Some like Bush Sr. and Clinton are documented to have participated in the business first hand.

What does the “Drug War” accomplish:

1. It keeps drug prices sky high for maximum profits for drug criminals, their bankers and money launderers.2. It creates a vast pool of black money that politicians can dip into any time they need it.

3. It keeps a bloated domestic security force employed so they can continue to harass working people and deprive them of basic civil rights.

So who is the leading drug war candidate in this race?

George Bush Sr’s candidate, of course, Mitt RomneyWatch video explaining the mysterious Bush-Romney connection here. . .

http://revolutionpac.com/articles/ron-paul-outted-bush-criminality-25-years-ago

Green Party Presidential Candidate Jill Stein Files Lawsuit Against the Commission on Presidential Debates

Last week the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested for trying to gain access to presidential debate.

Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala attempted to enter the debate hall at Hofstra University, but were refused entry by police because they lacked credentials, even though they are qualified candidates who are on the ballot in most states.

Yet despite being legitimate candidates the two women were arrested by local police when they tried to enter the grounds of Hofstra University, in Hempstead, New York, where the debate took place

According to Jill Steins website:

“This week her fight continues with a lawsuit filed today against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), claiming that the CPD, Democratic National Committee, and Republican National Committee, together with the Federal Election Commission and Lynn University, had deprived her of her constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and free speech, as well as her statutorily protected civil rights.

The lawsuit sought both an emergency court order enjoining tonight’s CPD presidential debate from taking place, as well monetary damages.

According to the lawsuit pleadings, “Dr. Jill Stein is not only equal under the law to the two “major party” candidates, she is better, because she became a viable contender for the Presidency while being discriminated against by the defendants at every turn.”

“Our constitution is supposed to protect us against manipulations of democracy of the kind scheduled tonight, and I hope the court will act now to stop this farce, but either way, we will keep up the fight, and one of these days American elections and our debates will be reclaimed by the American people,” said Stein.

Today, Tuesday, October 23 at the Chicago Hilton there will actually be a third party debate featuring Dr. Jill Stein, Gov. Gary Johnson and others, but it is not being aired anywhere on mainstream television in the US.

Ironically enough though, the debates are being aired on Russia Today and Aljazeera.

Over 14,000 people have signed a statement calling on CPD to change its criteria, and repeated public calls for opening the CPD debates have been ignored by the government and the CPD corporation.

The electoral process is another ruling class scam designed to keep people distracted from the violence and oppression inherent in the system.

This corruption that obviously exists in electoral politics leaves many people feeling like there is no hope, but that is only because the public education system and the mainstream media dialogue present the electoral process and the whims of our masters as the only viable solutions for change.

In reality, there are many things you can do to empower yourself and your community that are completely outside of the political system.

There are personal steps, as well as social steps that can be taken to peacefully underthrow the status quo.

The battle to bring 3rd party candidates into the spotlight is still important though, because it exposes the corrupt nature of the electoral process, and it also lets people know that there are other ideas out there that are not presented through mainstream sources.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/10/24/green-party-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-files-lawsuit-against-the-commission-on-presidential-debates/

Romney Rep. Peter King: Presidential Kill List “Totally Constitutional”

Luke Rudkowski asks NY Congressman and Romney representative, Peter King for his insight on how Mitt Romney should handle the inheritance of Obama’s kill list should he become president. Peter King touts the kill list as “totally right, totally Constitutional” as he quickly becomes angered and derogatory towards Luke.

Another Obama Executive Order Allows Seizure of Americans’ Bank Accounts

The latest executive order (EO) emanating from the White House October 9 now claims the power to freeze all bank accounts and stop any related financial transactions that a “sanctioned person” may own or try to perform — all in the name of “Iran Sanctions.”

Titled an “Executive Order from the President regarding Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions…” the order says that if an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a “sanctioned person,” he (or she) will be unable to obtain access to his accounts, will be unable to process any loans (or make them), or move them to any other financial institution inside or outside the United States. In other words, his financial resources will have successfully been completely frozen. The EO expands its authority by making him unable to use any third party such as “a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, subgroup or other organization” that might wish to help him or allow him to obtain access to his funds.

And if the individual so “sanctioned” decides that the ruling is unfair, he isn’t allowed to sue. In two words, the individual has successfully been robbed blind.

But it’s all very legal. The EO says the president has his “vested authority” to issue it, and then references endless previous EOs, including one dating back to 1995 which declared a “state of emergency” (which hasn’t been lifted): Executive Order 12957.

EO 12957 was issued by President Bill Clinton on March 15, 1995, which was also obliquely related to the Iran “problem”:

I, William J. Clinton, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Clinton’s EO further delegated such powers as were necessary to enforce the EO to the secretaries of the treasury and state “to employ all powers … as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government.”

Such EOs are the perfect embodiment of what the Founders feared the most: the combining of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions into one body. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says: “All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” As Thomas Eddlem, writing for The New American, expressed it, “then it stands to reason [that] none is left for the president.”

But Joe Wolverton, also in The New American, pointed out the particular piece of language the Founders used to limit the powers of the president which totalitarians have twisted to allow such powers to expand: the “take care” clause, to wit: Article II, Section 3: he [the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…

With every EO, the president avoids the cumbersome constitutional safeguards spelled out by the Constitution, and uses them to implement policies he “knows” are right. Says Wolverton: “With every one of these … executive orders, then, the president elevates his mind and will above that of the people, Congress and the courts.”

The current administration has had a lot of help in justifying and codifying the legitimacy of executive orders, going all the way back to President George Washington who in 1793 issued his “Neutrality Proclamation,” which declared that the United States would remain neutral in the current conflict between France and Great Britain, and would bring sanctions against any American citizen who attempted to provide assistance to either party. The language of Washington is eerily similar to that used by President Obama in the present case:

I have therefore thought fit by these presents to declare the disposition of the United States to observe the conduct aforesaid toward those powers respectively, and to exhort and warn the citizens of the United States carefully to avoid all acts and proceedings whatsoever which may in any manner tend to contravene such disposition…

I have given instructions to those officers to whom it belongs to cause prosecutions to be instituted against all persons who shall, within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the law of nations with respect to the powers at war, or any of them.

When James Madison protested Washington’s usurpation of powers not intended for the president, Congress acquiesced and passed, retroactively, the Neutrality Act of 1794, validating Washington’s usurpation.

President Lincoln engaged in similar usurpations, using presidential “directives” to run the early months of the Civil War, presenting Congress with, as Todd Gaziano put it,

the decision either to adopt his [directives] as legislation or to cut off support for the Union army.

Within his first two months in office, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln issued a proclamation activating troops to defeat the Southern rebellion and for Congress to convene on July 4.

He also issued proclamations to procure warships and to expand the size of the military; in both cases, the proclamations provided for payment to be advanced from the Treasury without congressional approval.

These latter actions were probably unconstitutional, but Congress acquiesced in the face of wartime contingencies, and the matters were never challenged in court.

President Franklin Roosevelt often overlooked the niceties of constitutional restraints as well. As Gaziano expressed it, “FDR also showed a tendency to abuse his executive order authority and [to] claim powers that were not conferred on him in the Constitution or by statute.”

As far as numbers of executive orders issued, Obama is a piker. At the moment, although the list is growing, his administration has issued 138 executive orders. President Theodore Roosevelt issued 1,006 while President Woodrow Wilson issued 1,791. Even President Calvin Coolidge used the EO “privilege” 1,253 times.

The granddaddy of them all, FDR, issued an astounding 3,728 executive orders, but of course he was in office longer than Obama.

President Bill Clinton issued only 364 executive orders, but he made the most of them, using this extra-legal power to, among other things, wage war in Yugoslavia without congressional approval. Cliff Kincaid collated the numerous EOs issued by Clinton in 1998 and 1999, and concluded:

Clinton waged his war on Yugoslavia through executive order and presidential directive. Clinton used executive orders to designate a “war zone,” call up troops, proclaim a “national emergency” with respect to Yugoslavia, and impose economic sanctions on the Belgrade government.

Clinton claimed war-making presidential authority through his “constitutional authority” to conduct “foreign relations,” as “Commander in Chief” and as “Chief Executive.” Under this self-designated authority, Clinton delegated command-and-control of U.S. forces to NATO and its Secretary-General Javier Solana, who decided when the air war would be discontinued…

The most outrageous executive order of all time was that issued by President Roosevelt that allowed the enforced internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans: 9066.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) called EOs patently unconstitutional. When asked about them by Fox News’ Megan Kelly, Paul responded:

The Constitution says that only Congress passes laws. The executive branch is not allowed to pass laws, nor should the judicial system pass laws. So it is clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders.

They’ve been done for a long time, both parties have done it, but the Congress is careless. They allow and encourage and do these deals … to get the president to circumvent the Congress. If something’s unpopular and he can’t get it passed, well, let’s just sign an executive order. So I think that is blatantly wrong. I think this defies everything the founders intended. I think it’s a shame that Congress does it, and I think it’s a shame that the American people put up with it.

Correction: As originally written, this article placed the number of executive orders issued by the Obama administration at 900, based on an inaccurate source. We regret this misinformatiion. The figure cited in the article has now been corrected.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/13196-another-obama-executive-order-allows-seizure-of-americans%E2%80%99-bank-accounts

Michael Scheuer: Mrs Clinton Has Blood on her Hands Everywhere

U.S. Foreign Policy the Cause of Middle East Protests?
Air Date: Sep 14, 2012
Former CIA Operative Michael Scheuer on the motives behind the recent protests in the Middle East.

All credits to: Fox Business Network

FBI — WARNING — Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute or exhibit portions of copyright motion pictures, video tapes, or video disks under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called fair use and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news reporting, teaching and parody.

Lew Rockwell explains how the Federal Reserve Enables War, Empire, and Destroys the Middle Class

Welcome to Capital Account. The accused Federal Reserve bomb plotter’s home country wants details on his case. While this may make headlines, we ask Lew Rockwell of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute about one aspect of the Federal Reserve that has not made front page news: how the Fed, with its printing press, may be making war easier. After all, if the people of the United States were asked to write a check every year to the IRS in order to fund the exploding deficits and rising interest payments on the national debt, would they continue to support all these wars? Randolph Bourne may have famously quipped that “war is the health of the state,” but it isn’t the health of the economy, this is for certain. If the American people could identify their miserable economic plight with the actions of the federal reserve and with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent every year on war and defense, it is reasonable to expect that they would simply refuse the burden all together. We will ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute what he thinks, and if he thinks that war is made easier by a pliant and compliant central bank.

And, sticking with this issue of the Federal Reserve as the great “enabler,” what about it’s role in “disabling” and dismembering America’s dwindling middle class? How responsible is the Federal Reserve and its quantitative easing, zero percent interest rate policy for the plight of America’s economy and its society? The two main contenders for the presidency, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, speak often about the Fed. The candidates talk about supporting the middle class in terms of tax cuts, loopholes, and regulation but they don’t discuss the “money” in the middle class’s pockets. We ask Lew Rockwell, Chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, about what happens to the middle class if you don’t address savings.

And it’s the 25-year anniversary of Black Monday, but it’s also the 1-year anniversary of Capital Account’s launch! Lauren and Demetri respond to your birthday wishes and more in viewer feedback. Plus one of the more memorable exchanges in Tuesday’s presidential debate was the back and forth over pension plans: Obama told Romney “I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.” President Obama might want to take a look at his pension, as it turns out it holds shares of the Las Vegas Sands corporation, owned by Sheldon Adelson, a major Romney backer. The holdings in his pension also include Domino’s Pizza, Exxon Mobil, China Life Insurance, Halliburton, and Altria (Philip Morris USA). Lauren and Demetri discuss the political landmine in Obama’s pension fund in today’s “Loose Change.” They also discuss Social Impact Bonds and how SIBs have made it easier for businessmen to combine philanthropic goals with business. The SIBs are loans made by investors to pay for a social program, and they require a government to pay a return on their principal investment if the program meets its agreed-upon goals. Lauren and Demetri talk about how SIBs make the market incentive for philanthropy more efficient.

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about Barack Obama the MSM Refuses to Report

Shocking Secrets and Verifiable Facts about President Barack Obama the Mainstream Media Refuses to Report
If you think you know everything there is to know about Barack Obama, think again.

What you’ll hear on this episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred! will not only shock you, it will alarm you!

Why does mainstream media refuse to give us the truth about the most powerful man in the world? Yet, a man who is shrouded in secrecy and immune to any and all vetting by that same media.
What information would have turned up had Barack Obama been properly vetted? Listen to this eye-opening, jaw-droppoing episode of Catch Kevin: No Holds Barred!

Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law is given $737m of taxpayers’ money to build giant solar power plant in middle of the desert

  • Obama administration approved $1bn in green energy loans days after failed Solyndra project due to be completed
  • $737m handed to Crescent Dunes project in Tonopah, Nevada, for 110-megawatt desert solar power plant
  • Investors include firm Minority leader’s brother-in-law and major Solyndra stakeholder
  • Republicans warn Energy Department is ‘rushing’ $5bn in loans ahead of Friday deadline

Cronyism? A solar energy project backed by Nancy Pelosi’s brother has been granted a massive government loan (file picture)

 

Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal.

The massive loan agreement is raising new concerns about the use of taxpayers’ money as vast sums are invested in technology similar to that of the doomed energy project.

The investment has intensified the debate over the effectiveness of solar energy as a major power source.

The SolarReserve project is backed by an energy investment fund where the Minority Leader’s brother-in-law Ronald Pelosi is second in command.

PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (East) LLC is listed as one of the investors in the project that has been given the staggering loan, which even dwarfs that given to failed company Solyndra.

Other investors include one of the major investors in Solyndra, which is run by one of the directors of Solyndra.

Steve Mitchell, who served on the board of directors at the bankrupt energy company, is also managing director of Argonaut Private Equity, which has invested in the latest project.

Since Solyndra has filed for bankruptcy has been asked to testify about the goings on at the firm by two members of the House and ‘asked to provide documents to Congress’.

Generator: Artist’s impression of the solar plant being constructed north west of Tonopah, Nevada

 

The artist’s impression shows the incredible size of the giant solar power plant, which is being bankrolled by President Obama’s green jobs fund.

Energy will be generated using concentrated solar power technology, in which a series of mirrors direct sunlight to a receiver at the centre of the plant.

The ‘solar tower’ in the middle, which will be taller than the Washington Monument, is the first of its kind to be built.

Stretching out across a plain in Tonopah, Nevada, the mind-bogglingly big project will generate enough electricity to power 43,000 homes.

But the joint announcement by Energy Secretary Steven Chu comes just two days after the doomed Solyndra project, which cost the taxpayer $528 million from the same cash pot, was meant to be completed.

The project approval came as part of $1 billion in new loans to green energy companies yesterday.

Republican critics of the President Obama’s solar energy program have voiced their outrage at the new loans while the Solyndra scandal is still being investigated.

They have raised concerns that the Department of Energy is rushing through the approval of loans before stimulus funds expire on Friday.

While the departments insists the projects are being properly vetted, some lawmakers have written to express concern that they vast loans are not being adequately scrutinised.

‘The administration’s flagship project Solyndra is bankrupt and being investigated by the FBI, the promised jobs never materialised, and now the Department of Energy is preparing to rush out nearly $5 billion in loans in the final 48 hours before stimulus funds expire — that’s nearly $105 million every hour that must be finalised until the deadline,’ said Florida representative Cliff Stearns, who is chairman of the investigations subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Tom Schatz, president of Washington-based advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste, said: ‘It is time for a full audit of their activities, their management and their results.

‘Candidly, it might be time for the federal government to rethink the whole idea of loan programs.’

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the project, which was had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies’ finances.

Investigation: Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and Chief Financial Officer Bill Stover are sworn in at a House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee hearing

 

The shocking scale of spending Solyndra lavished on the factory it started building alongside Interstate 880 in Fremont, California, has been revealed.When it was completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, including proceeds from the company’s $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, it covered 300,000 sq ft, the equivalent of five football fields.It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra, said: ‘The new building is like the Taj Mahal.’Designed to make far more solar panels than Solyndra got orders for, the site is now empty and U.S. taxpayers may be stuck with it.Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protection on September 6, leaving in its wake investigations by Congress and the FBI.

 

Mr Chu said the two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs.

He added: ‘If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar.’

The 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes project will use the sun’s heat to create steam that drives a turbine, SolarReserve, which is based in Santa Monica, California.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state’s economy recover. Former Governor Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project.

Mr Pelosi is one of several controversial figures set to benefit from the huge loan agreement.

The loan approvals came just two days before the renewable energy loan program approved under the 2009 economic stimulus law is set to expire. At least seven projects worth more than $5 billion are also waiting to be approved.

California-based solar panel maker Solyndra Inc went bankrupt after receiving its money and laid off 1,100 workers. The firm is now under investigation by the FBI.

It was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model.

President Barack Obama visited the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking ceremony.

Since then, the company’s failure has become an embarrassment for Obama.

Nut Scott Crider, a spokesman for Sempra Generation, a Sempra Energy subsidiary that is developing the Arizona project, said its loan guarantee was not as risky as the Solyndra loan.

Most important, the project has a 20-year agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to buy power supplied by the solar plant, he said

Mr Crider claimed the purchase agreement is a key element of the project and will ‘provide assurance that there are sufficient revenues in place to support the loan guarantee’.

A similar agreement is in place in Nevada. NV Energy, the state’s largest electric utility, has agreed to buy power from the Tonopah tower, which will connect to NV Energy’s power grid.

Jimmy Carter Claims Israel Creating ‘Catastrophic’ Situation With Palestinians

Former President Jimmy Carter, former president of Ireland Mary Robinson, right, and former prime minister of Norway Gro Harlem Brundtland, left, listen to a guide as they tour East Jerusalem, on Oct. 22, 2012, during the second day of a visit by “The Elders”, a group of global leaders focused on human rights. (credit: AHMAD GHARABLI/AFP/Getty Images)

JERUSALEM (AP) — Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday during a visit to Jerusalem that the prospect of an Israel-Palestinian peace accord is “vanishing,” blaming Israeli settlement of the West Bank.

Carter, a longtime critic of Israeli policies, called the current situation “catastrophic” and blamed Israel for the growing isolation of east Jerusalem from the West Bank. He said a Palestinian state has become “unviable.”

“We’ve reached a crisis stage,” said Carter, 88. “The two-state solution is the only realistic path to peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians.”

Carter is currently on a two-day visit leading a delegation known as the “The Elders,” which includes the former prime minister of Norway and the former president of Ireland. The group met with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

But they didn’t meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Carter said that the delegation didn’t request a meeting because they haven’t been granted meetings on previous visits.

Netanyahu has pledged support for a Palestinian state but peace talks with the Palestinians have been frozen for most of his tenure. Carter criticized him for not doing enough.

“Up until now, every prime minister has been a willing and enthusiastic supporter of the two-state solution,” he said.

The Palestinians say they will only return to the negotiating table if Israel freezes settlement construction on occupied lands claimed by the Palestinians. Israel says talks should resume without preconditions.

As president, Carter brokered the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But since he left office, he has become increasingly critical of Israel. His 2006 book, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” claimed that Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land was the primary obstacle to Mideast peace. The book sparked widespread outrage in Israel.

Carter and the delegation also expressed concern about the ongoing divisions between the main Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, and vowed support for a Palestinian observer state status bid at the United Nations General Assembly in November.

The group departs for Egypt on Tuesday, where they will meet with newly elected Islamist President Mohammed Morsi.

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/22/jimmy-carter-claims-israel-creating-catastrophic-situation-with-palestinians/

Negotiations — or War With Iran?

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state in the Bush administration, of reports the Obama White House has agreed to one-on-one talks with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Sen. Lindsey Graham dissented Sunday: “I think the time for talking is over. … We talk, they enrich. It needs to stop. We need to have red lines coordinated with Israel and end this before it gets out of hand.”

Clearly, Graham believes an ultimatum, followed by an attack if Iran denies us “access to their nuclear program,” is the way to “end this.”

What kind of attack?

According to David Rothkopf, writing in Foreign Policy magazine, U.S. and Israeli military authorities are discussing a joint attack, and the idea getting the most traction is “a U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities.”

“The strike might take only ‘a couple of hours’ in the best case and only would involve ‘a day or two’ overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support.”

Smashing the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, writes Rothkopf, would mean “setting the Iranian nuclear program back many years, and doing so without civilian casualties.”

This would have “region-wide benefits,” writes Rothkopf.

“One advocate asserts it would be a ‘transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the [Persian] Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come.’”

Thus, according to Rothkopf and his source, a U.S. attack on Iran’s enrichment facilities would produce the same glorious benefits we were promised if only we would invade and occupy Iraq in 2003.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has another view. “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could … prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” What consequences might Gates have in mind?

Iran might mine the Persian Gulf, sending ships to the bottom, halting traffic, doubling the price of oil, and plunging Europe into the economic abyss on the edge of which the continent stands today.

U.S. ships might face swarm attacks from Iranian speedboats, forcing us to sink the Iranian navy’s surface ships and destroy the hundreds of fast missile boats in the Gulf and Iranian ports.

Iran could send its submarines out and fire its anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship. Iranian missile attacks on U.S. bases in Bahrain and the Gulf region could ignite an all-out air and sea war, with the U.S. having to destroy Iranian air fields, antiaircraft and missile sites, and Iran’s remaining nuclear facilities.

The U.S. could face the kind of attacks across the region that Ronald Reagan confronted when he put Marines in Beirut, with the U.S. embassy blown up and 241 Marines massacred by a suicide truck bomber.

And if after months we had smashed Iran as we did Iraq in Desert Storm, would the regime give way to a pro-Western democracy? Or would the result in Iran look like what exists today in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan?

Syria is breaking apart into Sunni and Alawite, Arab, Kurd and Druze, Christian and Muslim, Islamist and secular. Afghanistan is dissolving into Tajik and Uzbek in the north, Hazara in the center, and Pashtun in the south and east. Iraq is losing Kurdistan and reverting to civil-sectarian war.

A U.S. defeat of Iran could bring to power revanchists bent on payback through terrorism and propel that half of the population that is Arab, Baluch, Kurd, and Azeri to try to break away.

Who would benefit from a breakup of Iran, other than jihadists?

Iran would surely stir up Hezbollah to rain down rockets on Israel and incite the Shia in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to rise against the regimes there.

Would Shia in Iraq attack the U.S. embassy in Baghdad? We cannot know, but Gates is surely right that the consequences could be catastrophic.

Which raises the question. Why are we even talking about war?

Sen. Graham notwithstanding, the sanctions are working. The Iranian economy is sinking into recession, oil revenues have fallen, and hard currency reserves are being depleted. And what is the grave threat that justifies a war?

While Iran is enriching uranium to 20%, it has not enriched to weapons grade. Should they do so, we would know it. Ayatollah   has called nuclear weapons anti-Islamic, and the U.S. intelligence community says Iran has no nuclear bomb program.

America’s position as of today is: We do not want war with Iran, but will tolerate no Iranian bomb. Iran’s official position is: We want no bomb, and we are willing to negotiate, but we have a right to have a peaceful nuclear program.

Can we find no common ground here?

Gates and Burns are right. Before we go to war, let us find out, in face-to-face talks if need be, if we really have to go to war.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2012/10/22/negotiations-or-war-with-iran/

Ordinary citizens play no role in US electoral process

Darnell Summers with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD)

A prominent political analyst says the US political system is founded on principles of slavery and ordinary citizens play absolutely no role in the country’s electoral process.

“The average citizen has absolutely none (no role in the elections). If you just reflect on the immense amount of money that’s being spent on the campaigns, two billion dollars by each candidate, that in and of itself indicates that the common man has no place, no role in the electoral process. I mean, our guest [another guest in the show] said that we don’t have control that we have lost control, well, we never had control,” said Darnell Summers with the Berlin-based Institute for Cultural Diplomacy (ICD) in a recent Press TV interview.

Summers stressed that the United states has always been and continues to be a ‘slavocracy’ as the common American has never had the power to influence the country’s political process ever since the establishment of the state.

“We have a situation where the United States started as a ‘slavocracy’. From the very beginning a large section of the people living in the country, the European settlers and the Indians of course, they didn’t have any, the indigenous people they had no say in the workings of the political aspect of the United States government from the very beginning and that pattern has continued.”

The analyst argued that the majority of Americans are devoid of political power in today’s America as they used to be in the past when the course of US politics was dominated by the slave owners who were also the possessors of the country’s wealth and controllers of its economy.

“The slave owners they had the mass great fortunes, controlled the economy, north and south and everything was based upon that particular foundation, Slavocracy, then to what some people called democracy, however, the situation for the majority of people in the United States has remained the same – They remain politically powerless,” he said.

The comments come as according to an Associated Press report published on Oct. 19 Zionist Jews are the biggest donors that finance the US presidential election campaign of both the Democratic President Barack Obama as well as his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

As said by the report, the wealthy Jewish donors and others are financing this year’s US presidential election, on track to cost a whopping 2 billion USD, with funding of individual Democratic and Republican campaigns as well as independent, “super” political action committees working on the campaigns’ behalf.

The 57th US presidential election is scheduled to be held on November 6, 2012.

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.fr/2012/10/ordinary-citizens-play-no-role-in-us.html

The Internet Revolution is a Liberty Revolution

Ron Paul

Until the late 1990s, individuals interested in Austrian economics, U.S. constitutional history, and libertarian philosophy had few sources of information. They had to spend hours scouring used book stores or the back pages of obscure libertarian periodicals to find the great works of Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, and other giants of liberty. Local library and university collections ignored libertarian politics and economics.

Today, however, the greatest classics of libertarian thought, libertarian philosophy, and libertarian economics are available instantly to anyone with internet access. Thanks to the internet, it is easier than ever before for liberty activists to spread news and other information regarding the evils of government power and the benefits of freedom. For the first time in human history, supporters of liberty around the world can share information across borders quickly and cheaply. Without the filter of government censors, this information emboldens millions to question governments and promote liberty.

This is why liberty-minded Americans must do everything possible to oppose– and stop– government attempts to censor or limit the free flow of information online.

One such attempt is known as “CISPA”, or the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. This bill will create a monstrous coalition of big business and big government to rob Americans of their protections under the 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

CISPA permits both the federal government and private companies to view your private online communications with no judicial oversight, provided they merely do so in the name of “cybersecurity.” But America is a constitutional republic, not a surveillance state– and the wildly overhyped need for security does not trump the Constitution.

“Cybersecurity” is the responsibility of companies that operate and make money in cyberspace, not taxpayers. Those companies should develop market-based private solutions to secure their networks, servers, cloud data centers, and user/customer information. The role of the US intelligence community is to protect the United States from military threats, not to provide corporate welfare to the private sector. Much like the TSA at the airport, CISPA would socialize security costs and remove market incentives for private firms to protect their own investments.

Imagine security-cleared agents embedded at private companies to serve as conduits for intelligence information about their customers back to the US intelligence community– while enjoying immunity from any existing civil or criminal laws. Imagine Google or Facebook reporting directly to the National Security Agency about the online activity of US citizens. Imagine US government resources being wasted on a grand scale to “assist” private companies in the global market. All of this would become reality under CISPA.

As of this writing, it appears that the House and Senate will not agree on a final version of CISPA this year. However, the Obama administration seems ready to impose provisions of this bill by executive order if Congress does not act soon.

The past five years have seen an explosion in the liberty movement, fueled in large part by the internet. Preserving that freedom is crucial if the liberty movement is to continue its progress. Therefore, all activists in the liberty movement have a stake in the battle for internet freedom. We must be ready to come together to fight any attempt to increase government’s power over the internet, regardless of the supposed justifications. We must resist voices from both the political right and left which alternatively seek to legislate morality or enforce political correctness with force. Copyright protection, pornography, cyberterrorism, gambling, and “hate speech” are merely excuses for doing what all governments have done throughout human history: increase their size, scope, and power.

Once we understand this, we understand the critical link between internet freedom and human freedom.

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/the-internet-revolution-is-liberty.html

Israeli Navy used tasers and beat passengers aboard the Ship to Gaza

Oct. 22, 2012

The Israeli activists detained on board the Estelle were released
Elik Elhanan: excessive force was used against us, without any reason

Electric shocks by taser out of vengeful hatred
A Greek MP was beaten by Shabak Security Service interrogators

Parents of Israeli activist, Elik Elhanan, protest with other activists outside the Ashdod police station, after three Israeli activists were arrested on the Estelle ship on their way to Gaza, October 20, 2012. (Photo: Oren Ziv/ActiveStills)

“I am now on my way home, but I keep thinking of my shipmates, my fellow activists from abroad who are still imprisoned under harsh conditions and undergo interrogation by the Shabak Security Service, among them Parliament Members from several countries,” said Elik Elhanan, one of the Israeli activists who had sailed aboard the Gaza-bound Swedish ship “Estelle”. Today, the court ordered his release and that of two other detained Israelis, Yonatan Shapira and Reut Mor. “At first they tried to charge us with all kinds of very serious felonies, such as ‘aiding the enemy’. The court rejected this out of hand. Today they tried a article on the law books called “Attempted infiltration into a part of the Land of Israel which is not part of the State of Israel” (sic). But the court threw out this charge, too.” The detained activists were represented by Attorney Gaby Lasky and her team, who have considerable experience with Human Rights cases.

The released detainees were cheerfully greeted by peace activists who arrived at the courtroom, among them Elik Elhanan’s parents – Rami Elhanan and Nurit Peled-Elhanan, who is the daughter of the late Major General Matti Peled. Smadar Elhanan, Elik’s sister, was killed in a suicide bombing at the center of Jerusalem – a harsh experience which made surviving family members all the more determined to strive for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, so as to prevent further casualties on either side.

“I have gone though difficult days, but I certainly do not regret sailing on that boat. I knew what I was getting into” said Elik Elhanan. “During the voyage I made a special contact with Evangelis, a Member of the Greek Parliament who sailed with us. When the Naval Commandos came aboard and while we were blocking their way to the bridge, Evangelis told me we have generated in him a love for the people of Israel and a hope for a better future in the Middle East. Shortly afterwards they separated us. Yesterday evening, when they put Dror Feiler in our cell, he told us that Evangelis had been beaten by the Shabak interrogators. The Shabak lied shamelessly to the Consuls and representatives of foreign countries, telling them that their citizens and MPs were being treated well.” Dror Feiler, who was born in Israel and whose mother Pnina lives in Kibbutz Yad Hana, gave up his Israeli citizenship after moving to Stockholm, and was therefore separated most of the time from the Israeli detainees.

“They used a completely disproportional amount of force against us” continues Elhanan. “When the Navy arrived to take us over, Yonatan Shapira counted no less than fifteen vessels surrounding us on all sides. Large and small ships and boats, a ship carrying a helicopter, as well as the Zodiacs of the Naval Commandos. Fifteen armed naval vessels against one small civilian boat carrying games for the children of Gaza. We must have disturbed very much the Navy and those who give orders to the Navy.

When they came aboard and we blocked their way, the soldiers knew exactly who I was. They shouted in Hebrew: ‘Elhanan, you will pay for your Leftism!’ and used the taser to give me electric shocks. Even after they completed their takeover of the boat, they continued to use the taser and administer more shocks. But if they think they could deter me and those who sailed with me, they are mistaken. The siege of Gaza is an ongoing crime and it must be ended. We will continue the struggle.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/israeli-navy-used-tasers-and-beat-passengers-aboard-the-ship-to-gaza.html

Fast and Furious Two: The Syrian Connection! Obama Administration Supplying the Munitions to Al Qaeda in Syria!

Watch Video:

http://www.surenews.com/obama/fast-and-furious-two-the-syrian-connection-obama-administration-supplying-the-munitions-to-al-qaeda-in-syria.htm

Mitt Romney Thinks He’s Won The Election, And Last Night He Just Played Not To Lose

The final presidential debate is over, and Mitt Romneyplayed it very safe, passing over opportunities to go on offense and generally avoiding confrontation with President Barack Obama.

The Republican candidate had a largely unremarkable debate, devoid of any major flubs, but also lacking in memorable attack lines or zingers. While the incumbent came out swinging, Romney repeatedly passed up opportunities to go after his opponent, even on key campaign flashpoints like trade with China and the White House’s handling of last month’s attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Instead, Romney once again tacked far to the center and actually embraced many of Obama’s foreign policies, offering up positions that differed only marginally from those of his Democratic opponent on issues like U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, foreign aid and intervention in the Middle East, and the use of drones.

In the immediate aftermath of the debate, several conservative pundits bemoaned the Republican nominee’s performance as a missed opportunity.

Here’s a tweet from Glenn Beck:

And here’s conservative commentator Laura Ingraham:

But in the end, most conservative pundits and Republican strategists agreed that the “play it safe” strategy may have been the smartest choice for the Republican nominee, who has so far struggled to effectively attack Obama on foreign policy issues. Moreover, in Monday’s debate, Romney faced the difficult challenge of setting himself apart from his Republican predecessor, former President George W. Bush, whose national security policies remain widely unpopular.

But with his campaign still riding the momentum from his strong performance in the first presidential debate, Romney didn’t need a big win tonight at his third and final match-up with Obama. He just needed to prevent a routing — and avoid stumbles like the botched response on Libya that he gave in last week’s town hall debate.

To that end, Romney accomplished what his campaign had set out to do during the final debate. It remains to be seen, however, whether Romney’s momentum really is strong enough to carry him through a merely passable performance.

Foreign debt now $47,495 per household

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 26, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) – The debt that the U.S. government owes to foreign interests now equals approximately $47,495 for each household in the United States, according to the latest data released by the U.S. Treasury and the Census Bureau.

The portion of the U.S. government’s foreign debt now owed to interests in Mainland China is about $10,090 per household.

At the end of August, the latest period reported by the U.S. Treasury, foreign interests held a total of $5,430,000,000,000 in U.S. government debt. According to the Census Bureau’s latest estimate (which was for June 2012) there were 114,328,000 households in the United States. Therefore, the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests was about $47,494.93 per household.

Back in January 2009, foreign interests held a total of $3,071,700,000,000 in U.S. government debt. That month, according to the Census Bureau, there were 111,079,000 households in the United States. Therefore the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests was about $27,653.29 per household.

Since January 2009, the total U.S. government debt held by foreign interests has climbed from approximately $27,653.29 per household to approximately $47,494.93 per household—an increase of about $19,841.64 per household.

Among foreign interests, those in Mainland China hold the largest share of the U.S. government’s debt. The Mainland Chinese, according to the Treasury, owned $1,153,600,000,000 in U.S. Treasury securities as of the end of August.

Back in January 2009, interests in Mainland China held only $739.6 billion in U.S. government debt. That month, the U.S. government owed about $6,658 per American household to interests in China. As of the end of August, the U.S. government owed about $10,090 per American household to interests in China—an increase since January 2009 of about $3,432 per household.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-governments-foreign-debt-now-47495-household

Romney, Obama appeal to voters on Israel, talk tough on Iran

At the final presidential debate, both President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney appealed to voters in Boca Raton, Florida by talking tough on security for Israel and Iran’s future.

US President Barack Obama shakes hands with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at the end of the third and final presidential debate October 22, 2012 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. (MANDEL NGAN/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney went head-to-head on foreign policy in the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University appealing to voters in Boca Raton, Florida by talking tough on security for Israel and Iran’s future.

Bob Schieffer, CBS News’ chief Washington correspondent and host of “Face the Nation,” moderated the 90 minute debate.

Both candidates tried to paint themselves as friends of Israel, while attacking their opponents’ record, in an attempt to court Jewish voters.

Romney criticized the president’s Middle East foreign policy, saying he had gone on an “apology tour” of the region but had skipped a visit to Israel in his first term.

“I want to underscore… if I’m President of the United States, when I’m President of the United States, we will stand with Israel,” said Romney. “And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That’s number one.”

In fact, post-debate fact checkers at the New York Times noted that both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did not visit Israel in their first term.

President Obama had a strong come back, telling Romney on his most recent visit to Israel, he went to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem.

On the subject of Israel’s enemy Iran, Obama made news, explaining a recent New York Times story about one-on-one talks between the US and Iran are in fact false, explaining “Those are reports in a newspaper. They are not true.”

Both candidates talked tough on Iran and emphasized their commitment to seeing it remain nuclear free.

Romney said the Obama administration has been weak on Iran and that “we are four years closer to a nuclear Iran” reiterating that a “nuclear-capable Iran is unacceptable to America.”

However, despite repeated calls for continuing the US policy of “crippling sanctions” for Iran, Romney did not put forth any new policy ideas on how his administration would contain Tehran’s nuclear threat.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121022/romney-obama-appeal-voters-israel-talk-tough-ira?

“October Surprise”: The Nobel Peace Committee’s “Collective Insanity”

“When Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize satire died”, satirist Tom Lehrer, memorably commented.

The Former US Secretary of State was awarded his Nobel for “negotiating the Vietnam Peace Accords.” In fact he had been involved in oversight of the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia (both neutral countries.) In nine years more than two hundred and sixty million bombs were dropped. He had also supported the murderous regimes in Chile and Argentina, where the “disappeared” are seared in to the national psyche.

UK Human Rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, in an application for a warrant for Henry Kissinger’s arrest, also referred in his submission at London’s Bow Street Magistrates Court to: “indiscriminate bombing raids … the use of toxic defoliants and pesticides (causing) mass death and suffering to the civilian population and severe long term damage to the natural environment.” (i)

Further: “According to the US Senate Sub-committee on Refugees, from March 1968 to March 1972, in excess of three million civilians were killed, wounded or made homeless.”

In 1973 Kissinger was awarded the world’s most prestigious Peace Prize. To date Mr Tatchell has failed in his attempts at arrest. The people of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam are still paying the price in lives and deformities from Agent Orange – twenty one million gallons was sprayed on South Vietnam alone – with other horrendous toxins. (ii)

Adrian Salbuchi has presented an admirable rogues gallery of Nobel Peace Laureates (iii) but this year Mr Lehrer must be pondering on the extent to which he underestimated the death of satire.

Alfred Nobel’s 1895 will dedicated his gift to: “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for holding the promotion of peace congresses …”

The EU, apart from not being a person, hardly qualifies on the other two counts. It is striving for its own “standing army”; the collective’s actions increasingly show that peace in any form is a far away land of which they give not a damn.

Three weeks before the Nobel was awarded a major conference discussed the formation of the EU army. Five of the six biggest countries enthusiastically signed (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland) The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and Luxembourg also joined. (iv) Alfred Nobel’s final wishes could hardly have been more flagrantly trashed than on 12th October 2012.

Figures covering the last year’s qualifications for working towards “fraternity among nations” (October 2011-October 2012) are not available, but in 2010: “Firms in the UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Spain and Europe’s own European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company made around €75 billion from selling weapons …” according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI.)

Further, in February this year, the EU Observer noted: “EU firms have joined the gold rush on military and civilian unmanned aerial vehicles”,(Drones) which, of course, target any designated person or persons for instant extrajudicial executions from thousand of miles away, in a lawless military computer game, played with real people to dispatch..

Alfred Nobel’s will also specified constituting a fund: “the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind.”

Most of the incursions, invasions and death-delivering meddling EU Member countries have been involved in, or profited from, since its inception, have a legacy of loss, lethality and heartbreak which has certainly lived on to span the year ending October 12th 2012 – and will span decades – and indeed millennia.

In context, in Iraq in 1991, the Balkans in the early and late 90’s. There and in Afghanistan and Libya, the U.S. has used depleted uranium (DU) weapons (v.) EU countries have been allies and partners in these blitzkriegs, thus have collective culpability. The UK also used DU weapons in 1991. The half-life of radioactive and chemically toxic DU – linked to cancers and birth deformities in bombarded countries and EU/NATO troops – is 4.5 Billion years. Libya will inevitably share the same fate. That this is ongoing and spanning the last year, contravenes Alfred Nobel’s aspirations – and then some.

It has to be doubted if the sort of “promotion of peace congress” Nobel had in mind was the hosting of sixty nations – including most of those of the EU – by France’s President Francois Hollande in July, for a “Friends of Syria” Conference (read :friends of a bunch of paid mercenaries, insurgents and illegals) to call for tougher sanctions on Syria’s legitimate, sovereign government, and to decide how much more funding they were prepared to give to the terrorists.

Hollande’s gathering was near mirror image of his predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy who, with UK Prime Minister David Cameron had: “spearheaded the West’s intervention in Libya.” It had “paid off “ – with the country in ruins, and legitimate government fallen, many murdered.

Thus a conference was held: “very much about countries jostling for very lucrative contracts for the rebuilding of Libya and also for its enormous energy sector … The National Transitional Council (NTC) has promised that those countries that gave it support will take significant rewards. That should put France and the United Kingdom … at the top of the queue.” (Al Jazeera., 1st September 2011. Emphasis mine.)

Prior to that, a meeting to discuss speeding up the illegal Libya coup was held in July 201, had been held in Turkey’s cultural treasure, Istanbul, the participants – virtually the same countries attending as Hollande’s Paris conference – christening the insurgent NTC as: “legitimate governing authority of Libya.” Naturally they backed the “formation of a free and democratic Libya.” View the results and weep.

NATO Member,Turkey, is also an aspiring EU Member – despite the largest portion of the country being in Asia. Turkey has been carrying out murderous cross border raids in to Northern Iraq for years and currently hosts training camps for terrorists illegally entering Syria, committing wholesale murder and destroying the cradle of some of history’s most luminous jewels. The Ankara government’s response to the EU Nobel farce was grovelling:

In a telephone interview with CNNTurk, Turkish Minister for EU Affairs Egemen Bagis stated: “I say: congratulations. I hope that with this prize EU officials will also take into account that Turkey would make this peace project grow even bigger and stronger, and that it could thus be a global, and not just a continental project.” Turkey must surely be the only rat in history which pleads to swim out to and clamber up the side of a sinking ship.

The aspirant Nobel EU joiner of course, has also been host to the vast US Incirlik Air Base, from where plenty of casual global annihilation has taken place, for nearly sixty years.

The European Union is also quietly strangulating thirty two countries, by arbitrarily subjecting them to embargoes, whilst trumpeting free trade.(vi)

Iran of course has had ability to trade and import frozen by the US since 1979. The EU has become an enthusiastic partner. Three days after the Nobel announcement they also made one:

“Restrictive measures” had been adopted, announced a statement, after anyone who knows anything about sanctions knows that when negotiating sleights of hands are overcome, the hungry have starved and the sick have died.meeting of foreign ministers, in Luxembourg.

“The measures include a ban on financial transactions, with some exceptions for those involving humanitarian aid, food and medicine purchases and provisions for legitimate trade, an EU diplomat said.” Forget the caveat about aid, food, medicines, a Dr Ismail Salami spells it out (vii): “Fatemeh Hashemi, Head of Iran’s Charity Institute for Special Diseases, voices grave concern for the six million patients suffering from (life threatening) diseases … sanctions are exacting their deadly toll on the terminally ailing patients.

“Mrs. Hashemi wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon two months ago: ‘Although medicine is not included in the sanctions list … the impossibility of transferring money through the banks … has (severely affected) the import of medicines in the country. As the head of an Institute dealing with the lives of six million patients, I hereby implore you to exert all your endeavors … in lifting the sanctions (which are) to the inexcusable detriment of the patients in Iran.’ ”

A Holocaust forewarned – and the relevant UN Commissions and its Secretary General do not bother to respond.

So much for the UN’s founding vows, reaffirming: “faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity and worth of the human person … social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”

“The new sanctions mark one of the toughest pushes against Iran by Europe to date. A significant change of policy for the twenty seven member block.”(viii) Trade in the oil and gas industry, Iran’s major financial lifeline is viciously targeted. Transactions between EU and Iranian banks are in effect frozen, with additional measures isolating the Central Bank of Iran.

Think Iraq, think Libya, think the illegality of collective punishment (which Additional Protocol 11, Geneva Convention 1977 explicitly forbids) and abandonment of a swathe of human rights and international law.

The same day, European satellite provider Eutelsat SA said it has stopped the broadcast of many Iranian satellite channels following an order by the European Commission, Press TV reports.

“We terminated the contracts because it was the order of the European Commission. We have to follow it,” Karen Badalov, area management of Eutelsat told Press TV. Goodness, is it not those “repressive regimes” who “deny citizens press freedom” and “freedom of expression”?

Regarding Syria, in April, France’s Foreign Minister Alain Juppé trumpeted that sanctions were having the “desired effect.” The oil embargo, sanctions on the Central Bank had caused staples, including flour to rise by fifty percent. Heating oil costs, a winter essential was set to soar.

Fresh from their Nobel triumph, the EU strangulated further, banning all flights by Syrian Arab Airlines to or from EU airports and freezing the Airline’s assets. The financial oxygen of two way trade was thus

virtually switched off. The value of both the Syrian Pound and the Iranian Rial have, broadly, halved.

The last paragraph of the 2012 Nobel statement (ix) reads: “The work of the EU represents ‘fraternity between nations’, and amounts to a form of the ‘peace congresses’ to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.” A piece of fantastical nonsense to join history’s most memorable.

Taking the EU, if “fraternity between nations” means enraged riots across the “union” caused by measures of austerity – imposed by a body whose accounts have not been signed off by the Court of Auditors for seventeenyears (x) we live in even stranger times.

In Greece, which had the lowest recorded suicide rate in Europe, desperation through job losses, subsequent deprivation and homelessness is setting it towards being suicide central, with occurrences “skyrocketing.” In Athens, in June alone, there were three hundred and fifty attempts and fifty deaths, with such deaths rising across the country and the beautiful Greek islands.

More than 2,500 people have taken their own lives since 2010. “This is the number for confirmed suicides. We think the real number is much higher”, said psychiatrist Dr. Dimitris Boukouras, who mans a psychiatric hotline that rings off the hook every day. (xi) Desperation is such that experts believe some are ending their lives: “in an act of ultimate political protest.”

In April a seventy seven year-old pharmacist shot himself on Syntagma Square in downtown Athens as did Dimitris Christoulas, “People have hanged themselves in public, set alight to themselves in public and died in numerous other ways in the privacy of their own homes.”

A note in red letters on a piece of cardboard pinned on a memorial to Dimitris Christoulas reads: “The government has annihilated all traces for my survival, based on a very dignified pension that I alone paid into for thirty five years with no help from the State. I see no other solution than this dignified end to my life so that I don’t find myself fishing through garbage cans for my sustenance.”

When Germany’s iron Chancellor Merkel – seen as representing the prime drivers of this tragedy – visited Athens earlier this month she was protected by seven thousand police and images of her wrapped in a swastika were burned in the streets.

The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the anniversary of Athens liberation from the Germans -12th October 1944.

Greece’s plight is replicated across Europe with massive demonstrations throughout Spain, in ten cities in Portugal, in Italy – where two family men in two months set fire to themselves outside the Presidential Palace, unable to provide for families. Ireland, where emigration to find work had been endemic for generations, for the three decades saw them staying, thriving and many others returning. Now the scourge of emigration has returned.

Belgians and their Unions joined demonstrations in France, Germans too have rebelled and in London this weekend at least 150,000 traveled from across the country, with calls for a general strike, their actions mirrored in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Hundreds from Wales joined the London demo – with three Union representatives walking from the Principality’s Capitol, Cardiff 156 miles away, taking seven days, to draw attention to the depth of anger at cuts.

In the coming week Cyprus is expected to join the broken and destitute of the Euro-ruined with the island’s Finance Minister saying he expects final bailout negotiations to start “very soon”, possibly next week

The UK demonstration’s took place on the first anniversary of the death of Libya’s Colonel Quaddafi, arguably enthusiastically awaited, plotted, aided and certainly welcomed by the EU.

Speaking of the Nobel award, EU Commission President Jose Barroso commented that the titanic project’s values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights were ones that: “people around the world aspire to.”

Martin Schultz German President of the European Parliament said that the Prize: “can serve as an inspiration … the EU is a unique project that replaces war with peace, hate with solidarity.”

This, ironically as Germany, driver of current misery from Tipperary to Tehran, inflation in the case of Iran and Syria near totally crippling – and suicides and self-immolation.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle announced the cuts banning Iranian natural gas in to EU nations.

It perhaps makes these stringencies doubly evil, in that inflation is something that haunts the German historic psyche. After WW1, the German Mark, by November 1921 fell from 4.2 to 330 to the dollar. One Mark was thus worth one third of a cent.

There is a collectors’ medallion which commemorates hyperinflation by 1923. It reads: “On 1st November 1923, 1 pound of bread cost 3 billion Marks, I pound of meat: 36 billion, I glass of beer: 4 billion.”

Britain’s former Defence Minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind, by the way, thought the honour to the EU was wrong. The Nobel Peace Prize should, he said, have been shared with NATO.

Way to go, Mr Lehrer, Sir.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/october-surprise-the-nobel-peace-committees-collective-insanity/5309047

Leon Panetta announces that “Cyber Pearl Harbor” is near

The cyber war against Iran began under President Bush with a series of attacks commanded by the governments of the United States and Israel. Their first known product, the Stuxnet virus, severely disrupted the Iranian nuclear facilities a couple of years ago. When it was discovered in the summer of 2010, the virus had escaped to the Internet from the Iranian Natanz nuclear plant. Obama made clear his concern and said he was weary about the U.S. turning into a “hacker” which could be a justification for other countries to launch attacks against the U.S.. But that is precisely what the cyber war is all about: seeking an external attack by provoking American foes so the military industrial complex can justify the takeover of the internet. Obama himself has approved internet censorship legislation that enables him and his government to block large portions of the internet or even to switch the net off.

Although officially the Iranians are the villains, they were not the first to push the button. It was Obama himself, who during his first presidential term, decided to carry out this less futile kind of war. He and his government developed cyber spying and cyber sabotage procedures that are now applied against the American people themselves as well as foreign governments. The plans to launch spying and cyber war games includes the use of drones to attack targets in countries such as Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The cyber war is usually kept quiet, so not many people learn about it unless it is found out that the U.S. and Israel are behind the attacks launched against Iran, as it has happened lately. Meanwhile, Leon Panetta, who has just declared that his country is on the brink of a “cyber Pearl Harbor”, does not say absolutely anything about the provocations carried out by the U.S. and its ally Israel. What is causing Panetta’s concerns? The Defense Secretary of the United States is referring to recent attacks on computer systems that belong to Saudi oil companies and U.S. financial institutions, which the U.S. attributes to Iran; more specifically, a cyber war operation put together by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The existence of Iranian cyber warriors is not new, but the US has not shown any convincing proof that Iran was the one that attacked the Saudis or American banks. Since 2011 and in response to a previous cyber attacks that sought to hack its nuclear program — conducted by Israel and the US — Iran began working on a program to not only defend itself from such attacks, but to carry out offensives against its aggressors. But the United States has not demonstrated that the attacks carried out in August that affected the national oil company Saudi Aramco and some US banks, were of Iranian making.

Obama’s doubts about having the US work as a cyber terrorists state ended quickly and the White House along with the Pentagon and the CIA began a program known as Olimpic Games. Through this and other programs, Obama approved the escalation of cyber attacks against Iran. back in early July, The New York Times published an extensive report that explained how Obama “secretly ordered increased attacks against sophisticated computer systems inside Iranian factories that worked in the enrichment of uranium.” The report detailed how this plan expanded significantly the use of cyber terror tools from the part of the US government.

After launching the attacks, Obama also called on American civil and military intelligence services to work closer together and to cooperate on this front with the Israelis. After initially denying it, so that it did not have to recognize its weakness, the Iranian regime ended up recognizing that trojans, viruses and malware coming from outside Iran had infiltrated its nuclear energy programs.

In 2010, Richard A. Clarke, who was head of U.S. counterterrorism services with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, published an essay entitled Cyber War. Clarke talked about World War III in cyberspace for which states like U.S., Israel, Russia and China were already preparing to fight.

Some people believe that Flame, one of the viruses that got inside Iranian computers may have been the first of many trojan horses to come. In late May, the Iranian government agency dedicated to the fight against piracy (its acronym CERT) announced that it had located the virus, the most malignant ever invented. Flame had been infecting computers for two years without being detected by any antivirus software.

Flame is a set of programs that performs multiple tasks of espionage and sabotage: records conversations, allows the computer to be controlled remotely, has Bluetooth and takes over upcoming mobile phones near the computers, copies and transmits data remotely and is  undetectable by any existing antivirus program today.

Of course, the U.S. does not officially recognize any of these viruses that have undermined Iran’s nuclear program. Neither does Israel. But it is well known that the U.S. Air Force already has 7000 cyber warriors in bases located in Texas and Georgia. It is unknown to the public how many more of these the US has in other departments of the Pentagon, the CIA and other U.S. federal government agencies.

The effort to turn the US into a cyber terrorist state began in 2009 under President Obama. After approving various pieces of legislation, the US government created the United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) which is the organ that manages all special operations of the U.S. Air Force.

USCYBERCOM was not the only creature of its kind and now it seems to have found a serious rival in the Iranian specialized units.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/leon-panetta-announces-that-cyber-pearl-harbor-is-near_102012

Romney reverses on Afghanistan

Rachel Maddow talks about Mitt Romney’s commitment to the U.S. troops leaving Afghanistan in 2014, which he once opposed. Chris Matthews joins to discuss Romney’s strategy during the debate – to avoid looking like a radical.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Netanyahu ‘America Won’t Get in Our Way..It’s Easily Moved’

Bibi:…The Arabs are currently focusing on a war of terror and they think it will break us. The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing…

Woman: Wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”

Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right direction.

Child: They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…

Netanyahu: They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.

Child: On the other hand, if we do some something, then they…

Netanyahu: So let’s say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have that kind of support and we say “what will we do with the…” Look. That administration [Clinton] was extremely pro-Palestinian. I wasn’t afraid to maneuver there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton. I was not afraid to clash with the United Nations. I was paying the price anyway, I preferred to receive the value. Value for the price.

In the following segment, Bibi boasts about how he emptied the Oslo Accords of meaning by an interpretation that made a mockery of them:

Woman: The Oslo Accords are a disaster.

Netanyahu: Yes. You know that and I knew that…The people [nation] has to know…

What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: “Will you act according to them?” and I answered: “yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.” “But how do you intend to limit the retreats?” “I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines. How did we do it?

Narrator: The Oslo Accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different pulses, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

Netanyahu: No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

Woman: Right [laughs]…The Beit She’an Valley.

Netanyahu: How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter — to me and to Arafat, at the same time — which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

Woman: And despite that, one of our own people, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo Accord, gives them — for example — Hebron…

Netanyahu: Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It’s the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: “What would your father say?” I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father’s position?

…He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent.” The trick is not to be there and be broken. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.”

djonesowens1writes: At a point in the middle of the video Netanayhu asks the camera man to stop taping, but he continues… Netanyahu says what he really thinks for the first time: He brags about how easy is to manipulate the USA and he proudly explains how he sabotaged the Oslo process.

Obama or Romney: War and Economic Collapse Regardless Who Wins the Election

CNN is making a big deal out of Romney’s “right leaning” supporters.

The corporate media branch of the Pentagon’s psyops program thinks there’s a good chance these “severely conservative” voters may push Romney over the top and get him installed in the White House as preeminent teleprompter reader for the global elite.

In August, Peter Schiff, economic adviser to Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, said he thinks the economic implosion will occur during the next administration.

He has no faith in Obama and little in Romney to turn things around.

Despite the flaccid neo-Tea Party rhetoric of Paul Ryan, prior to the Obama administration Republicans out-spent Democrats threefold. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II racked up $6.4 trillion dollars in debt and thus put to rest the obscene fantasy of “fiscal conservatism.”

In September, according to official figures, the national debt surpassed $16 trillion. In reality, it is much higher – well over $200 trillion when unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security are thrown into the mix.

“Let’s get real. The U.S. is bankrupt,” writes Boston University economic professor Laurence Kotlikoff.

Due to the astronomical debt and profligate spending by largely unaccountable professional political careerists in Washington, “what we have to look forward to is a very bleak future,” writes Michael Snyder.

“Even if we totally scrapped our current monetary system and repudiated the debt, the transition would be ‘rocky’ at best and we would not enjoy anything close to the standard of living that we are enjoying today.”

As for war, a Romney win in November will ensure the re-installment of the Bush-era neocons and a speedy timeline for war in the Middle East, particularly against Syria and sooner before later Iran.

Because the election is a couple of weeks away, Romney’s saying there’s no need to attack Iran in response to its imaginary nuclear weapons program.

His foreign policy advisers, on the other hand, are neocons who have repeatedly called for taking out Iran.

More frightening, Romney is close friends with Israel’s ardent Likudnik, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mitt has stated that they “almost speak in shorthand.”

Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, told the New York Times that Romney would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel,” i.e., the U.S. will attack Israel’s enemies during the reign of Mitt.

In other words, if Romney wins we can expect an attack on Iran that would certainly compound the above mentioned economic problems.

Following Obama’s lackluster performance during the last presidential debate, his administration trotted out what can be described as “Iran Attack Light,” a plan to use “surgical strikes” against the country in lieu of an all-out attack.

Foreign Policy CEO and editor at large David Rothkopf, a former Clintonite, “reported that the White House and Israeli officials ‘assert that the two sides, behind the scenes, have come closer together in their views [regarding Iran] in recent days,’” according to the Jerusalem Post.

Bizarrely, the establishment media continues to pretend there is a widening chasm of difference between Obama and Romney.

In fact, they both present the same economic and foreign policy goals, which are, of course, not their goals but those of the global elite.

The establishment media does its part by playing up minor differences in style between the two and uses a trusty false left-right paradigm to distract weary voters and excite indoctrinated loyalists.

http://theintelhub.com/2012/10/17/obama-or-romney-war-and-economic-collapse-regardless-who-wins-the-election/

Monday’s Debate Puts Focus on Foreign Policy Clashes

When President Obama and Mitt Romney sit down Monday night for the last of their three debates, two things should be immediately evident: there should be no pacing the stage or candidates’ getting into each other’s space, and there should be no veering into arguments over taxes.

This debate is about how America deals with the world — and how it should.

If the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS News, has his way, it will be the most substantive of the debates. He has outlined several topics: America’s role in the world, the continuing war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear crisis with Iran and the resultant tensions with Israel, and how to deal with rise of China.

The most time, Mr. Schieffer has said, will be spent on the Arab uprisings, their aftermath and how the terrorist threat has changed since the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. No doubt the two candidates will spar again, as they did in the second debate, about whether the Obama administration was ready for the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans. Mr. Romney was widely judged to not have had his most effective critique ready, and this time, presumably, he will be out to correct that.

The early line is that this is an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shine, and to repair the damage from the first debate. (He was already telling jokes the other night, at a dinner in New York, about his frequent mention of Osama bin Laden’s demise.)

But we can hope that it is a chance for both candidates to describe, at a level of detail they have not yet done, how they perceive the future of American power in the world. They view American power differently, a subject I try to grapple with at length in a piece in this Sunday’s Review, “The Debatable World.”

But for now, here is a field guide to Monday’s debate.

LIBYA AND BENGHAZI Both candidates will come ready for a fight on this topic, but the question is whether it is the right fight. Mr. Obama already admitted mistakes on “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” and promised to get to the bottom of them, but the White House has been less than transparent about what kind of warnings filtered up from the intelligence agencies before the attack on the consulate, and whether there was a way that American security forces could have arrived sooner, perhaps in time to save some of the American lives. No doubt the argument will focus on a narrower issue: why the administration stuck so long to its story that this was a protest against a film that turned into something worse, rather than a preplanned attack by insurgents. For Mr. Romney, the task is to show that the Benghazi attack was symptomatic of bigger failings in the Middle East, a road he started down in the last debate, but an argument he never completed.

IRAN With the revelation in The New York Times on Sunday reported by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler that the Obama administration has secretly agreed in principle to direct, bilateral talks after the election, the urgent question for the candidates is this: in a negotiation, what would you be willing to let Iran hold onto in return for a deal that gave the United States and Israel confidence that Tehran could not gain a nuclear weapons capability? It’s a hard question for both men.

Mr. Romney has said he would not allow Iran to have any enrichment capability at all — something it is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as long as it is abiding by the treaty’s rules — a position that would kill any talks. But Mr. Obama does not want to say the obvious: that he is willing to allow Iran to hold onto some face-saving enrichment capability as long as it does not retain its stockpiles of medium-enriched fuel, which can be converted to bomb-grade. Also, look for answers to the question of whether the United States would back up Israel if it decided to conduct a military strike against Iran. Mr. Romney wants to show that Mr. Obama has created “daylight” between the United States and Israel; Mr. Obama wants to demonstrate that while he has Israel’s back, he is trying to protect the country from taking an action he considers unwise, at least at this stage.

CYBERWAR Mr. Obama cannot talk about “Olympic Games,” the covert program that the United States has conducted against Iran, with Israel’s help, using a cyberweapon against another country for the first time in history. But do Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney consider cyberweapons a legitimate tool in America’s arsenal, or too risky, since the United States is the most vulnerable country in the world? We have never heard either candidate answer the question.

AFGHANISTAN There was a time when Mr. Romney declared that America should not be negotiating with the Taliban, but that it should be killing all the Taliban. He stopped saying that after his aides suggested that it sounded like a prescription for endless war. Now both Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama say they think that America should be out of Afghanistan by 2014, the internationally agreed deadline for the withdrawal of forces, though Mr. Romney has the caveat that he wants to hear from his generals first. (The generals thought that Mr. Obama’s insistence on setting a clear deadline for withdrawal was a bad idea — as did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and many others.) So what do we want to hear from the candidates?

Lots.

For starters, if it looks as if Kabul could fall back into Taliban hands in a few years, do either of them think the United States should re-intervene? It would be nice to know if Mr. Obama agrees with his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., that all American troops should be out by the end of 2014, since the White House plan calls for an “enduring presence” of 10,000 to 15,000 troops that would back up the weak Afghan security forces and keep an eye on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. (The remaining base would also be a place to launch drone strikes into Pakistan and Afghanistan, when necessary.) And for Mr. Romney, if he believes the pullout in Iraq was too hasty, and the pullout in Afghanistan risks making the same mistake, what kind of continuing presence would he have in mind?

THE ARAB UPRISINGS Afghanistan is already in America’s rearview mirror, but the Arab uprisings are not. Mr. Romney says that the rise of Islamic governments is an Obama administration failure. The White House says that if you have free elections in Islamic nations, you cannot be surprised when the Muslim Brotherhood and the harder-line Salafists win control of the government. The question is how to deal with these governments: conditional aid, to ensure American values are respected? Trade restrictions? Gentle persuasion?

This would also be the area to understand when and why each man would advocate future interventions. Mr. Obama joined in the Libya strike, which Mr. Romney thought was a mistake. But Mr. Obama has been hesitant to do much in Syria — a very different kind of conflict — while Mr. Romney says he would arm the rebels with heavy-duty antiaircraft and antitank weapons. Since the light weapons are already going into the wrong hands, how exactly would he find a way to overthrow Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad?

CHINA Perhaps the most important long-term subject of the debate. Mr. Romney promises a hard line, saying he would declare China as a currency manipulator from Day 1 of his presidency. But he has not said much about Day 2, or Year 2. This is the moment for each candidate to describe how he would counter China’s growing claims in the South China Sea and other disputed territories, how he would handle trade tensions, and how he would manage a world in which the United States, for better or worse, is going to be reliant on Chinese investment in American debt for years to come. And it is the moment for each to give his view of the leadership change under way in China, where three-quarters of the top political posts are about to change hands.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/mondays-debate-puts-focus-on-foreign-policy-clashes/?hp

America’s Drone Terrorism

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.

This narrative is false.

Those are the understated opening words of a disturbing, though unsurprising, nine-month study of the Obama administration’s official, yet unacknowledged, remote-controlled bombing campaign in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan, near Afghanistan. The report, “Living Under Drones,” is a joint effort by the New York University School of Law’s Global Justice Clinic and Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic.

The NYU/Stanford report goes beyond reporting estimates of the civilian casualties inflicted by the deadly and illegal U.S. campaign. It also documents the hell the Pakistanis endure under President Barack Obama’s policy, which includes a “kill list” from which he personally selects targets. That hell shouldn’t be hard to imagine. Picture yourself living in an area routinely visited from the air by pilotless aircraft carrying Hellfire missiles. This policy is hardly calculated to win friends for the United States.

Defenders of the U.S. campaign say that militants in Pakistan threaten American troops in Afghanistan as well as Pakistani civilians. Of course, there is an easy way to protect American troops: bring them home. The 11-year-long Afghan war holds no benefits whatever for the security of the American people. On the contrary, it endangers Americans by creating hostility and promoting recruitment for anti-American groups.

The official U.S. line is that America’s invasion of Afghanistan was intended to eradicate al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who harbored them. Yet the practical effect of the invasion and related policies, including the invasion of Iraq and the bombing in Yemen and Somalia, has been to facilitate the spread of al-Qaeda and like-minded groups.

U.S. policy is a textbook case of precisely how to magnify the very threat that supposedly motivated the policy. The Obama administration now warns of threats from Libya — where the U.S. consulate was attacked and the ambassador killed — and Syria. Thanks to U.S. policy, al-Qaeda in Afghanistan spawned al-Qaeda in Iraq, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.

If that’s success, what would failure look like?

Regarding Pakistani civilians, the report states,

While civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the U.S. government, there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians.… It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of U.S. efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562–3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474–881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228–1,362 individuals.

The Obama administration denies that it has killed civilians, but bear in mind that it considers any male of military age a “militant.” This is not to be taken seriously.

The report goes on,

U.S. drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury.Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.

It’s even worse than it sounds:

The U.S. practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups.

How can Americans tolerate this murder and trauma committed in their name? But don’t expect a discussion of this in Monday night’s foreign-policy debate. Mitt Romney endorses America’s drone terrorism.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1210q.asp

Constitutional Questions Hound Growing Domestic Role for US Military

Northcom Legal Team Struggles to Figure Out What It Can Legally Do

Created in 2002 without much public discourse, the Northern Command (Northcom) now sees Pentagon activities expanding dramatically across the continental United States, giving the military purview over droughts, wildfires, and public protests.

But is it legal, or even constitutional? That’s a question Northcom’s massive legal team is still struggling to come to grips with, as a command that was supposed to be aimed at defending against incoming missiles is turning into an all-encompassing leviathanwith interests across the board.

Exactly how much is already being done is even a matter of legal battles, as the ACLU has been struggling for years to get a handle on how big the active duty military deployments inside the United States already are, and how much bigger they are liable to get.

Seeking Northcom’s aid with hurricane relief has turned them into an all-purpose weather response force. Emergency response morphed into a possible military role in medical quarantines during the swine flu scare. Seeking their involvement into anti-terror operations has raised the prospect of domestic military surveillance at unprecedented levels. And surveillance of “terrorists” inevitably means surveillance of all domestic opposition factions, regardless of what they are opposing.

For most of American history the US military’s domestic role has been virtually non-existent, with small and hotly debated exceptions and a well-defined limit on using the military domestically. Northcom’s growth has been so fast and so poorly understood that it is no longer clear which, if any, of the existing laws on the books are being followed, and which have been brushed aside in the name of military expediency. This has left their own legally team forever doing catchup, and stuck trying to come up with legal justifications after the fact.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/10/21/constitutional-questions-hound-growing-domestic-role-for-us-military/

US and Iran: Could Romney be tougher than Obama? Unlikely

Short of conducting a unilateral military strike or declaring war against the Islamic Republic, a Romney administration would be faced with the same legislative options on Iran as President Obama, who has already administered them.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at a press conference in Tehran, Iran, Oct. 2. Ahmadinejad blames the steep drop in Iran’s currency to “psychological pressures” linked to Western sanctions over Tehran’s nuclear program.

In the run-up to Monday’s debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the most disputed foreign policy issue hasn’t been Afghanistan, where roughly 68,000 US troops are still based in the fight against Al Qaeda, or the contentious decision by the Obama administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

As moderator Martha Raddatz said at the Oct. 11 vice-presidential debate, the biggest national security threat faced by the United States is now considered to be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Every American is less secure today because [President Obama] has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat,” Mitt Romney said at the Republican National Convention in August. The Republican candidate has since argued that Mr. Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Tehran, and he has vowed to institute a different, harsher sanctions program that will be sure to cripple the Islamic Republic.

But analysts, legal experts, and US-allied diplomats say that when it comes to sanctions on Iran, US legislation isn’t expected to differ much from one administration to another. Short of conducting a unilateral military strike or declaring war against the Islamic Republic, a Romney administration would be faced with the same legislative options on Iran as President Obama, who has already administered them.

Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iran

Former President George W. Bush began implementing legislation for harsher financial sanctions against Iran during his last two years in office. After the 2008 presidential election, the Obama administration instituted and expanded those sanctions at a speed that has made current US sanctions policy on Iran the harshest in contemporary history. This leaves a potential new Romney administration with few policy alternatives.

“The only thing Romney can really do to get to the right of Obama on Iran policy is to say he’d bomb Iran if elected president, or would actively promote and pursue a policy of regime change,” says Karim Sajadpour, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Given the misgivings Americans have about the Iraq war, I don’t think those are winning talking points for him.”

Since Obama became president in 2009, his administration has used a carrot-and-stick approach with the Islamic Republic, practicing a policy of limited engagement while boosting the implementation of Bush-era financial sanctions against Tehran and enacting new, tighter financial restrictions.

Iran’s economy began feeling the bite of new US and United Nations sanctions during the last two years of former President Bush’s second term in office. When Obama became president, the US Treasury Department upped the ante on Iran sanctions, accelerating their implementation and obtaining concrete commitments from US allies and private international entities to institute them as well.

Obama’s administration has also been tougher on US allies, particularly in Europe, flanking traditional diplomacy with direct pressure for collaboration on Iran policy, according to interviews with western European diplomats.

“A lot of what has come out on sanctions is a result of what Congress is passing,” says Erich Ferrari, a DC-based lawyer specializing in US Treasury legislation and author of the first comprehensive guide to US transactions regulations on Iran. “What Obama did was continue Bush-era policies and put them on steroids.”

Western European diplomats say Obama has been less willing than the Bush administration to engage in “multilateral conversations” with Europe on sanctions, opting instead to directly pressure some governments and private institutions to agree with and implement Washington’s unilateral sanctions laws.

As a result, US financial sanctions against Iran – now considered the harshest in recent history – have during the last four years been integrated into the global banking system much more quickly and deeply.

The US now sanctions foreign companies that do not significantly cut or completely stop purchases of Iranian oil, and it penalizes banks engaging in financial transactions with the Islamic Republic.

Coupled with a European embargo on Iran’s oil imposed in July, the country’s oil exports have fallen by more than 50 percent since last year, forcing Tehran to continue reducing oil production as a result of declining demand. This summer, Iraq out-produced Iran for the first time in more than twenty years, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

US banking sanctions have also hindered Tehran from accessing its foreign exchange reserves held overseas, constraining the ability of its central bank to defend the value of Iran’s national currency, which has fallen by roughly 80 percent since last year.

The European Union intensified its sanctions against Tehran last week, formally barring all trade and transactions with Iranian banks (except those with specific EU government permission), and tightening restrictions against Iran’s central bank, the National Iranian Oil Company, and the National Iranian Tanker Company.

In addition to sanctions, Iran has dealt with breaches to its security.

Since January 2010, Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, has reportedly conducted covert operations leading to the assassinations of at least four Iranian nuclear scientists, according to intelligence officials cited anonymously in a Time Magazine report. A wave of damaging cyberattacks targeting Iran’s nuclear-fuel centrifuges started in mid-2009.

“After this level of sanctions, the only thing left would be a real blockade of all communications,” says Roberto Toscano, who served as Italy’s Ambassador to Iran for five years until 2008.

Aside from a military strike on Iran by either the US or Israel, which could drag Washington into a regional war, the only policy option left beyond sanctions is diplomacy, Ambassador Toscano says, adding: “If we think sanctions alone will make them cave, this is not going to happen.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2012/1021/US-and-Iran-Could-Romney-be-tougher-than-Obama-Unlikely?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fusa+%28Christian+Science+Monitor+|+USA%29

Largest Nuclear Drills In Russian History Completed: What Are They Preparing For? Is This Related To FEMA’s HR6566?

Before It’s News – by Live Free or Die  The two linked stories below prove that our friends (enemies?) Russia has just completed their largest nuclear drills in modern history with Vladimir Putin himself leading these drills. What are they preparing for? Does this have anything to do with Russia putting nuclear missiles in Cuba again recently? How does this new development tie into our own Congress’s recent Bill HR6566 which orders FEMA to prepare for mass deaths in America?

————————————-

Large-scale exercises of the Strategic Nuclear Forces under the command of President Vladimir Putin have completed in Russia, the president’s press-secretary Dmitri Peskov reports.

He says that these were the first nuclear force exercises on such a large scale in Russia’s modern history.

Voice of Russia, RIA, Interfax

Source: http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_10_20/Exercises-of-strategic-nuclear-forces-completed-in-Russia/

The command drill of the nuke forces, the largest in its recent history, also included combat training launches of strategic and cruise missiles, Dmitry Peskov added.

All components of the nuclear forces, including the long-range air forces, the sea and the ground forces, participated in the drill.

As part of the drill, Russian Strategic and Space Forces on Friday tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) Topol, the Defense Ministry confirmed.

Read more @ http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/10/21/2982s728311.htm

Romney family buys voting machines through Bain Capital investment

Tagg Romney, the son of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, has purchased electronic voting machines that will be used in the 2012 elections in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Washington and Colorado.

“Late last month, Gerry Bello and Bob Fitrakis at FreePress.org broke the story of the Mitt Romney/Bain Capital investment team involved in H.I.G. Capital which, in July of 2011, completed a “strategic investment” to take over a fair share of the Austin-based e-voting machine company Hart Intercivic,” according to independent journalist Brad Friedman.

But Friedman is not the only one to discover the connection between the Romney family, Bain Capital, and ownership of voting machines.

Truth out reports:

“Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall’s election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who “owns” the White House.”

Both The Nation and New York Times confirm the connection between the Romney family, Solamere and the Bain Capital investment in the voting machine company, Hart Intercivic, whose board of directors serve H.I.G. Capital.

“Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt’s brother G. Scott Romney.

The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes.” Truth out added.

There are also political connections between Solamere and the Romney’s. “Matt Blunt, the former Missouri governor who backed Mr. Romney in 2008, is a senior adviser to Solamere, as is Mitt Romney’s brother, Scott, a lawyer,” according to the New York Times.

Voter ID and voter fraud have been top issues in the 2012 race, as have claims of Republican voter suppression. Mr. Romney’s campaign has also been the subject of controversy over misleading ads, false claims, sketchy math on his tax plan, and overall vagueness on women’s rights and other hot button issues.

Raising further questions of legitimacy in the Romney campaign is an audio recording recently made public, where Mitt Romney is heard asking independent business owners to apply pressure to their employees to influence their votes. What has also been made public are the emails those employers have sent to their employees with an implied threat that if they don’t vote for Romney they may lose their jobs.

What it all says is that Mitt Romney, with the help of his family and Bain Capital connections, is more than willing to try to take the White House through illegitimate and highly unethical, if not specifically illegal means.

With each passing day, the character and campaign methods of Mitt Romney cast an ever-darker shadow over free and fair American elections.

Yet there is an irony in the Romney campaign that cannot be ignored. For all the noise the right-wing has made in questioning the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency, there have been so many questionable efforts made to help put Romney in the White House, if he wins, there should be great dispute over whether his election could ever be called genuinely illegitimate.

The nagging question is why, if Mr. Romney truly has the qualities that American voters want in their president, does he have to go to such great and questionable lengths to try to win the election.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment

Major Us, Israeli Air Defense Exercise Begins

AP  JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military says its largest ever exercise with the United States has begun.

A major air defense drill called Austere Challenge 2012 started Sunday and includes more than 3,500 Americans and 1,000 Israelis. The militaries are practicing their ability to work together against a range of threats facing Israel, the main U.S. ally in the Mideast.

The military exercise was originally scheduled for April but was postponed at Israel’s request. No reason was given but it came amid growing talk of Israel preparing to attack Iran if Tehran does not cease its uranium enrichment program.

The weeks-long joint exercise will test multiple Israeli and American air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets from places as far away as Iran.

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/major-us-israeli-air-defense-exercise-begins/24148/

Introducing Greg Brannon the next Ron Paul

Video Caption

Leah-Lynn Plante Tells Her Story of Resisting

Leah-Lynn Plante is a political activist who, on July 25th, 2012, was arrest by FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force agents at her home. She received several sopenas, and on October 10th, 2012, she was convicted and sentenced to prison, along with other activists.

The official reason for this was about a May Day rally which resulted in broken windows. But the truth is clear; this is an attack on an idea. This isn’t about vandalism, or civil disobedience, this is an attack on people who do not agree with their government. It is a crime on the highest order.

Send her mail, books, and download and spread this video!

Leah-Lynne Plante
#42611-086
FDC SeaTac
PO Box 13900
Seattle, WA 98198

US Army grants $3 million for anti-suicide nasal spray research

For those feeling down in the dumps, the US military now has a solution: an anti-suicidal nasal spray that delivers antidepressant chemicals to the brain.

­The US Army has awarded a scientist at the Indiana University School of Medicine $3 million to develop a nasal spray that eclipses suicidal thoughts. Dr. Michael Kubek and his research team will have three years to ascertain whether the nasal spray is a safe and effective method of preventing suicides.

The research grant comes after the Army lost 38 of its soldiers to suspected suicide in July, setting a record high. So far in 2012, the Army has confirmed 66 active duty suicides and is investigating 50 more, making a total of 116 cases.

The Army’s suicide rate is at the highest level in history, with more American soldiers taking their own lives than being killed by the Taliban. The Pentagon reported in June that suicides among soldiers averaged one per day this year, surpassing the rate of combat fatalities.

But the naturally occurring neurochemical thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) could slow the rising suicide rate. The chemical has a euphoric, calming, antidepressant effect. TRH has been shown to decrease suicidal ideas, depression and bipolar disorders.

“We’ve known since the 1970s that TRH has antidepressant effects, and it works quite rapidly,” Kubek told The Daily. “The bottom-line problem has been figuring out how to get it into the brain.”

Until now, doctors have only been able to transmit TRH through injections into the spinal cord. Pills and blood injections do not allow TRH to enter the brain.

But with new technology, Kubek’s team of research scientists has found the nasal cavity can safely carry TRH across the blood-brain barrier.

“This is far from a soldiers-only solution,” Kubek said. “Potentially, if this works, we have an entirely new type of pharmacology.”

If the nasal spray is proven effective, soldiers in crisis or those taking other antidepressants would also be given TRH.

“The phase directly after starting an antidepressant is a very vulnerable time frame in a patient’s life,” Dr. Ken Duckworth, medical director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, told The Daily. “The nasal spray would stabilize them right away, while they wait for the [antidepressants] to do their job.”

While the suicide rate is increasing in the military, it is also an increasing concern in the US civilian population.

Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 18 and 65 years. Every day, more than 100 Americans take their own life.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-army-anti-suicide-spray-036/

Rothschild Heir Reputation Ruined After £700m Investment

Even at 76, with untold wealth and the holder of a rare Order of Merit from the Queen, Lord Rothschild has continued to dream.

It is a father’s dream: that his only son Nat might one day lead the world’s most enduring banking dynasty to new heights, repairing an old family schism and burnishing its blue-chip image to even greater brilliance.

Today Jacob Rothschild is a bitterly disappointed, even angry man, as his son and heir fights to save his own dwindling reputation and, with it, the first soiling of the proud Rothschild name in centuries.

Living the high life: Nat Rothschild, pictured with L’Wren Scott at a partu during the Cannes Film Festival, has seen his City reputation destroyed after a deal to invest in an Indonesian coal mining company turned sour

Nat himself can hardly believe what has happened. A mere tick of the dynastic clock ago he was widely seen to be on course to be the richest of all the Rothschilds.

Helped by the pulling power of his name, he was hailed as a financial genius, a young man — once a wild child but now drinking nothing stronger than Coca-Cola — with a unique networking ability to bring billionaires together to make deals.

His private £5 million Gulfstream was criss-crossing the globe for 750 flying hours a year. That was before he decided to raise £700 million from investors — ‘big players only’ he airily informed one relatively minor figure who expressed interest — to plough funds into an Indonesian coal-mining company called Bumi that a City contact had drawn to his attention.

By July, 2010, Bumi’s £10 shares had been absorbed into his own  FTSE-quoted cash vehicle, a shell company called Vallar, which was then renamed Bumi plc.

For Rothschild’s new Indonesian partners, the Bakrie family (one of whom is currently standing for election as president of the country), the deal offered the back-door prestige of being quoted on the London Stock Exchange — quite a prize to businessmen in a part of the world not noted for the transparency of its corporate culture.

Yesterday, after acrimonious disagreements and accusations in the Bumi boardroom, and Nat Rothschild having dramatically stood down as a director, his investors were showing a loss of three quarters of their money with the share price slumping to around £2.50.

Nat Rothschild’s fierce letter of resignation from the board arrived on Monday from an address in St Peter Port on the low-tax Channel island of Guernsey, where one of his corporate offices is registered.

Meanwhile, an internal investigation into allegations of financial impropriety at Bumi has expanded to include alleged threats and the hacking of email systems to snoop on exchanges of messages at boardroom level.

The company chairman Samin Tan claimed that Rothschild indicated he’d had ‘access’ to his emails and had been reading them.

Rothschild’s response was to declare that the allegations were ‘untrue and defamatory.’ Attention has also been drawn to the level of expenses paid to directors.

And he did not just fall out with the Bakrie family. Senior British industrialists he installed as independent directors to safeguard UK shareholders’ interests also had their disagreements with him.

Dynasty: The collapsed deal has reignited tensions between Lord Jacob Rothschild, right, and his one-time wild-child son Nat Rothschild

Sir Julian Horn-Smith, former deputy chief executive of Vodafone, who is senior independent director of Bumi, asked Mr Rothschild to step down because of his ‘disruptive behaviour’ on the board.

The crisis has been a shock to Nat Rothschild’s overblown ego, especially as many feel his reputation can never fully recover, and one top City banker was quoted in The Times this week as saying that ‘Nat Rothschild will never raise another dollar from anybody’.

Another puts it this way: ‘His  name has become toxic in the City  of London.’

Now, his father Lord Rothschild, a figure of great integrity who was once a shoulder to cry on over lunch for a distraught Princess Diana, is the one who needs consoling, says a City friend.

To add insult to injury, it is  NM Rothschild, the family bank from which Jacob Rothschild split three decades ago to found his own highly successful investment trust, that has been called in by Bumi plc to sort out the mess.

Playboy: Nat Rothschild had a reputation for being a wildchild

The last time there were tensions between Lord Rothschild and his son — he also has three daughters — it was because Nat was virtually running wild, drinking and partying to excess.

Nat has never denied an escort girl’s story that she was asked to provide strippers and drugs to a party he threw in 1994 at Waddesdon Manor, the magnificent Rothschild family seat in Buckinghamshire where Presidents Reagan and Clinton, as well as Lady Thatcher, have stayed, and which is now run by the National Trust.

According to the girl: ‘They were very precise in what they wanted — three slim black girls in stockings, suspenders and high heels. They also wanted the girls to do extras.’

In those days, just down from Oxford, Nat enjoyed his wildchild reputation with almost as  much pleasure as, in recent years, he has relished being seen as a  pivotal figure in the world of billionaire  finance.

True, he spent not far short of £1 million on his own 40th birthday party last year in Porto Montenegro, in the tiny Balkan state, but most saw this as more of a classic networking bash — the invitations even included helpful details of where guests could park their private jets.

And Porto Montenegro, of course, is a development on the Adriatic coast in which he has a considerable personal investment.

But his most satisfying parties in recent years have been of the kind of gathering in Corfu on the £80 million yacht of his good friend and business associate Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch, which ended in a spectacular and very public fall-out with his old Oxford Bullingdon Club friend George Osborne, now Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was to reveal a side of Nat Rothschild which those publicly pillorying him now would do well to consider.

For when Nat heard that Osborne had been repeating details of a private conversation with Peter Mandelson, who was also there, he in retaliation famously claimed that Osborne and the Tory party fundraiser Andrew (now Lord) Feldman had solicited a contribution to party funds from the Russian tycoon. Osborne issued an immediate denial, but considerable damage was done.

Friends in high places: This is the family home on the Greek island of Corfu where Nat Rothschild entertained Chancellor George Osborne and former business secretary Peter Mandleson

Fast forward three years to a lunch party in 2011 near St Tropez. One of the guests, on being invited by old friends, explained he had Nat Rothschild staying with him, and could he bring him along? And Rothschild came — but not for long.

As one of those guests recalls: ‘We’d barely sat down to lunch when he breezily said he was off. I can’t even remember whether he ate anything. I can only imagine we weren’t important enough.’

Ex-wife: Nat Rothschild was married for three years to Annabelle Neilson, model friend of Kate Moss

And one figure close to him says: ‘Nat’s mind is always turning over deals. He used to be fun — more than that — but these days, apart from the odd girlfriend, his closest companion seems to be his St Bernard dog.’

Girlfriends there have certainly been, including the actress Natalie Portman and, most recently Florence von Preussen, a  slim, attractive scion of the Guinness family.

He was also married for three years to Annabelle Neilson, model friend of Kate Moss.

Acquaintances find a somewhat unsettled sense about him.

He has homes in  Paris, Moscow, New York and Greece but seldom spends more than a few days at a time in  any of them.

The home where he spends most time during the winter is his sumptuous penthouse in Klosters. He was introduced to the Swiss ski resort by Canadian mining and property magnate Peter Munk.

While his father Lord Rothschild continued to live in Britain — holding board meetings in the basement kitchen of the London townhouse in St James’s he uses as an office — six years ago  Nat took Swiss citizenship and became a tax exile.

His reputation already was that of a young man with the ability  to make big money fast.

This was the point at which the personal fortune of the son and heir was poised to overtake the personal fortune of the father. This year’s Sunday Times Rich List places him 73rd with a personal fortune of £1 billion. His father is 192nd with a mere £465 million.

Over in Klosters his life is remarkably low-key. One place where he is a regular is the village’s only pizzeria, Alberto’s.

Carol Thatcher’s partner Marco Grass is his ski instructor, while his highly-supportive mother Serena — she and Jacob have been married 51 years today — is a regular winter guest. His peaceful life there is in stark contrast to the battle raging over Bumi.

But the dismay Lord Rothschild feels at the way the unseemly hostilities over the running of a public company have engulfed Nat cannot be underestimated.

‘He is furious with him — they are barely on speaking terms,’ says a family friend. ‘No Rothschild has ever before been involved in such a mess.’

Old Etonian Nat, of course, bears the name of his 19th-century ancestor Nathan Rothschild, who arranged the finance that helped the Duke of Wellington win the Battle of Waterloo.

Media Ignores Increased Deaths, Casualties in Afghanistan Under Obama

On the somber 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, nearly 2,000 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan since the war started in response to the attacks in 2001. The Defense Department has tallied 1,987 deaths. The Associated Press has counted 1,980. Other organizations put the number above 2,000. In addition, according to the Defense Department, 17,519 service members have been wounded in Afghanistan.

What is more striking, though, is more U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded during President Barack Obama’s first term in office than former President George W. Bush’s two terms. And the anti-war mainstream media that regularly counted the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, for the most part, has been silent on the number of deaths and casualties that have resulted under Obama.

Under former President George W. Bush, 575 American soldiers died and fewer than 3,000 were wounded in Afghanistan. This means under Obama, at least 1,405 soldiers have died and nearly 15,000 additional soldiers have been wounded, which means 70% of the deaths  and nearly 80% of the injuries in Afghanistan have occurred under Obama’s watch.

In 2010, Obama sent 33,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of the “surge,” and Americans have been received with more hostility with each passing day. In June, Obama announced he would accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, and America would transfer security duties to the Afghans in 2014.

Because Obama is a Democrat, the media has been reluctant to shine more of a light on Afghanistan’s destabilization under Obama. Perhaps the media is afraid that such reports would make Americans question whether Obama has mismanaged the Afghanistan war like he has the economy. Or maybe the media does not want to report on anything that would make Democrats seem weak on national security, as was the case when Bill Clinton was president.

For whatever reason, the mainstream media is not reporting the striking increase in deaths and casualties in Afghanistan under Obama, again helping Obama through their omissions.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/11/Mainstream-Media-Ignoring-Increase-In-Deaths-Wounded-In-Afghanistan-Under-Obama

CIA WHISTLEBLOWER SUSAN LINDAUER INTERVIEW WITH WE ARE CHANGE CONNECTICUT

Jeff Durkin of We Are Change Connecticut interviews CIA asset, whistleblower and political prisoner Susan Lindauer.

Watch TRUTH TALK NEWS
Hosted by Howard Nema
Monday – Thursday 9PM EST

“Where the truth is uncensored and news the controlled mainstream media ignores is the top story!”

TruthBroadcastNetwork.com

WE ARE CHANGE CONNECTICUT
Hosted by Howard Nema and Vinny Bdatruth
Saturdays 5-8PM EST

News, commentary, special guests and events

TruthBroadcastNetwork.com
Audio Simulcast on ProjectFreedom.ws
NFormDRadio.com

FAIR USE NOTICE: Some content displayed may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes

WikiLeaks: Iraqi children in U.S. raid shot in head, U.N. says

This official police document contains allegations that American soldiers killed 11 Iraqi civilians in the village of Ishaqi on Wednesday, March 15, 2006.

This cell phone photo was shot by a resident of Ishaqi on March 15, 2006, of bodies Iraqi police said were of children executed by U.S. troops after a night raid there. Here, the bodies of the five children are wrapped in blankets and laid in a pickup bed to be taken for burial. A State Department cable obtained by WikiLeaks quotes the U.N. investigator of extrajudicial killings as saying an autopsy showed the residents of the house had been handcuffed and shot in the head, including children under the age of 5. McClatchy obtained the photo from a resident when the incident occurred.

 

A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.

The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks’ website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.

But Philip Alston, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.

Reached by email Wednesday, Alston said that as of 2010 — the most recent data he had — U.S. officials hadn’t responded to his request for information and that Iraq’s government also hadn’t been forthcoming. He said the lack of response from the United States “was the case with most of the letters to the U.S. in the 2006-2007 period,” when fighting in Iraq peaked.

Alston said he could provide no further information on the incident. “The tragedy,” he said, “is that this elaborate system of communications is in place but the (U.N.) Human Rights Council does nothing to follow up when states ignore issues raised with them.”

The Pentagon didn’t respond to a request for comment. At the time, American military officials in Iraq said the accounts of townspeople who witnessed the events were highly unlikely to be true, and they later said the incident didn’t warrant further investigation. Military officials also refused to reveal which units might have been involved in the incident.

Iraq was fast descending into chaos in early 2006. An explosion that ripped through the Golden Dome Mosque that February had set off an orgy of violence between rival Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and Sunni insurgents, many aligned with al Qaida in Iraq, controlled large tracts of the countryside.

Ishaqi, about 80 miles northwest of Baghdad, not far from Saddam Hussein’s hometown, Tikrit, was considered so dangerous at the time that U.S. military officials had classified all roads in the area as “black,” meaning they were likely to be booby-trapped with roadside bombs.

The Ishaqi incident was unusual because it was brought to the world’s attention by the Joint Coordination Center in Tikrit, a regional security center set up with American military assistance and staffed by U.S.-trained Iraqi police officers.

The original incident report was signed by an Iraqi police colonel and made even more noteworthy because U.S.-trained Iraqi police, including Brig. Gen. Issa al Juboori, who led the coordination center, were willing to speak about the investigation on the record even though it was critical of American forces.

Throughout the early investigation, U.S. military spokesmen said that an al Qaida in Iraq suspect had been seized from a first-floor room after a fierce fight that had left the house he was hiding in a pile of rubble.

But the diplomatic cable provides a different sequence of events and lends credence to townspeople’s claims that American forces destroyed the house after its residents had been shot.

Alston initially posed his questions to the U.S. Embassy in Geneva, which passed them to Washington in the cable.

According to Alston’s version of events, American troops approached a house in Ishaqi, which Alston refers to as “Al-Iss Haqi,” that belonged to Faiz Harrat Al-Majma’ee, whom Alston identified as a farmer. The U.S. troops were met with gunfire, Alston said, that lasted about 25 minutes.

After the firefight ended, Alston wrote, the “troops entered the house, handcuffed all residents and executed all of them. After the initial MNF intervention, a U.S. air raid ensued that destroyed the house.” The initials refer to the official name of the military coalition, the Multi-National Force.

Alston said “Iraqi TV stations broadcast from the scene and showed bodies of the victims (i.e. five children and four women) in the morgue of Tikrit. Autopsies carries (sic) out at the Tikrit Hospital’s morgue revealed that all corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed.”

The cable makes no mention any of the alleged shooting suspects being found or arrested at or near the house.

The cable closely tracks what neighbors told reporters for Knight Ridder at the time. (McClatchy purchased Knight Ridder in spring 2006.) Those neighbors said the U.S. troops had approached the house at 2:30 a.m. and a firefight ensued. In addition to exchanging gunfire with someone in the house, the American troops were supported by helicopter gunships, which fired on the house.

The cable also backs the original report from the Joint Coordination Center, which said U.S. forces entered the house while it was still standing. That first report noted: “The American forces gathered the family members in one room and executed 11 persons, including five children, four women and two men. Then they bombed the house, burned three vehicles and killed their animals.”

The report was signed by Col. Fadhil Muhammed Khalaf, who was described in the document as the assistant chief of the Joint Coordination Center.

The cable also backs up the claims of the doctor who performed the autopsies, who told Knight Ridder “that all the victims had bullet shots in the head and all bodies were handcuffed.”

The cable notes that “at least 10 persons, namely Mr. Faiz Hratt Khalaf, (aged 28), his wife Sumay’ya Abdul Razzaq Khuther (aged 24), their three children Hawra’a (aged 5) Aisha (aged 3) and Husam (5 months old), Faiz’s mother Ms. Turkiya Majeed Ali (aged 74), Faiz’s sister (name unknown), Faiz’s nieces Asma’a Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 5 years old), and Usama Yousif Ma’arouf (aged 3 years), and a visiting relative Ms. Iqtisad Hameed Mehdi (aged 23) were killed during the raid.”

(Schofield, an editorial writer at The Kansas City Star, was Berlin bureau chief and was on temporary assignment in Iraq at the time of the Ishaqi incident.)

READ THE CABLE:

Cable: massacre of Iraqi family by U.S. troops in 2006

James Carville Says 80% Of Democrats Are Politically Clueless

RESPECTED DEMOCRAT OPERATIVE SPILLS HIS GUTS ON WHAT HE THINKS OF HIS PARTY

James Carville, Democrat political consultant extraordinaire – and former Bill Clinton campaign manager, has astonishingly come out and said what all good Republicans have known for decades: Not only are most Democrats politically clueless; they’re easily manipulated by the puppet masters of their party as well. Wow. James Freaking Carville. Of all people. Here’s an excerpt, as quoted on Amazon.com:

“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology

The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.

Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.

What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.

The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.

Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”

Bingo. I couldn’t have written that for ol’ James any better myself. Truth be told, I’ve always had kind of a love-hate relationship with Carville. While I’ve never agreed with him on much of anything – unless he was commenting on the failures of his party, which unlike most political operatives, he’s not been afraid to do through the years – this is different. This amounts to a total confession of what I define in the right sidebar of this blog as the quintessential “political lie”:

Liberals saying things they know aren’t true for the sole purpose of exploiting the “less-than-informed” for political gain.

http://mikesright.wordpress.com/2012/10/16/james-carville-says-80-of-democrats-are-politically-clueless/

Why YOUR Vote Can Count with WriteInREVOLUTION.com

  Flash!  Ron Paul says Write In R3VOLution is “worthwhile” if it is an INDEPENDENT Effort and if Grassroots Wants to do it!

Through WriteInREVOLUTION.com you, along with millions of other Americans, will not only be voting for a candidate you can truly believe in, but you will also be sending a powerful message to those involved in secret computer vote counting that such unconstitutional elections will no longer be tolerated. Who are those involved? These powerful groups are the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the 5 big TV networks, AP, and the four major corporations (Diebold, ES & S, Hart, Dominion) which have been hired by 99% of USA counties to conduct elections. These large corporations exclusively provide the software which instruct the computers what to do on election night. This software is off limits to the public. There is no EFFECTIVE paper trail. Moreover, there is no accountability.
MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE IS LEGALLY VERIFIED WITH THE INCLUSION OF YOUR AFFIDAVIT! Get your affidavit here on page 4 of this PDF and follow the instructions on page 3 of this PDF:
http://www.writeinron2012.com/write_in_minor_party_voter_affidavit.pdf

Here are the steps (READ THESE DETAILS):

1. Apply NOW for an Absentee ballot–time is limited (if you vote at your polling place not using an absentee ballot, follow the instructions at the bottom of page 3 of the PDF):Click on this link, then click on option 3 Get Absentee Ballot, then click on your state…
DO THIS EARLY! You will have to mail in your request for it!
http://www.longdistancevoter.org/#.UGujJq6oaSq2. Then go to this link and print all the 4 pages:
http://www.writeinron2012.com/write_in_minor_party_voter_affidavit.pdf

Please read this document carefully.

Pages 1-2 contain background info as to what we are doing and why

Page 3 of this contains very easy and direct instructions for 2 options–read carefully

Page 4 is the affidavit–read carefully

3. Finally – peruse the www.writeinrevolution.com site at your leisure once you have done the above.

ALSO WATCH THE VIDEO AT THIS PAGE AND SHARE IT WITH OTHERS:

Bev Harris – Hacking Democracy – Full Length

This is the story of Bev Harris and her organization Black Box Voting (http://www.blackboxvoting.org). She is a true American hero and a good example of what ALL Americans should be doing to ensure that our rights and liberties are protected against the elitist and special interest’s agenda!

“The fight is against the whole establishment!”-Tom Woods

Tom Woods guest hosts the Peter Schiff Show. After interviewing Sen. Rand Paul, Woods rips into compromising for the lesser of two evils and offers Ron Paul support in standing on principle.
Like- http://facebook.com/LibertyEvolution

My Vote Still Belongs To Ron Paul

“Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” Thomas Jefferson

I will write in Ron Paul on my ballot this year.

Why? That’s a question I have been asked many, many times. “Why would you waste your vote? Why not vote for Gary Johnson? At least he’s on the ballot.”

I am aware of this. There are a couple of third-party candidates running. There are also two other people on the ballot, both affiliated with major parties and mountains on money.The average American voter is an uniformed voter. Many watch TV to learn about who is running, and most just follow party over preference. I do not believe that Mitt Romney has a chance to win, but I wouldn’t vote for him, even if he did.

I definitely will not vote Democrat. No worries there.

Will Gary Johnson win? Probably not. We have to face reality here, folks. I would like to see a third-party candidate get a good percentage of the vote, just to scare the neo-cons. Unfortunately, I don’t see a third-party presidency happening any time soon. I do believe that the two-party system is a broken thing that needs to be discarded. Will it happen in 2012? Not very likely.

“Your vote won’t count for anything, even if your state counts the ballots. So, why would you write in Ron Paul?”

It’s fairly simple. He is the only person in this country that I would trust to be my president.

He is the only person who has the virtue and the decency to hold that office, and he wouldn’t have had to cheat to do it.

He is a true leader, and would work for peace and prosperity.

Ron Paul is the only person that ran who is not in favor of intervention in foreign affairs. He was the only candidate who was not afraid to speak up against the reckless spending involved in not only foreign wars, but foreign aid as well. He was the only candidate who was truly concerned about the economy. He champions bringing back a system of sound money, not based on worthless sheets of paper or inflation, but backed by gold, which is steady in value. He would end the corrupt Federal Reserve, and work to make America stronger and fiscally responsible.

He would work to cut off government funding of Planned Parenthood, who are a corporation and thus should fund their own business, not use taxpayer money. He is against abortion, but not against personal liberty. He espouses the Libertarian ideals of Mill, while holding to conservative values.

I could give you many more reasons…a list that would take a very long time to read! So, let’s get to the ones that I feel are the most important:

He was the only candidate that did not pander. He did not just tell people what they wanted to hear; and sometimes people didn’t want to hear what he did say. The truth is not always welcome. However, if we don’t face reality soon, we are headed for economic disaster.

Ron Paul knows that, and he doesn’t want us to suffer for the stupidity of Washington. He predicted the crises that we face because he understands economics. He doesn’t try to soften the truth.

There is no Band-Aid big enough to cover up the wounds that America has suffered.

He was the only one willing to be honest with the American people. He woke people up and warned us about what will happen if we don’t take control of our finances and our freedoms. He truly cares about Americans; not stereotypes or party lines.

Write-in votes count in Iowa. They will not be thrown away at the end of the day. You may think that my vote is wasted. I don’t agree.

A protest vote sends a multitude of messages in a state that counts write-ins. My ballot will say more than, “Congressman Ron Paul.”

My vote will tell the establishment within my state party that I do not accept their nominee, nor do I consent to be governed by Mitt Romney.

It will tell the majority of the Iowa Republican Party that I am still on board with them and that I will continue to work for liberty at a state and local level. It will tell my precinct that I did not waver in my choice of candidate, that I have stuck by the person I stumped for at the caucus.

It will tell my children that I am a principled person, and that I didn’t jump ship when I perceived failure.

It will tell my husband, who is a veteran, that I don’t want to send our children into foreign wars with no declaration or purpose.

It tells me that I did not give up, because giving up is giving in.

I can tell myself that I am doing the right thing, not what someone else tells me to do. I own my vote. I have the freedom to make my own decisions.

I will not turn my back on liberty, and I will stand by Ron Paul.

“Have the courage to say no. Have the courage to face the truth. Do the right thing because it is right. These are the magic keys to living your life with integrity. “

W. Clement Stone

http://theunconventionalconservative.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/my-vote-still-belongs-to-ron-paul/

FASCISM RISING; America, Mitt Romney’s ‘CREATIVE DESTRUCTION’ Is NeoCon Economic Theory With Roots In FASCISM

Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad.  We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.  Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace.  Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.  They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy.  They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

– Michael Ledeen, NeoCon Theoretician, Author Of Book Universal Fascism

The quote above tells the truth… there is a world wide war on “traditional societies”, a culture war to destroy all cultures, home and abroad, to install a single world wide universal culture.  Ledeen mentions tearing down the “old order”, and in the article below he also mentions the “New Order” and the “New World Order”… ancient themes reinvigorated by the fascists of Italy, Nazi Germany, and France… and reinvigorated once again by George Bush Sr. when he said the “New Order is struggling to be born” and spoke of “the dream of a New World Order” on September 11, 1990.

Mitt Romney spouts “CREATIVE DESTRUCTION” NeoCon economic theories while at the same time and surrounding himself with top NeoCons like Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen (Romney 2012 Foreign Policy Adviser), and John Bolton (likely choice as Romney’s Secretary Of State), just to name a few… all war mongers, and all Project For The New American Century (PNAC) members*.

*Note: Bush Jr. & Bush Sr. are not officially on the PNAC Members list for political reasons, but they were both integral in the organization.

For more information on “CREATIVE DESTRUCTION” and its roots in FASCISM see the following story…

2003.6.30 Flirting With FASCISM (NeoCon Theorist Michael Ledeen Draws More From Italian FASCISM Than From The American Right) (theamericanconservative.com):

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/flirting-with-fascism/

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/10/18/fascism-rising-america-mitt-romneys-creative-destruction-is-neocon-economic-theory-with-roots-in-fascism/

United Nations Seeks ‘Global’ Tax

Video Caption

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: