Engineering Consent For An Attack On Syria…
Yet another alleged ”massacre” of “civilians” by the Syrian regime was in the establishment-press headlines this week, supposedly a brutal killing spree by dictator Bashar al-Assad’s forces in the village of Tremseh that left up to 250 people dead. As has become typical, Western governments and mainstream media outlets — the New York Times, the BBC, and others included — parroted anonymous “opposition activists” for the claims. But within days, after foreign powers seeking regime change had their chance to beat the war drums even louder, the carefully constructed tale was already falling apart.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the top defenders of the dangerous “rebel” coalition operating in Syria at American taxpayer expense, immediately claimed there was “indisputable evidence that the regime deliberately murdered innocent civilians” — “over 200 men, women and children,” in fact. She did not present or cite any of the alleged evidence, but vowed to punish those responsible amid more calls for immediate regime change. Other Western leaders and financiers of the violence in Syria issued similar condemnations and more threats.
Despite hysterical reporting and wild statements by political leaders, however, even “opposition activists” were conceding early on that most of the dead were actually armed combatants who had staged attacks on the regime’s military forces. More recent reports, even those based on anonymous “opposition activists,” also suggest that closer to 100 people had died. Almost all of the dead were military-aged men, too — a far cry from Clinton’s “over 200 men, women and children.”
“At this stage, though we do not yet have the final count, the number of civilians killed by shelling is not more than seven,” an anti-Assad “activist” known as “Jaafar” with the Sham News Network (SNN) told the AFP press agency. “The rest were members of the [Western-backed] Free Syrian Army.” How could Clinton and the establishment press have messed up the story so badly, again?
One problem, according to analysts, is that the Free Syrian Army (FSA) is consistently discussed using deceptive terminology. “From the U.S. State Department and outward through its tentacles across the corporate media, the so-called ‘Free Syrian Army’ is continuously referred to interchangeably as ‘civilians’ and ‘activists,’” noted analyst Tony Cartalucci, who has followed the conflict closely. “In reality they are heavily armed, foreign-backed, and include amongst their ranks a sizable proportion of foreign fighters — betraying the very name Free ‘Syrian’ Army.”
Cartalucci called the deceptive mainstream-media reporting and the dangerous Western war-mongering against Syria an example of “Goebbelsesque propaganda.” Numerous other analysts criticized the lies and propaganda as well. And it is hardly the first allegation of a “massacre” conducted by the Syrian regime to crumble upon closer scrutiny.
Of course, there was indeed killing going on in the area, and many young men — possibly up to 100 — did indeed die. Both sides acknowledged that. And Assad’s tyrannical regime did deploy heavy weapons including tanks and helicopters as both sides continued to violate the international cease-fire agreement. What exactly happened, however, remains unclear. Members of the UN mission in Syria are supposed to be investigating and reporting their findings as soon as possible.
“The BBC’s Jim Muir in Beirut says it remains far from clear what took place at Tremseh,” acknowledged the state-run British news service, days after touting opposition claims along with most of the establishment press and not long after it was caught using an old photo from Iraq to illustrate a previous “civilian massacre” in Syria. After parroting anonymous claims about the latest alleged “civilian massacre” in Tremseh conducted by the regime, other news outlets and “opposition activists” reluctantly followed suit and admitted that the facts did not fit the original allegations.
Clinton and other Western advocates of “regime change,” however, have not yet corrected themselves. And as the war-mongers continue to demand international military intervention to oust the Syrian despot, it is unlikely that they will.
The Assad dictatorship claims it was battling “armed terrorist” groups backed by foreign powers at the request of innocent local villagers in the area who were being terrorized and slaughtered by the establishment-backed “opposition” fighters. It also alleged in press reports that the “terrorists” had been summarily executing people including women and children. No independent confirmation has been made of the claims.
“Syria has been exposed to more than 16 months of terrorist attacks and booby-trapped suicide attacks by foreign-backed armed terrorist groups, which in part coordinate their attacks with some media outlets, especially once a UN session about Syria is to be or convened,” reported the dictatorship-run Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), echoing concerns of analysts around the world after top mainstream news outlets like CNN and Al Jazeera were caught broadcasting staged propaganda by the rebels. The report also acknowledged that the regime’s forces had indeed killed and captured “scores” of “terrorists.”
”Had the Army or security personnel existed in the village, the terrorists wouldn’t have been able to overrun the village and perpetrate their massacres,” claimed villager Abo Arif al-Khalid, a supposed “witness” to the alleged rebel atrocities, in an interview with the state-run media. The man, apparently crying in the interview, also claimed that the Western-backed opposition fighters had killed women and children including his cousin.
At least three Syrian soldiers died in the conflict, according to the regime.
On the other hand, anonymous “democracy activists” cited in early establishment-press reports originally claimed, like Clinton, that the Syrian military had indiscriminately slaughtered innocent villagers with tanks and helicopters. However, when no evidence was offered to substantiate those claims — let alone images of dead women and children — the narrative slowly changed. The few videos that did emerge showed at most 17 dead or bloody military-aged men alleged to have been victims of the fighting.
In a July 12 report, the New York Times implicitly — and deceptively — suggested that there was actual evidence. “Activists in Hama posted a video on YouTube accusing the government of ‘ethnic cleansing in Hama,’ and said the killings in Tremseh were ‘unlike any massacre that has previously occurred in Syria,’” the paper reported. Instead of a video showing any “ethnic cleansing” or “massacre,” however, the clip cited by the Times actually just shows a man with a bandage on his head talking in Arabic making assorted accusations. You can watch it here.
Online commentators were not buying it, though. “This revolution of the Syrian free army is nothing but a paid thugs running around to create terrorism,” noted the top comment on the YouTube video as of July 14. “When they get killed or injured your stupid media starts to cry ‘oh my god Bashar is evil.’”
The Times also cited a statement by the anti-Assad Muslim Brotherhood. “The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria do not consider Bashar the Beast the only one responsible for this horrific massacre,” the radical Islamic socialist group claimed. “Responsibility for this and for previous massacres also lies with Annan, with the Russians and the Iranians, and all those states who claim they are protecting peace and stability yet stay silent and skulk away from taking any responsibility.” Apparently the extremist group wants the world to intervene militarily on its side.
Some analysts have tried to claim that the Assad dictatorship has not been responsible for any massacres at all, arguing that it would be counterproductive to his campaign to retain power. That is almost certainly not the case, as thousands have already died on both sides, with Assad’s forces likely involved in many of the deaths. But the timing of the latest alleged massacre was indeed suspicious — like most reports of Assad atrocities, it coincided perfectly with high-level international negotiations on Syria.
When asked about why the alleged mass abuses perpetrated by Assad against his opponents often seem to be timed just ahead of major UN Security Council meetings, a spokesman for the Bilderberg-linked “Syrian National Council” — which includes the radical Muslim Brotherhood and is considered by the establishment to be the main “representative” of Syria’s opposition — dodged the question. “Assad doesn’t really care about the international community,” the SNC spokesman finally said in what was probably the only relevant comment to the query.
Both sides — the barbaric Assad regime and the anti-Assad foreign powers backing the rebels — are undoubtedly using propaganda to advance their narratives. However, a disturbing pattern has emerged over the last year: numerous massacres blamed on the dictatorship’s forces were actually conducted by the Western-backed rebels. Christians in particular, who have found one of the last Middle Eastern refuges in Syria under Assad and therefore largely support the regime, are being exterminated by the foreign-financed Islamist opposition in what observers have called a real example of “ethnic cleansing.”
Of course, none of the information presented here is meant to defend the barbarian tyrant ruling over Syria. The point is that there is much more going on than Western governments and the mainstream press would like citizens to realize — and people are dying based on gross deceptions perpetrated by the highest levels of the establishment. More will undoubtedly die in the coming months.
Instead of presenting the truth, powerful establishment forces are using lies and deception, as well as taxpayer money, in an effort to impose a new regime on the Syrian people by force of arms if necessary. And unfortunately for the populations of Syria and maybe Iran next, more than a few analysts worry that the new rulers — if and when the bloodshed ever stops — might be even worse than the current situation. Only time will tell.
Source: The New American Magazine
The narrative that has been constructed by the Western mainstream media on Syria may seem to be self-evident from the scenes presented on television, but it is a narrative duplicitously promoted and coordinated so as to conceal and facilitate the regime-change project that is part of the war on Iran.
What we are seeing is a new stage of information war intentionally constructed and cast as a simplistic narrative of a struggle for human rights and democracy so as deliberately to exclude other interpretations and any geo-strategic motivation.
The narrative, as CNN puts it, is in essence this: “The vast majority of reports from the ground indicate that government forces are killing citizens in an attempt to wipe out civilians seeking [President Bashar] al-Assad’s ouster” – the aim being precisely to elicit a heart-wrenching emotional response in Western audiences that trumps all other considerations and makes the call for Western/Gulf intervention to effect regime change.
But it is a narrative based on distortion, manipulation, lies and videotape.
In the first months, the narrative was of unarmed protesters being shot by Syrian forces. This then evolved into one of armed insurgents reluctantly “being provoked into taking up arms”, as US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton explained, to defend peaceful protesters.
It was also a narrative that from the outset, according to a recent report in Time magazine, that the US has facilitated by providing training, support and equipment to Syrian opposition “cyber-warriors”.
Reports confirmed by leading Syrian opposition leaders in April 2011 reveal that in addition to cyber-training, weapons and money from Syrian exiles, as well as from a “major Arab Gulf country” and a Lebanese political party, were being distributed to “young demonstrators”. The former head of Russian intelligence, Yevgeny Primakov, similarly noted that the Syrian conflict “started with armed revolts against the authorities, not peaceful demonstrations”.
Ironically, one of the most accurate descriptions of the sectarian conflict we are witnessing in Syria comes from an assessment by the neoconservative Brookings Institute in its March 2012 report “Assessing Options for Regime Change in Syria”, one option being for “the United States [to] fight a “clean” war … and leave the dirty work on the ground to the FSA [Free Syrian Army], perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building”.
“Let the Arabs do it,” echoed Israeli President Shimon Peres. “Do it yourself and the UN will support you.” This point was not lost on one leading Turkish commentator, who noted that US Senator John McCain “said that there would be no American boots on the ground in Syria. That means we Turks will have to spill our precious blood to get what McCain and others want in the States.”
In the wake of the failures at state-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, direct intervention, with all the responsibilities this would entail, would not go down well in cash-strapped Western nations. Better to get others to do the “dirty work” – pursue “regime change by civil war”.
“The United States, Europe and the Gulf states … are starving the regime in Damascus and feeding the opposition. They have sanctioned Syria … and are busy shoveling money and helping arms supplied by the Gulf get to the rebels,” Joshua Landis, director of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies, wrote in Foreign Policy in June.
With regional allies prepared to do the “dirty work” of providing increasingly sophisticated weapons clearly geared for purposes other than “self-defense”, and the FSA and its jihadist allies doing the “dirty work” within Syria (their salaries paid by Saudi Arabia), the US and European nations can proffer their clean hands by limiting support to communications equipment, intelligence and humanitarian aid, and of course to providing the moral posturing required to topple the Syrian system and implant a regime hostile to Iran and friendly to Israel. Having “clean hands” enables the US, France and Britain to pose as abiding by UN standards, while at the same time flouting the UN Charter by promoting an attack on a member state.
Time magazine reported last month that the administration of US President Barack Obama “has tiptoed across an invisible line. [It] said it will not actively support the Syrian opposition in its bid to oust Assad … [but] as US officials have revealed, the administration has been providing media-technology training and support to Syrian dissidents by way of small non-profits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting and Freedom House.
“Viral videos of alleged atrocities,” noted Time, “have made Assad one of the most reviled men on the planet, helping turn the Arab League against him and embarrassing his few remaining allies almost daily.”
It is a position that reeks of hypocrisy: as US columnist Barbara Slavin notes, “Without a UN Security Council mandate, the prospects for US military intervention in Syria are minimal … the provision of communications gear frees up others to provide weapons.”
A US official quoted by Associated Press was more frank: Washington’s equipment and medical supplies to the opposition “can now be easily augmented with weapons from other donors. Smuggling lines are smuggling lines. We use the same donkeys,” he said, pointing out that routes are in essence the same for bandages as they are for bullets.
And while various Western governments are helping “document crimes” committed by Syrian forces, these same governments have refused to investigate their own killings of civilians in attacks by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Libya. NATO “created its own definition for ‘confirmed’ deaths: only a death that NATO itself investigated and corroborated could be called confirmed”, enabling the alliance to conclude: “We have no confirmed reports of civilian casualties.”
Britain was the only country involved in the bombings to conduct its own inquiry. Its report accepted “that coalition forces did their best to prevent and minimize civilian casualties … We commend them for this approach.”
For every tragic story like journalist Marie Colvin’s final dispatch before she was killed while embedded for British media with the FSA (“In Babr Amr. Sickening. Cannot understand how the world can stand by. Watched a baby die today. Shrapnel: doctors could do nothing. His little tummy just heaved and heaved until he stopped. Feeling Helpless”), there are other similar tragedies, committed by the insurgents, that are rarely reported in the mainstream Western press.
You won’t read in the mainstream press of foreign jihadists increasingly pouring into Syria to fight their holy war; you won’t read that some ultraconservative Salafi sheikhs in Saudi Arabia are running their own military network inside Syria; you won’t read how Assad’s support during the 14-month crisis has if anything increased in light of the insecurity gripping the country; you won’t read comments like those of the Lebanese Christian Maronite patriarch who said that while “Syria, like other countries, needs reforms which the people are demanding … the closest thing to democracy [in the Arab world] is Syria”.
You won’t read how the head of the opposition in Turkey, a former ambassador to Washington, Faruk Logoglu, has said that what Turkey is doing hosting armed FSA fighters and allowing them to carry out attacks in Syria is “is against all international norms; against all neighborly relations … It is a basic rule that countries must respect the sovereignty of others.”
You won’t read how armed insurgents used the Arab League observer mission’s ceasefire to “reinforce themselves and bring supplies from Lebanon, knowing the regime would be limited in its ability to obstruct them at that time”, or how they have used the Kofi Annan plan to prepare for larger attacks.
While we have seen extensive demonization of Assad, his wife and family, with the president depicted recently in the British press bathing in blood, you won’t read articles demonizing the Saudi or Qatari regimes, or highlighting the hundreds of millions of dollars they have poured into political parties and groups, particularly Salafists, across the region in their “counter-revolution” against change; or the recent declaration by the official Saudi Mufti for all churches in the Arabian Peninsula to be demolished (which was not covered by a single Western mainstream news outlet); or as a senior Sunni political figure told me recently, the more than 23,000 detainees in Saudi prisons, a majority of whom (a recent report notes 90%) have degrees (to be fair, Chatham House did comment on this in a recent report that this “is indicative of the prevalence of a university education”).
You won’t read how Saudi Arabia and Qatar have bullied satellite hosting channels in the region to stop broadcasting “pro-regime” public and private Syrian television channels; or that the Syrian opposition has set up 10 satellite channels, all with an Islamist orientation and which take a strong sectarian line – calling on the FSA to “kill Iran’s mice” and “the rats of the Lebanese devil’s party” (Hezbollah); or how Russia has been attempting to facilitate a political process of reconciliation with the internal opposition since the onset of the crisis.
There is clear duplicity in the deliberate unwillingness of the Western mainstream media to acknowledge the nature of those who are the West’s allies in the regime-change project – particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar – and the danger they pose in the region through their arming and firing up of jihadist Salafist groups in Syria and across the region. Rare are articles in the mainstream Western press that highlight this hypocrisy.
A critical piece in the British press by Peter Oborne, The Daily Telegraph’s chief political correspondent, was an exception: “Washington never ceases to complain about the connection between the Pakistani intelligence services and the Taliban. But we never hear a whisper of concern about the connection between Saudi intelligence and Salafi movements across the Middle East, of which al-Qaeda is the best-known offshoot.”
The essential components of what we do see daily in the Western press have changed little during the conflict: in effect, all violence and terror are apportioned to one side only – the Syrian government and its purported “ghostly shadowy” shabiha forces.
Any violence committed by the “peaceful protesters” and the Free Syrian Army is purely for defensive purposes – all of which comes straight out of the color-revolution/regime-change text book; daily figures for those killed are based almost exclusively on “reports by activists and YouTube footage” (unverifiable, it is claimed, because the Syrian government does not allow free movement of journalists) and are described simply as “people” – dead insurgents do not appear; Al-Qaeda-type jihadist groups are played down (reports in leading media outlets like The Guardian continue to question whether they exist at all); and any weapons or equipment supplied to the “opposition” is, according to Saudi leaders, to help Syrians “defend themselves”.
Embedding journalists on their side is an asset that the FSA, activists and their Western and regional partners have clearly learned from the experience of the US Army in the wake of its attacks on Fallujah in 2004. A US Army intelligence analysis leaked by WikiLeaks revealed that “in the military’s opinion, the Western press are part of the US’s propaganda operation. This process was facilitated by the embedding of Western reporters in US military units”. In their second attack on Fallujah in November 2004, the US Army “got many reporters … to embed with US troops, so that they could act, as the intelligence report calls for, as the propaganda arm of US forces”.
The fundamental pillar of this Western narrative relies almost exclusively on claims and “evidence” provided by “activists” and opposition-affiliated groups, particularly the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Are we seriously to believe that this outfit, reportedly run from Coventry by a man who, according to Reuters, part-time runs a clothes shop with his wife, then “sits with a laptop and phones and pieces together accounts of conflict and rights abuses before uploading news to the Internet”, is the primary source of daily casualty statistics on the 14-month Syrian conflict – the key geo-strategic conflict of the time?
It is clearly the front office of a large-scale (dis)information project – when Russian diplomats asked to meet with the organization, they were refused. Senior political figures in the region have told me, as other reports indicate, that the Observatory is in fact funded from a Dubai-based slush fund and is a key component of the regime-change project.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that it was in the opposition’s interest “to provoke a humanitarian catastrophe, to get a pretext to demand external interference”, so it is not surprising that analysis of the Observatory’s figures, including claims of “massacres”, consistently show a significant inflation in numbers of casualties, sometimes wildly so.
As Al-Jazeera journalist Nir Rosen, who spent some months embedded with the Free Syria Army, explained: “Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many … reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described … as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.”
Analysis I did of what was reported to be the “deadliest day of the nine-month uprising” (December 20, 2011), with the “organized massacre” of a “mass defection” of army deserters widely reported by the international press, and opposition Syrian National Council claims of areas “exposed to large-scale genocide”, showed that figures differed so significantly (between 10 and 163 armed insurgents, nine to 111 unarmed civilians and zero to 97 government forces), that the “truth” was impossible to establish. Similarly, analysis of The Guardian’s data blog on casualties as of December 2011, based solely on press reports largely from opposition sources, contained basic inaccuracies and made no reference to any killings of armed insurgents during the entire 10-month period.
So the Observatory and “activists” provide doctored figures, the Western media report these figures uncritically, and the UN provides reports on the basis of opposition and activist sources alone. The December 2011 UN Human Rights Commissioner’s report was based solely on interviews with 233 alleged “army defectors”; similarly, the first UN report to accuse the Syrian government of crimes against humanity was based on 369 interviews with “victims and witnesses”. The spokesman for the UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights explained that while “getting evidence from victims and defectors – some who corroborated specific names”, the UN “is not in a position to cross-check names and will never be in a position to do that … The lists are clear – the question is whether we can fully endorse their accuracy.”
British public-service broadcaster Channel 4 has championed the cause of Syrian “video journalists” who it claims are leading a “Syrian media revolution”. The channel’s foreign-affairs correspondent Jonathan Miller wrote: “Each report is datelined; exact location and date, [which] doesn’t in itself necessarily authenticate the report, but combined with other reports from other districts of the same attack filmed from a different location, the reports have the effect of corroborating each other.” The channel even made a documentary of activists exaggerating the “truth” – “even if it means embellishing events”.
During the early months of the Syrian conflict, activists like the now-notorious Danny and Khaled Abou Salah were regularly interviewed in the Western media – that is until footage found by the Syrian army in Homs after the attack on insurgents showed them, among other things, preparing child “victims” for interviews and until their “witness statements” lost all credibility. The New York Times’ Neil MacFarquhar, reporting from Beirut, almost exclusively bases his reports on “activists speaking by Skype” and “video posted on YouTube”.
Described as “the most horrific video” yet by Britain’s Daily Mail, a YouTube clip of an opposition member being “buried alive” was found most likely to be fake. Perhaps more telling than the use of the actual photo by the British Broadcasting Corp of hundreds of body bags from Iraq in 2003 that was used for the story of the al-Houla massacre three weeks ago was the caption beneath the photo: “Photo from Activist. This image – which cannot be independently verified – is believed to show bodies of children in Houla awaiting funeral.”
Nevertheless, activist-supplied videos and statements continue to provide the basis for unquestioned reports in the mainstream press: in the wake of the Houla massacre, for example, The Guardian ran a front-page story – “among the most important of the testimonies” from an army defector reportedly on leave at the time. From his house 300 meters away, the man saw and heard the massacre, despite there being persistent shelling at the time. He claimed to have seen men “he knew to be shabiha “riding into Taldous village in cars, motorbikes and army trucks, shouting: ‘Shabiha forever, for your eyes, Assad.’”
This is not to argue that Syrian security forces and some supporters of the Syrian government have not committed abuses and killings; they have admitted this to be the case. “Don’t put me in a position of defending brutality and knifing people,” former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said about Syria recently. “Frankly that is not the issue. We do know these things happened, and they are horrible. They also happened on a much larger scale in many other countries in which we have not intervened.”
What we are witnessing is a new generation of warfare – an information war where, by using what is in effect propaganda, the aim is to construct a consensual consciousness to provide overwhelming public support for regime change.
Not to be outdone by Senator McCain (described by a leading US foreign-policy magazine as one of the “three amigos … who have rarely found a country they didn’t want to bomb or invade”), The Guardian itself noted in March: “If you think Guardian readers are a peace-loving bunch, think again. In an online poll, more than 83% [13,200 votes] have so far backed John McCain’s call to launch air strikes against Syria.”
While The Guardian describes the so-called shabihain what appears to be a piece of pure propaganda – “according to demonstrators” it interviewed – as “large lines of plain-clothed or khaki-clad men and boys armed with submachine-guns” who appear “awaiting an excuse to intervene” and who fire on protesters, a senior European diplomat based in the region told me that it is not in fact clear who the shabiha are, or whether they actually exist.
The diplomat told me of an instance when the UN monitors were filmed by activists as they were inspecting an insurgent-blocked subsidiary road; they later saw footage of themselves at the same ditch on the international news spliced in such a way as to make it appear that there had been bodies in an excavated area and that the UN monitors were watching bodies being removed, whereas in fact it was no more than a ditch across a road that they had been filming.
Human rights are a fundamental component of this information war that is a cover for regime change. By in effect taking a one-sided approach to events in Syria, leading human-rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are, willingly or unwillingly, being used as an integral part of this information war on Syria.
Despite publishing the odd report on abuses, torture and killings perpetrated by the insurgents, they cast the conflict in Syria as a simple one-sided case of aggressors and victims, lamenting, along the lines of John Bolton and McCain, “Why is the world doing nothing?” Amnesty International’s Eyes on Syria site, for example, exclusively documents “the scale of torture and ill-treatment by security forces, army and pro-government armed gangs”, harassment of “pro-reform” Syrians, and deaths in government custody.
A notable exception has been the International Committee of the Red Cross, which has continually criticized the militarization of humanitarian assistance. When former French president Nicolas Sarkozy and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for the creation of “humanitarian corridors”, the ICRC publicly criticized a move that would inevitably involve the deployment of armed forces to enforce the zones.
The use of propaganda as a tool in war is an old one. During World War I, in the wake of British propaganda of “babies [with] their hands cut off … impaled on bayonets … loudly spoken of in buses and public places … paraded, not as an isolated instance of an atrocity, but as … a common practice”, a member of Parliament wrote: “In Parliament there was the usual evasion … the only evidence given was ‘seen by witnesses’.”
What we see now in coverage of Syria has echoes of 2003 – Western governments and the Western media accept at face value the claims of exiles living in the West. Paul Pillar, a former official of the US Central Intelligence Agency now at Georgetown University in Washington, notes that the neocon case for arming the Syrian opposition “is a continuation of the same patterns of neoconservative thinking that led to [president George W] Bush’s war [on Iraq]. There is the same wishful thinking substituting for careful analysis about consequences.”
Charged with defining the future of warfare, the US deputy chief of staff for intelligence in 1997 defined this “conflict between information masters and information victims … We are already masters of information warfare … we write the script,” he wrote. “Societies that … cannot manage the flow of information simply will not be competitive … Emotions, rather than strategy, will set the terms of struggles.” Against such an onslaught, there is little the Syrian government can do to defend itself – Assad has already said that Syria cannot win the media war with the West.
As Syria tips into the next more violent stage of sectarian war, with the SNC/FSA and their foreign backers increasing the ante with possible supplies if heavy weapons by the US, leading to more violent attacks, and the Syrian government (with its Republican Guard and the Syrian Army’s powerful 4th Division still held in reserve) cracking down on “all armed groups”, we should expect to see the “crusaders” in the mainstream media follow suit with their onslaught on Syrian government “atrocities” – massacres, use of children as human shields, claims of the imminent collapse of the Syrian government, etc.
But we would do well to acknowledge that there are two competing narratives out there. The BBC acknowledged recently that while “video filed by the opposition … may provide some insight into the story on the ground … stories are never black and white – [they are] often shades of grey”, and Channel 4′s Alex Thomson’s near escape after being set up by the Free Syria Army prompted him to say: “Do not for one moment believe that my experience with the rebels in al-Qusair was a one-off.” It makes you wonder, he wrote, “who else has had this experience when attempting to find out what is going on in rebel-held Syria”. The narrative, however, complete with myths, has established a virtual reality that is now set in stone.
Sixteen months into the conflict, it is too little, too late to acknowledge that there are “shades of grey” at play in the Syrian context: for 16 months, The Guardian, Channel 4, the BBC and others have presented the conflict, using largely spurious “evidence”, in exactly the black-and-white terms that increasingly people are now questioning. Peter Oborne, writing some months ago in The Daily Telegraph, warned that by presenting the conflict as a struggle between the regime and “the people”, British Prime Minister David Cameron is either “poorly briefed or he is coming dangerously close to a calculated deception of the British public”.
The Takfiri jihadists and their backers have been allowed to define and dominate the crisis. The crisis is now symbolized by car bombings, assassinations, mutilations and atrocities. This empowering of the extreme end of the opposition spectrum – albeit a minority – has in effect silenced and pushed to the sidelines the middle ground – that is, most of the internal opposition. One key internal opposition leader recently told Conflicts Forum that, like other leaders, he has had close relatives assassinated by the Salafists. The internal opposition has acknowledged the stark choice between two undesirables – either a dialogue that currently is not realizable, or the downfall of Syria, as Al-Akhbar, one of the leading independent newspapers in the region, recently reported.
With weapons of war, words and ideology, the self-appointed “Friends of Syria” have done everything they can to tiptoe around the UNSC and to undercut all attempts at an intra-Syrian political dialogue and a negotiated end to the conflict, of which the Annan mission is the latest attempt. The West/Saudi/Qatari “dirty war” on Syria applies as much to its (dis)information campaign as it does to getting others to fight and kill for them.
As was no doubt the intention, Clinton’s “spin” that Russia was supplying attack helicopters to Syria went a long way – the US Congress, the British government and the mainstream media all fell into line calling for action. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote to the US defense secretary calling the Russian state arms firm “an enabler of mass murder in Syria”, and Cobra, the British government’s emergency security committee, met several times.
It turned out, however, that what the New York Times described as “the Obama administration’s sharpest criticism yet of Russia’s support for the Syrian government” was, according to a senior Defense Department official, “a little spin” put on the story by Clinton so as “to put the Russians in a difficult position”. It was three helicopters of “marginal use militarily”, explained the Times, returning from routine servicing in Russia.
For their part, the mainstream media bear some responsibility for the slide toward sectarian war in Syria, the victims of which, as always, are civilians. The media’s conceptualization of victims and oppressors has in effect eliminated the space for negotiation. Lavrov has warned: “Either we gather everyone with influence at the negotiating table or once again we depart into ideology, where it is declared shamelessly that everything is the fault of the regime, while everyone else are angels and therefore the regime should be changed.
“The way the Syrian crisis is resolved”, he advised, “will play an important role in the world tomorrow; whether the world will be based on the UN Charter, or a place where might makes right.”
Aisling Byrne is projects coordinator with Conflicts Forum and is based in Beirut.
Source: Asia Times
The Department of Justice has a long record of acting as the dictatorship of jurisprudence. Acting like council to the mob, the “Consigliore” Attorney General plots protection rackets for the ultimate organized crime syndicate. Eric Holder is the latest in a long line of lawyers that distort and stretch credibility to the theater of the absurd. Making up legal arguments to distort or conceal culpability is a prime prerequisite to serve as the chief law enforcement thug for the current President.
Some four decades ago, the nation suffered through the most critical constitutional crisis of recent times. The Watergate calamity tormented the nation on a daily basis, resulting in a new level of cynicism and disgust. What started as a third rate burglary concluded in the resignation of Richard. M. Nixon. The flawed life of the symbol of the imperial presidency, shamed into submission, vacated office to avoid conviction. Sadly, the prospect that Barack Hussein Obama has the dignity of ignominy to fade away from the White House is most remote.Nixon’s Attorney Generals John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst earned their disgrace for the cover-up, while Holder has built an entire career on sleaze and treason. Some of the inglorious achievements of Holder include his finger prints all over the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Marc Rich Pardon and the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.Therefore, when the
Fast and Furious scandal became a thorn in the side of the Obama administration, the lackey fixer was called upon to do his stonewall dance. From the contempt vote in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Holder’s tiptoe is not exactly getting rave reviews from the political pundits.The charges of playing partisan politics coming from the Democratic choirs are reminiscent of the Nixon defenders at every disclosure from the Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman damage control team. Remember the hilarious responses from Nixon’s Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler? Compare that comic performance with the idiotic comments from James “Jay” Carney. The only difference is that Obama won’t use the same body language, when Nixon pushed Ziegler from the backside out of frustration.”Fast and Furious” has not risen to the public outcry of Watergate because of the nature of the mainstream pressitute media. The heralded coverage from the
Washington Post warns Republicans to venture with kid gloves.
“But arguing in a partisan fashion is a loser for Republicans. Already there are GOP leaders who want to promote what they’re doing, not just on the merits of the matter at hand, but by asserting that the Democrats were much worse in their treatment of the Bush Justice Department. That is not a reason to aggressively pursue this tragedy. No Republican or conservative commentator should even raise it. The notion that this is partially motivated by political payback is very damaging to what very little credibility Congress has today, and the approach is belittling to agent Brian Terry, who was killed, and unfair to his family. Also, by the way, it’s the worst political move Republicans can make.”
|From Tricky Dick|
|To Barry Soetoro|
Not exactly, the same daring reporting, that Woodard and Bernstein invented, in their quixotic quest to take down the naughty Nixon. Shielding the peccadilloes of the Obama administration is a full time effort for the liberal press, but avoiding the extreme transgression of the DoJ to create another false flag excuse, is indefensible. Therefore, when CBS reports some real news, it becomes a true event!
“Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3?. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”
Is there an honest man or woman in the Obama administration? Recall the valor of Nixon’s Attorney General, Elliot Richardson and his resignation that precipitated the “Saturday Night Massacre“. Look around for a courageous Deputy AG like William Ruckelshaus in the corrupt den of vipers that serve not an imperial president but a collectivist dictator. Woefully, all you find are careerist stooges who follow orders. When Robert Bork finally, fired independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, his reputation was negatively impacted.No impeachment for this “constitutional lawyer” !!!
Obama acts as tin horn despot in the land of the drug cartel. The federal government is addicted to fiat pronouncements designed to circumnavigate around Congress. Executive orders are de facto usurpation of legislative authority. Executive privilege that spits in the eye of separation of powers is an impeachable offense.
Refusal to instruct Eric Holder to turn over the complete record of “Fast and Furious” documents makes the same mistake that Nixon made when he decided to violate his oath of office. The appearance of withholding evidence of possible sinister disclosures becomes a reality when transparency is abandoned. Coming clean on the decision process and naming names of those responsible for “gunwalking” practices is imperative.
What does the Obama crowd fear? It seems unlikely that a G. Gordon Liddy clone went rogue or a James McCord want-a-be was stealing guns on the side. What the American public needs to know is the E. Howard Hunt figure behind “Fast and Furious”?
Those too young to remember the paralysis and fallout that engulfed the government during Watergate will not appreciate the national danger that arises when an administration is determined to force a constitutional crisis. For all practical purpose, the U.S. Constitution is already abolished. The duty of Congress to reassert its legitimate oversight function is crucial for a second American revolution to remain non-violent.
Ironically, the intent to gut the second amendment was certainly an intended objective behind the gun running operation. The federal authoritarians at ATF are no different from the gang members on a segment of the Sons of Anarchy FX series. Fiction becomes fact when the government enforces their brand of tyranny as national security. When the rubber hits the road and the guns turn on government officers, one would normally hear a deafening scream for accountability.Holder has clearly demonstrated that agent Brian Terry was expendable, and that his family does not fall under the protective umbrella of justice.
The Watergate break-in was purportedly an operation to secure proof that the Cuban government was supplying funds to the Democratic Party. Somehow supplying Mexican drug lords with military grade weapons seems just a little more outrageous.Now, the political climate forty years later is hardly an environment that gives confidence that the people, much less then the government, is committed to lawful accountability. The political impact may be marginable because presently national outrage over any scandal has a very short half-life. The toxic consequences of allowing career criminals to hold public office is the death trap for any democratic regime, much less a constitutional republic.
When Marco Rubio Says Eric Holder Should Resign, some will claim it is just politics. The correct question is why isn’t President Obama demanding the head of Eric Holder? We all know the answer to this question. Crooks keep their soldiers in the fold until they are no longer useful.The manner by which this next escalation of the “Fast and Furious” operation is reported will tell much about the level of decency left in the country. Obama has decided to stretch out the controversy by pushing the Congress to go to court. Not much has changed for the better since the Watergate tragedy. Under Obama, you have a megalomaniac that makes Richard Nixon look tame.
Congress needs to step up and do their duty with bipartisan support. The Rubio demand will soon look meek, as angry citizens’ calls for the resignation of the POTUS himself. The fall election should register public sentiment on the intensity of indignation. Hopefully, a second Obama manic term and administration will be a moot issue.
The media three-ring circus focus on the forthcoming trial of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin has all the hallmarks of another rush to judgment. Conviction in the press is nothing new, when the dominant liberal bleeding hearts feel offended. Others can relish on every detail, motivation and circumstance, but this viewpoint obscures the fundamental conflict that exists in society. It is a social taboo to engage in a sincere and substantive dialogue on race in this country. The long history that consumes racial animosity will always continue as long as “Political Correctness” prohibits genuine honesty.
Many Blacks suffer from selective memory when charges of racism are hurled around as if hatred only resides in the hearts and minds of White Americans. Conspicuously absent in this bias viewpoint is the perverse sentiment and conduct from their own “community”. When a country elevates a demented and disruptive despot like Eric Holder to the office of Attorney General, the nation is at peril from selective prosecution. Do not forget the lesson from the pathetic refusal of Holder to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voting law violations in Philadelphia.
The Daily Caller reports,
“Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that voter intimidation by members of the New Black Panther Party was different than the historic intimidation experienced by “my people.”
In December, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released a scathing report on the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panthers case.”
This is the same Holder of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma City and Marc Rich pardon infamy. Now he is up to his ears with “Fast and Furious”. If this is the standard for Black justice, no wonder the atmosphere for racial discontent is fanned by a history of brutal totalitarianism. The jungle collectivism that excuses social hysteria for a serious dialogue on civilized behaviors is at the core of the racial divide.
Therefore, when Eric Holder Praises Left-Wing Activist Al Sharpton, Says Facts, Law Will Guide Trayvon Martin Investigation, any reasonable person should be skeptical.
“Attorney General Eric Holder praised left-wing activist Rev. Al Sharpton at the opening of the National Action Network (NAN) convention on Wednesday, and also stressed that the Justice Department is conducting a thorough investigation of the fatal Trayvon Martin shooting that “will examine the facts and the law.”
The consequences for ignoring the law at the Philadelphia ballot location lead to the following.
“That $10,000 bounty on George Zimmerman’s head by a hate crimes movement deserves as close an inspection by the DOJ as Eric Holder promised in the Trayvon Martin case. Otherwise, it looks like race is truly an issue in this particular controversial topic, as Zimmerman’s anonymous family member insinuates in a letter to the man appointed by Pres. Obama.
New Black Panthers member, Mikhail Muhammad, didn’t hesitate to say to the nation at large that the monetary promise he and his group were making for the unauthorized (dead or alive) apprehension of Zimmerman was just “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” mentality, as reported by NPR at the end of March.”
The video New Black Panthers: Race War For Trayvon April 9th ‘Day of Action’caused quite a stir. When the heat got too hot Michelle Williams made a feeble attempt to save her ass.
“My words were out of anger. I did not incite, I did not promote, nor did I encourage anyone to go and pick up a gun.”
The significance of all this self-reviling racist rhetoric is that it drives an even greater wedge into the social fabric. When compared to the written arguments of traditional columnists like John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg, you gain a clear distinction in the true meaning of racist conduct.
The Neocon publication, The National Review banished both columnists for violating the “PC” canon. Telling racial truth is not allowed in the realm of the Rich Lowryorthodoxy.
“Unbeknowst to us, occasional Phi Beta Cons contributor Robert Weissberg (whose book was published a few years ago by Transaction) participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism,” editor Rich Lowry wrote in a post on the National Review’s website. “He will no longer be posting here. Thanks to those who brought it to our attention.”
In The Guillotining of John Derbyshire, Alex Kurtagic writes,
“John Derbyshire’s “Talk” column for Takimag last week detonated the ire of commentators on the lunatic fringes of the extreme Left. Ulcers flared and torrents of bile swamped the internet. The roar was even heard across the Atlantic, as the Guardian weighed in, wondering on Sunday why Mr. Derbyshire’s piece was still online. By Monday I was perplexed to find that, amidst the still raging sandstorm of prose, not one journalist or commentator had sought Mr. Derbyshire for comment (though Gawker finally published an interview later that day). What follows is my effort to rectify this omission.”
The Conservative Times adds this valuable insight.
“If you haven’t been following the development, Derbyshire’s article at TakiMag, “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” is a play on the “talk” that black leaders tell blacks to have with their children: don’t trust whitey. Looking at mundane crime statistics, Derbyshire wrote a piece advising white parents to tell their kids not to visit black neighborhoods, etc. The leftist and neocon media went ballistic. Derb was first attacked by PC leftists, who were quickly joined by Trotskyite neocons like Jonah Goldberg and Ramesh Ponnuru.
Why now? Derbyshire has written controversial pieces previously. Is the MSM now pushing for a final pre-election purge of all unacceptable thought from mainstream press? First Buchanan and now Derb? Is it because it’s on the heals of the Trayvon Martin story? Is it because Derb, undergoing chemotherapy, is now most vulnerable? Or, is it because what he says hits so close to home? Although one may disagree with a few points in Derb’s piece, who’s going to disagree with its main premise? How many white suburban liberal parents do you know that tell their kids to go hang out with gangbangers in the inner city? Everyone knows what Derb writes is true. Perhaps that is his real crime. In a state of totalitarian political correctness, telling the truth is the greatest crime one can commit.”
Finally, The Daily Caller chimes in with the politically correct catcalls from suspect conservative publications that boast their “TC” (Totalitarian Collectivism) credentials.
“The American Conservative’s Noah Millman, who considers himself a friend of Derbyshire’s, told TheDC that it’s no surprise National Review ended its relationship with the longtime contributor.
“I think it’s safe to say that Derbyshire’s piece was bluntly racist,” Millman said.
“Derbyshire seems to think that there’s a straight line of deductive reasoning from his views on the science of racial differences and the observable statistical disparities in things like crime rates, to his ‘advice’ to his children about how to keep themselves safe from black-on-white violence.”
The contrast between the unholy behavior of the New Black Panther Party and Eric Holder to the intellectual advocacy of John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg is evident to any objective observer. The manner in which an Al Sharpton spouts his venom on MSNBC, while bona fide traditional conservatives are cast into the pit of obscurity, is proof of the concerted effort to silence the common sense alternative to the destructive outcome of radical racist social reality.
The fallout from the George Zimmerman – Trayvon Martin carnival produces a sideshow to divert your attention from the actual national disasters. Class warfare to enhance social welfare entitlements is the game. State Attorney Angela Corey’s attempt to become the next Marcia Rachel Clark is no substitute for addressing the racial divides. Since Zimmerman is half Latino, why is he being painted as whitey?The conscious intent to avoid a forthright discussion on race is a central foundation of the progressive guilt complex. Discrimination against whites is condoned under the Holder doctrine of perverted justice. Such double standards are recognized by articulate and solid conservative Blacks, that commit the cardinal sin against their own race; namely, being fair and honest.
America is on the verge of a monumental financial collapse as the media attempts to build ratings around a killing that needs resolution in court by a jury of Mr. Zimmerman’s peers. The hood that is the center of the trial is the one placed over the head of Lady Justice. This country champions social denial and condemns any voice of reason and racial sanity. High moral and ethical standards have no color barrier. True justice is universal. One in three black men resides in jail at some point in their lives. Do you really believe most deserve incarceration, much less the fate of Mr. Martin? It is time to start an earnest discussion on race for the survival of an equitable social order.
Do you remember the second terms under President William Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush? Even the most rabid partisans cannot say with a straight face that memorable government came during their last four years. Now the nation suffers from the Obama malaise that rivals the Jimmy Carter debacle. The dependency culture, especially in the post 911 incarnations, adjusted to the heavy hand of government omnipotence to accept the next level of political excess. Recent polls suggest that the enlightened voters of the nanny state are prepared to cast their ballot to give Barry Soetoro another term. Their answer to the proverbial question, are you better off today than four years ago, indicates just how far the collective mentality of the electorate has fallen.
The essential dialogue, which the mainstream press refuses to report, avoids the depth of the tyranny that government has achieved. Examine the range and scope of federal agencies and compare those to the most invasive and desperate days of World War II. If one awoke from a long Rip Van Winkle sleep and declared your loyalty to the American Revolution you would be judged a terrorist. This ironic twist from rising from a resting slumber as a British subject, to a free and independent citizen, is all upside down today. The American empire replaced the Crown and the sovereign individual became a doped dependent to a dominating despotism.
With this context in mind, can you blame the brain dead voter from casting their X on the ballot form and pay homage to the foreign-born dictator? If you are one of the parasites that feed off the public trough, you will hail the emperor that wears no clothes as your hero. This simple relationship may well explain why the prospects for four more Obama years are in the cards.
A site called Obama’s Achievements Center provided a laundry list of Obama Administration’s Achievements. The categories include:
|Arts and Culture||Housing|
|Banking and Financial Reform||Humanitarianism|
|Commerce, Trade and technology||Infrastructure|
|Economy||Law and Justice|
|Education: College||Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security|
|Education: Health of Children||Military and National Security|
|Employment: Jobs||Military Veterans and Families|
|Energy: Green||National Disasters and Emergencies|
|Energy: Old||National Service|
|Energy: Oil||Scientific and Medical Research|
|Foreign Affairs and International Relations||Space Exploration and Space Station|
|Health and Wellness||Transparency and Accountability|
|Health Care Reform (See also Taxes)||Miscellaneous|
Take the time to browse some of the items on this site and separate the promises from the results. If this is progress, can you imagine the giveaway programs in a second Obama Term? By any reasonable standard, the presidential election should stand or fall on the prospect of the economy. However, Michael Tefft sheds perspective on how one defines the political significance of the economy in It’s Official: Most Americans Make Their Living Off The Government.
“A widely covered report from TrimTabs Investment Research, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has found that 35 percent of all earnings are now direct transfer payments from the government. According to CNBC, “social welfare benefits make up 35 percent of wages and salaries this year, up from 21 percent in 2000 and 10 percent in 1960.”
But the real story is much worse. Nearly 8% of Americans work directly for the government while an additional 9.6% of Americans work as contractors for the government. Taken together, more than half of all Americans make their living directly from the government. “We have reached a tipping point,” says Grassfire Nation’s Steve Elliott. “That’s why what is happening in Wisconsin could have huge ramifications. Unless citizens stand now for less government and fiscal restraint, the government-dependent class will demand more and more government and our nation will be destroyed from within.”
A little historic context adds to the analysis. Michael Filozof in Prepare Yourself for Obama’s Second Term reminds what happens when the opposition loses their nerve.
“Does anyone remember the disaster that was Bill Clinton’s first term? The first attempt to put gays in the military, the first attack on the World Trade Center by Muslim fanatics, and the “Assault Weapons” Ban? The proposal to raise taxes, increase spending, and downsize the military? Hillary arrogantly proclaiming that she was no little Tammy Wynette standing by her man and baking cookies? That she would revamp the entire health care system, by herself, in secret, without congressional input? Does anyone remember the Waco debacle, which led directly to the Oklahoma City bombing, and Clinton’s allegation that it was the fault of talk radio? Does anyone remember the landslide Republican victory in the House in 1994, breaking forty straight years of Democratic control — a massive rebuke of the Clinton administration?
And yet…Clinton got re-elected in 1996. He didn’t just squeak by, either — he won a crushing 379-159 victory in the Electoral College and beat the Republican ticket by eight and a half percent in the popular vote.
Conservatives were in shock. How could this happen? Answer: after the 1994 conservative revolution in the midterm elections, the Republican 1996 presidential campaign turned into the Revenge of the Flaming Moderates.”
Nonetheless, most rational voters ignore the phony illusion that Republicans are really a counterweight to the madness of the Marxists that pose as Democrats. The preposterous pipe dream that the loyal opposition will act different from the current criminal regime is a true test of the mental health of the idiots that believe there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans.
A favorite leftist site alternet lists Nine Things Obama Should Do In a Second Term.
|1. Free higher education at all public institutions of higher education||4. Manhattan Project for renewable energy||7. Fifty-percent income tax on all income over $5 million a year (with no loopholes)|
|2. Add a million teachers (and teachers’ aides) to the public school system||5. Financial transaction tax||8. Get behind a constitutional amendment to end the buying of elections|
|3. Medicare for all||6. Break up the big banks||9. Legalize pot/empty the prisons|
Now some of these objectives as, break up the big banks seem appropriate in the abstract. However, the devil is in the details, which are written or managed by the very institutional interests that are viewed as the cause of serious problems. Some will reach out for a small glimmer of hope for gridlock. However, few astute observers project that a genuine reversal of the nanny state is possible much less likely.
From Outside the Beltway, Doug Mataconis theorizes in Obama’s Second Term Would Be Neither Groundbreaking Nor A Calamity.
“As I noted, the tendency for second Presidential terms to be largely a disappointment is something neither Democrats nor Republicans would like to acknowledge publicly. Democrats would prefer their supporters to think that a second Obama Administration would mean further progress on the goals set in the campaign, many of which have been abandoned over the past three years. Republicans, on the other hand, want their supporters to believe that a second Obama Administration would be an absolute calamity and, indeed, I’ve run into more than a few conservatives who seem absolutely convinced of the silly idea that the re-election of Barack Obama would mean the end of America. Neither of them would get much political mileage out of telling their supporters the truth, which is that a second Obama Administration is unlikely to be anywhere near as successful in achieving its goals, especially if one or both Houses of Congress is controlled by the opposition (or as long as the filibuster exists in the Senate).”
Most serious conservatives see every administration as a calamity because disappointment is the actual legacy of the last presidency. Even the venerable Daily Paul site fears that the Liberty message will die once again at another Republican convention. Consider the horror of this prospect. ‘Al Cardenas, head of the American Conservative Union, has said that Republican turmoil might lead to a brokered convention in which Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, would emerge as a ‘possible alternative’ party nominee.’The tangible tragedy is why did not some “Blue Dog” Democrat challenge President Obama in a primary? The Loony Left can always draft Keith Olbermann as their standard-bearer if they were serious about their mindless ideology. Allowing the Obama clone another four years proves that big government proponents have lost their own self-respect.
The absurdity of staged elections should sicken every real American. Under a second Obama presidency, you will never be better off again. A vote for this pretender tool is the height of lunacy. What else can you expect from a society populated by comatose Rip Van Winkle snoozers? If you want your vote to have meaning, Ron Paul is the only choice.
Imagine having the mental prowess to be able to create living filaments heretofore unknown, that can reproduce themselves, some of which come with identifying letters embossed on them, and then to make them extrude from beneath your skin, all against your conscious will.
Sound like science fiction? It’s not, says the US Centers for Disease Control.
Despite having spent four years and $600,000, and using the world’s largest forensic database, the premier health agency reports it is unable to identify the source of the fibers emanating from those suffering with Morgellons. 
The CDC suggests that four out of a hundred thousand people, the rate of infection in Northern California, are imagining these filaments into existence.
Comprising an array of physical and mental symptoms , Morgellons is distinguished by novel fibers that protrude from the skin, causing lesions and sores that do not heal, or that heal very slowly. Though clustered in California, Florida and Texas, it is found in every state and around the planet.
“We conducted an investigation of this unexplained dermopathy to characterize the clinical and epidemiologic features and explore potential etiologies,” the paper explains. The only potential etiology suggested was that the patients were delusional:
“No common underlying medical condition or infectious source was identified, similar to more commonly recognized conditions such as delusional infestation.”
The CDC provided more information in its press releases  hyping the study than it did in the 300-word study published last week. Its Unexplained Dermopathy webpage goes beyond what was reported in the actual study, saying there is “no evidence of an environmental link,” and promised to do no further studies. 
“People who suffer from Morgellons disease are NOT delusional no matter what the CDC or the mainstream press would have you believe,” says Jan Smith of MorgellonsExposed.com. She’s suffered with Morgellons for over 13 years.
The image above is on her home page. “Ponder why a person with Morgellons disease would have tissue coming out of their body with embossed letters on it. This photo is real and the sample has not been altered in any way. It is available for research and DNA testing.” 
The CDC study reported, “Most materials collected from participants’ skin were composed of cellulose, likely of cotton origin.”
One of the specimens extruded from Smith’s body was found to be composed of cellulose and GNA, the synthetic form of DNA.  Glycol nucleic acid does not occur naturally; it is used to create synthetic life forms. 
But why would the CDC not know exactly the origin of the cellulose, instead saying it’s likely from cotton? And what about the rest that was not cellulose? The study provided no details.
The CDC sent the cellulose and unnatural fibers to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, reports the Associated Press.  AFIP has been collecting fiber samples and other forensic material for 150 years.  Its 2011 budget was $65 million.  Surely, if these novel fibers are natural or lab-created, the AFIP would know. Apparently not.
AFIP is the same group that collected all the forensic evidence of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon and at the Pennsylvania crash site, under code name Operation Noble Eagle.  Forensic evidence and a generous dose of imagination led National Geographic to produce a documentary asserting that the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon disintegrated on impact. Talk about delusion.
Please support my work by reading the full piece at Activist Post. Thanks!
The Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention was predicted to be a dud. According to a number of BWC watchers, the expectations for this conference accomplishing very much at all were quite low.
And if you believe the mainstream media, the only noteworthy event during the fourteen day conference, held at Palais Nations in Geneva, Switzerland, took place on December 7, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the meeting. Clinton’s speech (http://www.state.gov/
John Bolton was Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security back in 2001 when the US stonewalled the long awaited verification protocols, refusing to accept the proposal which was years in the making. In a widely quoted speech, Bolton said, “Will we be courageous, unflinching, and timely in our actions to develop effective tools to deal with the threat as it exists today, or will we merely defer to slow moving multilateral mechanisms that are oblivious to what is happening in the real world…The United States will simply not enter into agreements that allow rogue states or others to develop and deploy biological weapons. We will continue to reject flawed texts like the BWC draft Protocol, recommended to us simply because they are the product of lengthy negotiations or arbitrary deadlines, if such texts are not in the best interests of the United States and many other countries represented here today.”
Due to this, the BWC remains a paper tiger, a treaty in name only, with no means of dealing with violations and no way to verify compliance. 165 nations to date have signed the treaty, which entered into force in 1975.
Yes, if you were to believe mainstream media, nothing happened in the rotunda in Room 18, Building E at the United Nations during those icy days in December. Diplomats from all over the world earnestly debated the merits of proposed language for inclusion in a final declaration (http://www.unog.ch/
One might be tempted to shake one’s head in bewilderment at the earnest labors of the best and the brightest over a document which could be seen as fulfilling the poetic prophesy of Macbeth’s famous absurdist lament……”Full of sound and fury/signifying nothing.” Because in reality, without a verification and implementation protocol, the BWC is pretty much hot air.
Not all in attendance supported the continued lack of verification. Delegates from India, Iran, Cuba and elsewhere repeatedly and plaintively raised their voices insisting that the Convention get back on track and attend to creating a mechanism to give itself some teeth.
These voices were effectively squelched by the Western “democracies,” as the UK, Canada, Switzerland and others (including the United States, of course) steered discussion away from verification, advocating instead fiddling around with the unverifiable CBMs. The CBMs (“Confidence Building Measures”) are forms on which each country is to self report its research programs, legislation and other aspects of their biological “defense” programs. The utter absurdity of expecting countries to accurately report their activities on these forms is reflected in the dismal rate of compliance in submissions. Asking the fox to report on his behavior in the henhouse and calling these unverifiable forms “Confidence Building Measures” is simply not taken seriously by most countries. The low CBM submission rate reflects the level of perceived weight these forms carry.
But was the Seventh Review Conference just a bunch of suits and starched shirts exercising their considerable verbal acuity and diplomatic skills and fiddling around while Rome burns?
The threat of a biological weapons deployment is more severe now than at any other time in recent history. Amidst rumors and allegations of covert bioweapons programs in Iran, Russia, Libya and, of course, the drone of complaints about the “terrorists,” the United States has quietly and with studied deception launched a biological weapons program of its own. The BWC bans the development, production and stockpiling of these weapons of mass destruction, but does not ban research. Currently, there are over 1360 BSL-3′s in the US and, while the CDC insists there are only 6 BSL-4′s, the actual number appears far higher (http://www.activistpost.com/
Apparently, the Soviet Union had indeed launched an offensive biological weapons program, a fact which came to light in the 1990´s, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A Soviet scientist who subsequently came over to the US, Dr. Kenneth Alibek, believes that Russia is still involved in developing offensive biological weapons (http://thewednesdayreport.
Russia, Great Britain and the US are the depositaries of the Biological Weapons Convention, which is not technically a United Nations treaty agreement, but is rather posited with the Big Three.
This reporter attended the BWC under the mantle of an NGO with the intent of informing the world community that the United States has violated the treaty and has launched a secret, illegal bioweapons program with intent to deploy. The information provided the delegates, both in a short speech and in subsequent handouts, summarized the following concerns:
- The United States has amended its biological weapons legislation via Section 817 of the US PATRIOT Act and is now giving its own agents immunity from prosecution for violating the law
- The United States has failed to report this change in legislation to the BWC, as it is mandated to do in a politically binding agreement
- These weapons are reported to be secretly stockpiled at Sierra Army Depot in Northern California
- Two separate domestic delivery systems have been delineated—one involving country wide reconfigurations of water systems and the other involving imposter pharmaceuticals
While questions have been raised about some of the general language in 817, the fundamental concern revolves around its final caveat, which states that “c)… the prohibition contained in this section shall not apply to any duly authorized United States governmental activity.” A number of attorneys have weighed in on the implications of this peculiar caveat, and some controversy has been brewing as to the meaning of this release from culpability.
These concerns were magnified rather than alleviated by the behavior of representatives from the United States during three side events, hosted by Team USA. Dr. Daniel Gerstein of the Department of Homeland Security made a presentation detailing the US’s legislative efforts to combat bioterrorism. However, his power point demonstration featured the older legislation, Title 18 Chapter 10 chapter 175, and did not include mention of the problematic revisions in Section 817 http://www.ehrs.upenn.edu/
When this omission was brought to his attention, he mumbled something about needing to check the legislation and quickly moved on to another questioner. When queried about the reports of stockpiles at Sierra Army Depot, Gerstein declared that he didn’t believe there was such a military base Here is the link to Sierra Army Depot, which does indeed exist (http://www.sierra.army.mil/
Gerstein made an alarming prediction during his presentation, stating that “we expect a pandemic by the end of 2013.” One must wonder how Gerstein could possibly pinpoint a timeline for a pandemic, which is generally seen to be the result of unpredictable microscopic events. Unless, of course, he has a hand in creating one.
At the second US side event, Selwyn R. Jamison of FBI Bioterrorism responded to a query that the language in 817 constitutes a violation of the BWC stating, “You must be mistaken. The US does not violate treaties.” There was no time allowed for a follow up question which would have refuted his statement. Waterboarding and the Convention Against Torture come to mind, for starters.
At a third US side event, panel members from Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control were asked about plans to triage in event of a pandemic, plans which were first published in Chest, a journal of the American Medical Association, in May of 2008. The triage plans delineate that some people, such as the elderly and those with cognitive disabilities, would of necessity be denied medical care, in the event of scarce resources. The Associated Press subsequently picked up on the Chest reports, in a widely published article entitled “Triage plan details whom to let die during a pandemic.”http://articles.
However, both Dr. George Korch of HHS and Dr. Scott Dowell of CDC disavowed knowledge of such triage plans.
While a number of reporters were present for these events, none chose to report on these concerns. Besides some spotty attendance by the mainstream press, the Bioweapons Prevention Project had a reporter present at the BWC, Richard Guthrie. Guthrie (http://www.cbw-events.org.uk/
A number of NGO participants took a different view of the relevance of concerns as to the US’s compliance, as did a number of state parties, who directly contacted this reporter to express alarm and gratitude for bringing these issues to the fore. Whether or not a state party will act upon these concerns and request the Secretary General to assign an inspection team is as yet undetermined. In the absence of a verification protocol, the only way that an inspection team can be assembled is if a state party contacts the UN Secretary General and requests this.
This reporter also had meetings with several higher-ups at the UN. Valere Mantels, Political officer of the Geneva branch of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, refused to accept documentation from this reporter, saying “I am not going to burn my fingers turning over documentation to the Secretary General.” Peter Kolarov of Disarmament Affairs declined to meet with this reporter, suggesting the documentation be taken to New York (?). UN Political officer Bantan Nugroho, also of Disarmament Affairs, did agree to a meeting and was handed a stack of relevant documentation. He declined to take action, cheerfully suggesting that this reporter take Gerstein’s 2013 prediction as a personal deadline.
A final meeting with Jarmo Sareva, Director of Disarmament Affairs at the Geneva branch of the United Nations, ended in a stalemate when he informed this reporter, “We are neutral. We do not take sides.” When it was suggested that neutrality was a concept useful when there was a debate about facts but here the documentation amassed may have transcended what could be termed a difference of opinion, he mumbled something about how countries might “use this information for political purposes….” This reporter pushed ahead, stating that “we are not talking about missing money here. We are talking about the possible destruction of human life on a nearly unimaginable scale.”
When Sareva did not respond this reporter terminated the meeting.
Early on in the Conference, a member of the US delegation made a comment which may reflect the true nature of the current status of the Biological Weapons Convention. This delegate, an officer at the US State Department, reminded the attendees that the BWC itself provides for no meetings after the First Conference. “This Conference has no legal standing,” he declared. “We just like each other a lot and so we keep getting together, year after year. But there is no legally binding aspect to anything we do here.”
While in Geneva, I went to see the new Soderbergh film, “Contagion.” The movie features a scenario in which a pandemic wipes out a big chunk of the world´s population. The meta messages in the movie were clear—“Government is good. A pandemic is an accidental natural event and your government is only trying to protect you. Bloggers, however, are evil and opportunistic and not to be believed.” Propaganda, it appears, is not only the dominion of main stream reporters. Hollywood has gotten into the game, as well, pushing out movies which have a subtext which is frankly poisonous.
So where does this leave us? While no overt movement took place in terms of dealing with the threat posed by the United states, seeds may have been planted. Delegates from a number of countries expressed their concern to me, promising to take the information back to their respective capitals. One can hope that they do.
As I said to Director Jarmo Sareva as I pleaded for intervention, we appear to be cresting on a deliberately engineered attack, under the guise of a circumstantial pandemic, which has the potential of killing untold millions of people. The fact that the delivery systems which have been identified are domestic indicates that the United States is planning to attack selected segments of its own population. Saddam Hussein was hung for a purported attack on his own people, the infamous gassing of the Kurds. Is the United States now so powerful that no one will attempt to put a stop to this?
Is there a country on earth which has the guts to stand up to America and demand accountability? And while we are waiting to see if a country breaks from the pack, what can we do to protect ourselves?
To be continued…
Nothing is more emblematic of the mainstream media (MSM) than NBC’s “Meet the Press.” I wonder if it should be renamed “Meet the Corporate Mainstream Press” because that is exactly what it was on Sunday. Before the first vote was cast, Sunday’s panel anointed Mitt Romney as the Republican candidate to face Barack Obama this fall. I really wonder why we have caucuses or primaries at all. We should all just watch TV and let shows like “Meet the Press” tell us what’s good for us. The word pompous comes to mind when I see them in action, and last night, Ron Paul showed them how little they know what America really wants by finishing just a few percentage points behing the Romney.
The MSM doesn’t tell reporters or guests what to say; they just pick the people who will say what they want. I heard only one relatively flattering thing about front runner Ron Paul during the entire discussion. Kathie Obradovich from the Des Moines Register said some of the caucus goers were “flocking” to Ron Paul because they were “desperate for real change,” and Congressman Paul was “completely different.” Other than that, every other word about Paul was negative. Why? Let’s face it, the left and right do not want real change and will try to taint or destroy anyone who brings it. They want the system of secret banker bailouts and Fed deals that rescue companies like General Electric from financial ruin which is part owner of NBC. (During the financial meltdown of 2008, GE was the sole owner of NBC and now has only a 49% share of the network.) They do not want prosecutions of Wall Street bankers for causing the financial meltdown with “liar loans” and “toxic” mortgage backed securities. Republicans and Democrats want what they have now and are just taking turns ripping off the country. The corporate owned MSM is just happy to take campain advertising money and are happy to cover the fake fighting.
You could not have gotten a more Romney biased panel on “Meet the Press” if you would have gone to Mitt’s campaign headquarters. Mike Murphy, GOP strategist, said Congressman Paul, “. . . would be the surprise disappointing finish.” Mark Halperin of Time Magazine said he saw “two scenarios for Romney and they were “great” and “good.” Andrea Mitchel of NBC said Paul “really hurt himself on foreign policy.” To be fair, it is not just NBC doing a hatchet job on Congressman Paul, other networks have been less than objective. Yesterday on FOX, Democratic strategist James Carville opined that Romney was the only Republican that “has a chance of winning nationally.”
I think the Democrats and President Obama would like nothing more than to run against the man who thinks“corporations are people too.” Mitt Romney would be predictable and would not go after the real issues that are holding America back. The main issue is the fraud and rip-offs in the financial system. There will be no recovery and little job creation unless and until the banks and Wall Street are no longer able to rig the system so they always win. There should also be some prosecutions, but I digress. Romney, who couldn’t get much more than 25% of the Iowa Republican vote, will be very beatable for Mr. Obama. Both are the picks of Super PAC corporations. Santorum would just be the Republican replacement for Romney if he can hold up after Iowa.
Paul, on the other hand, would be unpredictable and difficult to corner. The Congressman also has something all other Republicans envy and that is motivated, young supporters who want real change. President Obama can no longer campaign on the change slogan. He got in and nothing really changed.
If you would have said Ron Paul would be a close third in Iowa a year ago, I am sure you would have been laughed out of the room. That is the same thing you could have said about Barack Obama in January of 2008. Hillary Clinton was so strong, they were doing skits on “Saturday Night Live” belittling the other candidates in the Democratic field. We all know how that turned out. I am not stumping for Congressman Paul. I just want accurate reporting, and accurate reporting is usually fair reporting. I don’t see much objectivity from most of the MSM, and it is not asking too much for facts without spin or distortion.
Source: Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com
Remember that the hearings was closed to the public and the media. Classic Scandinavian style – an “open society” right.
The judge ordered that 32-year-old Andres Behring Breivik is to be detained without access to letters or visitors, apart from his lawyer. He’s getting four weeks in isolation. Maybe enought time to carry out more mind control experiments on Breivik.
Apparently the police knew the gunman’s name before the arresthe’s was on a intelligence watch list since March. Someone in Poland was said to be arrested, this is now being denied by Polish authorities.
Questions have been raised about why it took 90 minutes for the police to reach the island Utoya.
Breivik has said he was “surprised” he wasn’t stopped sooner.
In an article from the telegraph, Breivik now claims that he was recruited to a secret society in London and that he guided by an English “mentor”.
We don’t know the truth about this “secret society” or English “mentor”, this could be nonsense put out by Breivik to further confuse the investigation. It could be the truth but it could also be the spin of the “advisers” and the “” behind the scenes.
Tragedies are always used for political purposes. This will justify another hunt for a “new kind of terrorist” that isn’t really there.
This might even change the fact that you have the right of meeting in “secret” or doing things in “secret”. Even if you might not agree to how the masons do business, I think most people value their privacy and right do do what they want to do – without the knowledge of authorities or other people …as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.
Now your thoughts and opinions are the target and all the “insane ideas” that are spreading on the internet.
Paul Joseph Watson wrote:
It’s also a reminder that the mainstream press instantly falls in line with whoever the establishment designates the enemy du jour to be at any given time. Now that Muslims have been so vehemently demonized as terrorists, it’s the turn of so called “right-wing extremists,” or anyone who disagrees with mass immigration, loss of sovereignty and globalist financial looting, to feel the heat.
The effort to smear European conservatives as unhinged radicals who harbor simmering urges for bloodlust is now in full swing, and it’s a demonization campaign firmly founded on the carefully crafted public portrayal of Anders Behring Breivik.
This tragedy is now in the hands the media, the police and the politicians.
They are now spinning a web designed to further trap anybody that have valid points of criticism against how society is being guided down the toilet.
Source: Henrik Palmgren | redicecreations.com
There’s an old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” meaning that people who believe they are doing good often end up doing evil. It’s the law of unintended consequences. Unfortunately this is what has happened to some–not all–religious conservative organizations. I know of altruistic Christian activists, both conservative and liberal, who believe they are doing God’s work, but in their effort to “right wrongs” they have utterly failed to honor God’s command to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. “ (Jude 1:3)
What does Jude mean? Simply that true followers of Jesus Christ are first and foremost to share Christ with the lost. Yet many so-called Christians are not evangelizing the lost for fear of being perceived as trying to “push their religion on others.” They detest being thought of as intolerant, thus they remain silent. News flash: The Gospel of Jesus Christ always has been and always will be offensive to those who are lost! It’s a whole lot easier to say “Jesus loves you” than “take up your cross and follow Him.”
Some prominent Christian Right (CR) leaders that head up ginormous organizations are so busy fighting the culture war that they’ve forgotten what’s most important — Truth! Jesus said: “Thy Word is truth!” (John 17:17)
The CR (unrepentantly) unites with pretty much anyone who is likeminded politically. Sadly this includes a slew of false teachers, cultists, and Social Justice Christians (SJC) a.k.a. Progressive Evangelicals. SJCs are chiefly liberals whose main goal is to dismantle historical, orthodox Christianity and usher in a “new kind of Christianity.” In the name of social justice, SJC leaders stealthly steer undiscerning believers into a left-wing collectivized utopia!
SJC is beyond of the scope of this article so I’ll move on.
PRAGMATISM = COMPROMISE
Many in the CR leadership are uniting with evil doers (God’s word, not mine). They have climbed aboard the SS Pragmatism and are proceeding full speed ahead into shark infested waters. Uniting with evil doers serves two specific purposes. It helps get the message out and provides an additional source of revenue. And let’s face it. When the money stops rolling in organizations are forced to close their doors. So these additional funds, regardless of the source, keep the message alive and the group afloat.
Before I move to my next point I need to stress that it is my belief that Christians should try to influence public policy. How? By casting their vote, serving in local government, forming and joining special interest groups, writing letters to the Editor, giving financial support, and participating in lawful demonstrations. Anti-abortion activists are a good example of Christians trying to influence public policy. Pro-lifers have formed groups comprised mostly of Christians that engage in politics because it is the only means they have to end abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will happen because of the dogged determination of political action groups.
For obvious reasons Christians should never relinquish control of the government to godless secular humanists and “grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29)! On the other hand, Christ never commanded His followers to build a theocracy!
Isn’t the NAR’s attempting to do this?
A SUBTLE SHIFT
P. J. Miller urges visitors to Sola Dei Gloria to read an essay by Rachel Tabachnic titled Lions In the Pews. “This is an extremely interesting article,” says Miller, “one I would suggest reading in its entirety. You may not agree with all of it, (the author touches on the rapture and a few other points which many believers differ over, theologically) but sitting that aside, the information concerning the subtle shift many Churches are making into Dominionist/Dominionism theology is excellent reading for those interested in the goals these people have set and are pursuing: That includes the NAR…” (Bold added by P. J.)
The following is an excerpt from Tabachnic’s article with bold by P. J.:
But this strand has emerged from Pentecostal and Charismatic backgrounds and has been nearly invisible to both the mainstream press and progressive writers. Like other Dominionists the New Apostolics are culture warriors and have specific stated goals for overtaking all spheres of American society and government as seen in the video above.
Also, like other dominionist groups they actually invest much of their efforts in fighting the traditional institutionalized church.
However, they differ from most other Dominionist groups in their embrace of the outpouring of gifts of the holy spirit, or manifestations, like being slain in the spirit, Holy Laughter, and other states of altered consciousness that are a part of their very experiential worship style.
The New Apostolic Reformation is also much more focused on the expulsion of demons as the process for healing, social reform, or even raising people from the dead. They have a unique and extensive lingo that is dedicated to the description of the expulsion of territorial demons including terms like ground level spiritual warfare, occult level spiritual warfare, and strategic level spiritual warfare.
While Pentecostal churches have always celebrated a restoration of the church, this has been tempered with Rapture theology. As churches embrace this Apostolic revolution they are moving away from the traditions of Assemblies of God and other denominations and are adopting a view of the end time that includes the triumph and perfection of the church as opposed to escaping in the Rapture from an evil world descending into the apocalypse.
They see the imminent end times as a time of great glory for the restored true Apostolic church greater than the one of New Testament times, and a time when the foot soldiers of this church will be imparted with supernatural powers.
This outpouring of powers will allow them to crush evil with a “rod of iron” and deliver a purified church to Jesus when he returns.
Seeing as pro-family leaders Tony Perkins, Don Wildmon, Janet Porter and Mat Staver have united with the NAR one can’t help but wonder if they share their end times beliefs. It’s a legitimate question to ask.
Methodist holiness preacher Charles Parham is considered the founder of modern Pentecostalism. Parham broke with the Methodist church and started his own ministry. In 1901Agnes Ozman began to speak in “tongues” when hands were laid on her. Parham believed that speaking in tongues was both a sign of Spirit baptism and also the signal of the end of the age. Parham also linked the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with a latter-day Pentecost.
“What began on a corner at the turn of the twentieth century is now barreling down Main Street. What was once known as thePentecostal movement has now splintered into numerous diverse, yet overlapping movements: Pentecostal, Charismatic, Vineyard,Word-Faith, and Holy Laughter.” (1)
Add to the list Latter Rain Restorationism/ International House of Prayer (IHOP)/Third Wave/Deliverance/ Soaking in the Spirit/ and the aforementioned Dominionists/ Seven Mountains/Elijah Revolution/Kingdom Now/Joel’s Army/Manifest Sons of God and most recently the NAR. I’ve only scratched the surface!
Bud Press of Christian Research Service lamented:
The Prophetic Movement is a dark, evil wasteland teeming with false apostles, false prophets, hyper-heretics, false healers, and greedy, money-hungry con men and women, all of whom are overshadowed by Satan and his demonic forces.
There’s plenty of blame to go around for the unholy mess the Church has become. Liberals, liars, and loons have infiltrated her. To paraphrase my pastor’s teaching (from my notes), believers have been misled by well-spoken, self-promoting, self-serving, charismatic leaders who emphasize power gifts but put little emphasis on preaching the gospel. These men and women think nothing of exploiting God’s people for their own gain.
Jesus gave us fair warning:
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. (Mat 7:15-17)
While we’re on the subject of ravening wolves, some false teachers deny the divinity of Jesus Christ…
There was no bodily resurrection…
The Bible was written by men, not by Divine inspiration. It’s a book of myths and fables, full of contradictions, open to interpretation, holds hidden meanings that only the “enlightened” can know…
Wolves teach that God loves, doesn’t judge, so all humans go to heaven.
Triniterianism is out…
No vicarious Atonement…
The virgin birth? Don’t make me laugh!…
As for sodomy? No sin there!…
Fornication and cohabitation? What’s the big deal?…
Abortion? It’s my choice!…
Wait a minute! A Christian can choose to murder a baby?
I could go on, but hopefully the point is made. The postmodern Church will only tolerate a small “g” god who simply rolls his/her eyes at sin and say, “Boys will be boys.”
Over 20 years ago the late Dr. Walter Martin took on liberalism in the Church:
Let me tell you something that I have learned; I know the liberals. I know them well; I was one of them. And they are the most dangerous, insidious, and all-pervading cult that’s loose in the United States right at this moment…
And this theological flea infestation is ruining the lifeblood of the Church, which is evangelism. And, you think these are very strong statements; I intend to back them up in—if necessary—excruciating details. For any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures world-around, we are in an accelerating apostasy does not know—I repeat—does not know what’s going on…
We have, for more than one hundred years, been under sustained attack in the United States; in our theological seminaries, church related schools, and our churches. A sustained attack by people, who have the form of godliness, and work within the structure of the Church and have—wherever they have been permitted the opportunity—diluted the Gospel and destroyed the Faith.
They occupy today the chairs in our major theological seminaries; the rulership of our major denominational structures—they maintain boldly and boastfully—“This[is] the Church!” But it’s not the Church if it denies the power of the Gospel… (2)
LYING SIGNS & WONDERS
The NAR travels the globe allegedly performing miraculous healings, raising the dead back to life and breaking down “demonic strongholds.” They have visions as clear as a movie screen… give future prophecies…experience visitations from Jesus, angels, and Aimee Simple McPherson. As an extra added bonus they get “revelation knowledge” directly from God and have the unmitigated arrogance to say, “The Spirit of God spoke to me…” but there’s no way to verify whose voice they hear! According to Isaiah 8:20, “[I]f they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.”
With all the powers these wolves possess, I presume some of them can walk on water.
WE’RE STILL WAITING, RICK
In 1988 “super-prophet” Rick Joyner shared his “vision” concerning the coming “revolution” in the Church:
“What is about to come upon the earth is not just a revival, or another awakening; it is a veritable revolution. The vision was given in order to begin to awaken those who are destined to radically change the course, and even the very definition of Christianity. The dismantling of organizations and disbanding of some works will be a positive and exhilarating experience for the Lord’s faithful servants. A great company of prophets, teachers, pastors and apostles will be raised up with the spirit of Phineas; it will be said of the apostles soon to be anointed that they have turned an upside down world right side up. Nations will tremble at the mention of their name.” (3)
Have I missed something? I can’t think of a single nation that trembles at the name of Rick Joyner or the other so-called apostles and prophets. Joyner’s alleged prophecy came to him over two decades ago. He claimed that the “soon to be” anointed would turn an upside world right side up. Well, what’s the hold up? With the way things are going in this country, I’m eager for the “great company” to turn things right side up, aren’t you?
A CALL TO DISCERNMENT
Admittedly there are some CR leaders that want to build a theocracy as do Dominionists, but many in the CR do not. The CR leadership unfamiliar with the NAR’s global goals is leading those involved in fighting the culture war into shark infested waters. They must “take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them (evil men).” (Deut. 12:30) In other words, listen up — and abandon ship!
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. (2 Cor. 11:13, 14)
 The History of the Charismatic Movement–By Gary E. Gilley
 Walter Martin, The Cult of Liberalism, CD Rom—Obtained from Apprising Ministries
 Rick Joyner. Restoration, May/June 1988, “The Harvest”
The Prophet Movement: An Evil and Adulterous Generation—Christian Research Service website
Alexander Campbell Looks Beyond the Dominionists’ Seven Mountains–By David Brumley
Former IHOP Member Explains Why IHOP (International House of Prayer) Is A Cult— Sola Sisters website, posted by Christine Pack
The Religious Right’s Modern Day Spartan Army—Tony Perkins of FRC talks with NAR “Apostle” Rick Joyner
Mat Staver invites you to TheCall Sacramento—Mat Staver, President of Liberty Council
LISTEN TO INTEVIEWS:
The divide in the Disunited States of America opened wider with the concerted effort of progressives and teacher union’s latest escape from reality. When people lament that there is little civility left in this country, they mostly refuse to face facts. There is a pitch battle for the hearts and minds of citizens. So far the public education lobby has been winning the war. Their victory is self-evident with the sorry state of literacy much less rational ability that passes for the collective consciousness of the public. The prime directive and accomplishment of the government school system is the development of a society of fools and idiots. Here, here to the union of public thugs and sophists, who work diligently to destroy the American Nation.
The Wisconsin firmament has a fine tradition of populism. Robert M. “Fighting Bob” La Follette, Sr. is a heroic figure in state and national politics. His advocacy for some admirers would claim he was a progressive, but those who understand the distinction, know he was really a populist. Jeff Taylor writes in First Principles.
“The link between La Follette-Johnson and Taft-Goldwater can be discerned when thinking of the transitional figures in the late ’30s/early ’40s when internationalists and the mainstream press were confusing people by adopting the then-popular “liberal” and “progressive” labels. Consider the fact that new “conservatives” attorney Amos Pinchot, publisher Frank Gannett, publisher Robert McCormick, businessman Robert Wood, socialite Alice Roosevelt Longworth, aviator Charles Lindbergh, and Congressman Hamilton Fish all came out of the Bull Moose-La Follette-Borah tradition of liberal Jeffersonianism within the party”.
Fighting Bob was an inspiration battling the railroads and opposing American involvement in World War I. This iconic agrarian populist was a proponent of using government on behalf of the common people. Mr. Taylor continues with a comparison between La Follette and Robert Taft.
“Robert La Follette and Robert Taft shared hostility toward statism, plutocracy, and imperialism. Although La Follette did not earn his fame as an exponent of literal interpretation of the Constitution, during his years in the Senate he was a strict constructionist who repeatedly challenged actions on constitutional grounds”.
Just short of a century has passed from the heyday of this Wisconsin hero, but he would be turning in his grave by the conduct of the Bolshevik’s who rally in Madison to defy the public interest. The best lesson taught about teacher unions is that any absence of teaching in government schools is a good day for the children who deserve a quality education.
The difference, of course, is that in Egypt the protesters were marching to get rid of a public-sector kleptocracy, while in Wisconsin they are marching to preserve one.
“When school children start paying union dues, that ‘s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”
“It’s time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy.”
The Washington Examiner makes a valid point. “The Left has misread the postbailout populist sentiment all along, assuming public anger was directed at the rich. But American anger, I suspect, is directed not at some people who have money or success, but at those who profit through cronyism and their connections to power”.The fundamental distinction between a progressive and a conservative populist is their view on government. As the current dispute spreads to Indiana and Ohio, the public employment unions are altogether oblivious to the meaning of “using government on behalf of the common people“. The patron saint of progressive liberalism warned of the danger in, “The process of Collective Bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees.
Cited in the essay, Public Employee Unions Guarantee National Bankruptcy
“In 1959, the state of Wisconsin enacted the first state statute permitting municipal employees the right to form, join, and be represented by labor organizations. Three years later, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, which granted federal employees the right to join and form unions and to bargain collectively. The order established a framework for collective bargaining and encouraged the expansion of collective bargaining rights to state and local government employees.
The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315 (1979), (3) however, that nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires public employers to either recognize or collectively bargain with public employee unions”.
Jim O’Sullivan writes in the National Journal. “Wisconsin has done more than polarize and excite the true believers in both parties; it has served to galvanize already amped conservative populists who have increasingly discussed a “new class” of workers being forged among public employees enjoying union-rigged perks, and liberal populists who see in Madison a conservative conspiracy to end decades of hard-won rights for the working man”.What escapes the marginal intellectual integrity of so many public employees is that government never creates wealth. All taxation is theft. Mandating government schools, paid for with public funds, teaching subversive doctrines and socialist redistribution, is a primary cause of producing the walking zombies that populate this country. The most deprived and underclass in society would be better served with a copy of the McGuffey Readers.
Waiting for ‘Superman’
Results matter, even in the public sector. A substitute replacement for pampered teachers is needed. View the videos Waiting for Superman and THE LOTTERY for the real story. The conclusion in, Teachers Unions are morally illegitimate, is to the point.
“That moral claim is being turned on its head as more Americans come to understand that teachers unions and the public bureaucracy are the main obstacles to reform. Movies such as “Waiting for ‘Superman’” and “The Lottery” are exposing this to the larger American public, leaving the monopolists to the hapless recourse of suggesting that reformers are merely the tools of hedge fund philanthropists”.
With a dismal record of performance and a pattern of taxpayer extortion, the progressive sisterhood reaches out to their brothers of sleaze, who use the tactics of street hoods collecting juice for a loan shark enterprise. No wonder that when courageous politicians challenge the status quo, crazed public union fantastic’s go into full damage control mode. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is one such hero and has experience with public unions.
“Christie said in a Wednesday speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington that he is “reforming an education system that costs too much and does too little for our society today and our children’s future.”
The state’s unions “think I’m attacking them,” Christie said. But he said he’s not targeting their rank-and-file members. “I’m attacking the leadership of the unions because they’re greedy, they’re selfish.”
This pattern of teacher employee abuse is not unique. This next example out of Allentown, Pennsylvania is a public union outrage beyond the pale.
“In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
Balzano said Saturday he isn’t targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city’s decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said “there’s to be no volunteers.” No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path”.
Warner Todd Huston sums up the economic reality that many “so called” civil servants still refuse to face. “It must be quite a shock to government employees all across the country that are actually losing their cushy jobs, those positions that they imagined were theirs forever. With the reality of the massive overspending by Democrats spurred by union leaders the consequences of which are finally coming home to roost, these union members that for so many decades felt entitled to their jobs are losing them”.
Public employee unions are a threat to the very foundation of the Republic. The Hill reports that Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers’ rights like those proposed in Wisconsin. “Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” He is a disgrace and his words border on subversion.
You can support trade unions if you are so inclined, but a public union that is taxpayer funded is an abomination. Progressives need to search their souls. The alliance that should bond all populists together is the fight against the global corporatist economy that has caused the outsourcing of living wage employment overseas. Expanding government is not the answer in reversing this betrayal. True populism must be rooted in sound economic principles, based in a wealth creation private sector.
Substantially scaling back public employee jobs is a necessary step because the private sector taxpayer is broke to a large degree because of government policies. A civil service employee is, by nature, a secondary citizen. The taxes they pay come from the earnings of those who are the producers of prosperity. The La Follette tradition opposes the centralization of economic control. Woefully, governments lavish excessive pay and benefits on the public sector at the cost of the real main street economy.
Canada faces virtually the same predicament as America in that it continues mass immigration from the third world that grows by 80 million desperately poor people net gain annually. It causes their cultures and populations a Faustian Dilemma with Hobson’s Choice as the final exit plan.
Tim Murray, www.immigrationwatchCanada.org , http://sinkinglifeboat.blogspot.com or http://biodiversityfirst.googlepages.com, said, “I came upon an orchestration, the environmental movement, and all the musicians were playing violins to the tune of “Overconsumption, overconsumption, overconsumption.”
In this continuing series with journalist Tim Murray, he answers the question, “Who needs Stephen King when we are already living a nightmare?”
“More than a year ago I was invited to become one of the people the Vancouver Province newspaper would turn to when they wanted a short opinion on current issues,” said Murray. “Here is your chance to get your say in The Province!” they explained. Silly me, I expected to be asked to comment on issues of over-riding importance. But I forgot that newspaper owners don’t see that their mandate is necessarily to inform and educate the public. Instead it is to both titillate and sedate them with inconsequential rubbish. The world is burning so let’s all fiddle. As long as the advertisers and subscribers are happy, who cares?
“Even environmental journalists tip-toe around brutal inconvenient truths to satisfy our psychotic need for a happy ending. As T. Michael Maher revealed in his seminal study, “How and Why Journalists Avoid the Population-Environment Connection”, only one in ten environmental stories identified population growth as a root cause of the problem, even those reporters who are most aware of its critical importance shied away from it. Newspaper editors and reporters won’t go near the ticking time-bomb of human overpopulation—- they are so frightened of tackling this taboo that they choose instead to frighten us with symptoms and sideshows.
“The following is a sample of the kind of trivia that excites the editors of the mainstream press. “What do you like to do to celebrate Halloween?” the Vancouver Province asks. What would your response be? Mine would be something like, “As a dress rehearsal for the impending collapse of industrial society I want to spend my Halloween hunkered down in my bunker provisioned with enough food supplies and ammo to deal with the legions of starving marauders who will attempt to get at them. For entertainment I will watch “The Road” which conjures up more terrifying images than the ghosts and goblins of Halloween night. Instead of indulging in the clichéd fantasies of the supernatural, why doesn’t the Province attempt to educate its readership about the very real horrors that Peak Oil will visit upon us?”
“The submission date is providentially ironic, October 27th. It was about this time of year when, following my 12th birthday, the Cuban missile crisis was upon us. At school I was taught to “duck and cover”, and on my way home, the air raid siren two blocks away went daily off just for practice in case I we weren’t traumatized enough. Like other kids, on more than one occasion, I ran home in panic . For almost two weeks, I would come home to find my mother standing over the ironing board in front of our black and white TV set, with her eyes glued to Walter Cronkite while, almost robotically, her hand guided the iron over the newly dried clothes, or sat mending them from a chair positioned to see the unfolding drama. On some afternoons she would just sit there transfixed and paralytic. I can still see her now.
“Like my classroom, my home was a morgue, and I could read the same fear on the faces of my parents that my teacher, Mrs. Nergaard had. They didn’t dare to tell us how serious the situation was, but they didn’t have to. School children of all ages knew. They read body language too. After all, we got Reader’s Digest and I remember it was full of nuclear war scenarios. I remember reading one story about how a family survived the onslaught of Russian bombers by being prepared. How I begged my Dad to build a bomb shelter. But my parents were wise.
“They made it clear that there was no secure shelter from an atomic blast in our city nor from the fall-out thereafter. Even if we did survive for a time, they pointed out, our supplies would run out, and if they didn’t, we could not possibly prevent less prepared survivors from taking them. The same arguments could be made now. We will see a collapse of some kind of horrendous and unprecedented proportions, either abrupt or protracted, and there will be no sanctuary from privation when our economy crashes. And certainly not from the nuclear, chemical or biological war that could ensue from the desperate competition between nations for scarce resources. There can be no duck and cover from $300/barrel oil.
“What struck me then, even at that age, was the absurdity of having been ‘scared’ for two weeks in October, and then, still shaken, being subjected to an obscene but sanctioned ritual at the end of the month whereby kids were once more ‘scared sh*tless’ —- only with corpses, skeletons, axe-murderers, poltergeists and demons instead of mushroom clouds. All in good fun, you see, and with enough of a sugar overdose from Halloween candies to keep our pancreas pumping for days. As if real life-horror was not enough to contend with.
“Forget Stephen King. I will stick with the two Richards, Duncan and Heinberg. That’s horror enough for me now.”
From: Into the Ashes…
I received this note: “Thanks for the Gulf update! But you forgot one important recommendation – MOVE OUT OF THERE IMMEDIATELY! Pack up your wife and kids and get the heck out of there NOW!!! Many already in those Gulf States are being slowly poisoned, but now with the new storm or any one storm yet to come they will get well oiled and gassed with many, many VOCs from the heavy rain and wind. People need to get out of there! Curious don’t you think that with all they know, all the articles and news about people getting ill, crops and landscapes dying inland from the toxic rain falling there in the last few weeks, that there has been NO mass exodus of people leaving those affected areas?”
Kind of extreme don’t you think? Don’t you think it’s better to wait for an evacuation order from the government? I don’t think so because if you wait for the government to warn about dangerous toxic exposures you are waiting on an organization famous for allowing industry, doctors and dentists to expose the public to massive amounts of chemicals and heavy metals. Sorry to be a spoiler on a holiday weekend but it is really not time to party and relax; it’s time to make plans to deal with an emergency the likes of which has never been seen.
Below you will see three map overlays tracking complaints from the oil disaster since its beginnings and you can see how the effects are spreading. And it will keep spreading and spreading out as the toxic tidal situation slowly spreads its wings and takes flight in the atmosphere.
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will gradually find its way toward
Europe and the Arctic to damage and endanger wider ecological areas.
Dr. Shira Kramer, an epidemiologist who has conducted research for the petroleum industry on the health consequences of exposure to petroleum, said she is concerned that the risks are being downplayed. “It’s completely scientifically dishonest to pooh-pooh the potential here when you are talking about some of the most toxic chemicals that we know.”
“Oil is a complex mixture containing substances like benzene, heavy metals, arsenic, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons – all known to cause human health problems such as cancer, birth defects or miscarriages,” said Kenneth Olden, founding dean of New York’s CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College, who is monitoring a panel on possible delayed effects. “The potential here is huge and we have to be diligent about protecting the public health and these workers.”
The greatest threat is from the poison that species-killing
storms will soon be churning over Gulf cities, pouring
degraded oil and dispersants everywhere the rain falls.
The government has not been providing the news people are looking for, and the mainstream media seems to have gone blind in recent days, airing less specific information about the crisis even as the crisis continues to expand and more and more oil and toxic chemicals are leaked into the sea, land and air. Perhaps the government is being kind by sparing its people disturbance and stress. David Ike said, “The potential magnitude of what is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico simply cannot be overstated. It is far, far worse than is being admitted, and what we are allowed to see is catastrophic enough.”
Ike and, I am afraid, others are asserting that Goldman Sachs sold 44 percent of its holdings in BP, a total of 4,680,822 shares worth the best part of $300 million, in the weeks before the Gulf disaster that sent BP shares plummeting, and Tony Hayward, BP’s disgraceful chief executive, is reported to have sold his £1.4 million shares in BP a month before the explosion. Just eight days before the Gulf blow-out, Halliburton also announced that it had agreed to buy Boots & Coots for $240.4 million. Who are Boots & Coots? The world’s largest oil-spill clean-up company that also deals with oil well and gas well fires and blowouts.
Did the explosion rupture the casing for its entire length?
If that is so, then a relief well will be unable to plug the
hole. Ten relief wells would be unable to plug the hole.
What on earth is going to plug the hole in the earth?
I heard it said that if BP loses control of the flow completely, the scope of the disaster would be unfathomable. Well, no one is in control of the flow and the disaster is continuing to expand and surround the State of Florida as the oil begins its race up the east coast. Things are so out of control that today in the mainstream press they finally started talking about nuking the well. Bill Clinton at least thinks it’s a good idea and we should hope for the best.
Vast underwater concentrations of oil sprawling for miles in the Gulf of Mexico from the damaged, crude-belching well are unprecedented in “human history” and threaten to wreak havoc on marine life, a team of scientists said, a finding confirmed by federal officials. Researchers aboard the F.G. Walton Smith vessel briefed reporters on a two-week cruise in which they traced an underwater oil plume 15 miles wide, 3 miles long and about 600 feet thick. The plume’s core is 1,100 to 1,300 meters below the surface, they said. “It’s an infusion of oil and gas unlike anything else that has ever been seen anywhere, certainly in human history,” said Samantha Joye of the University of Georgia, the expedition leader.
This graphic demonstrates how the oil could interact
with the world’s major ocean currents.
On May 3rd, Dick Snyder, director of the Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation at the University of West Florida, began conducting water samples on Pensacola Beach every Tuesday and Thursday because beach and health officials were only doing visual assessments. In recent weeks water samples tested positive for dissolved oil. There are molecules that are dissolved in the water that you cannot see. Some of the oil will just naturally dissolve into the water so we don’t know how much of that there is. We suspect it’s a lot. What you can’t see in the water may be more dangerous than what you can see.”
Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri writes, “Even before the explosion, there is enough evidence(even from the New York Times) to show that this was more than an accident. Insiders sold shares before April 20. Poor-to-no management. Warnings from those on site that went unheeded. The list goes on and on. With a well this deep, on a geologically unstable seabed, there was no precaution. No emergency plans. No care. No solid science. Just an accident waiting to happen. More likely it was no accident. Just another false flag to distract us from all the financial theft and economic depression while another illegal war is planned. Greed trumps safety.”
We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts
and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air. The farther we travelled,
the more nauseating it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light
Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds
of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and
spewed oil for several months. Forest and farmland were now covered in a
sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught.
You’d think that more than 20 years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, scientists would know what, if any, long-term health dangers face the thousands of workers needed to clean up the Gulf of Mexico spill. You’d be wrong. “We don’t know a damn thing,” said Anchorage lawyer Michael Schneider, whose firm talked with dozens of Alaska cleanup workers following the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in preparation for a class-action lawsuit that never came. And this unfortunately is a big problem for the government and British Petroleum can continue to plead ignorance, which is just a cover for their arrogance and greed and the stupidity that breeds.
Part 1: What we all face…
Each week, hundreds of emails stream into my inbox concerning columns I have written addressing immigration and overpopulation. Most thank me, others condemn me and still others curse me.
I am an educator. I make fun of no man. I know everyone paddles his or her canoe through life in the best way possible. We each seek love, purpose and happiness. We love our families and friends. We take part in our communities in every hamlet in the world.
Even with all the war and unrest in many parts of the planet, we remain within the family of humanity. We all possess a stake in the future of our planet. We all laugh, love and cry. True, some of us practice brutality and many of our cultures prove derisive toward women. Humanity, in many ways, must be the cruelest animal on the planet, but pretends to be the most important.
I have said that humans are God’s highest expression and worst mistake. If you look around at the mess we’ve created in this world in the last 100 years, I don’t see how you could argue. We created 72,000 chemicals now contaminating the planet, horrific and never ending wars that kill, maim and destroy lives by the millions, accelerating human misery on a scale unheard of 100 years ago, we cause the extinction of 100 species daily, climate destabilization and the list grows.
Often I hear from Sub-Commandante Pedro, a Mexican National, MeCHA Brown Berets Infiltration Brigades, LA, Alta, CA Aztlan. He tells me how Americans have lost their country because they are, “Too fat, lazy and stupid to defend their failed nation…the Bronze Man will return this land to its rightful owners by making more babies than stupid gringos.”
Amazingly enough, he refers to black Americans in ways that would leave the mainstream press aghast. Additionally, if his brand of racism takes over, black Americans can assume even worse treatment and extrication from any areas dominated by the New Mexico in America.
As I categorically state weekly, immigration and population find themselves shackled together like Paul Newman as “Cool Hand Luke” on the chain gang being watched by the sheriff wearing those mirror glasses known as the ‘man with no eyes’. Ultimately, like Newman, “What we have here is a failure to communicate,” thus no way to escape our destiny.
It becomes unsettling to me to know what lies ahead, having seen it in my world travels, but possessing no power to change it. Ironically, hundreds of readers write diatribes against my work on sites across the nation.
On the pro-immigration side, those advocates don’t understand their own dilemma or how many makes too many? They don’t understand that Mexico City, with 24 million people, grinds toward terrible water shortages and staggering environmental problems. They don’t understand the sheer human overload creating horrific human misfortune.
As Dr. Garrett Hardin said, “By any reasonable standards, the most rapidly growing populations on earth today are the most miserable.”
While the citizens of those countries live in the squalor of their own numbers and collide with reality, Americans and other first world countries do not possess a clue as to the raging battle for life going on with one-third of humanity. That’s two billion people folks! It’s as if 18 million people don’t die from starvation annually—but the fact is, they do!
On the anti-illegal migration side, only a few people understand the devastating consequences of unending immigration. Many fail to understand that legal immigration proves worse than illegal—because it methodically added 100 million to this country in the last 40 years. Another 100 will manifest within 26 years.
You would think that one look at the crumbling of California, which adds 1,700 people, virtually all immigrants streaming into America from overloaded countries, net gain, daily would raise somebody’s eyebrows. Not even a blink by the mainstream press!
Dr. Garrett Hardin wrote about a phenomenon that we all face. “We may well call it “the tragedy of the commons,” using the word “tragedy” as the philosopher Whitehead used it “The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.” He then goes on to say, “This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness.”
“The tragedy of the commons develops in this way,” Hardin said. “Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
“As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly, or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.”
1) The positive component is the function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
“Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another, and another! But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”
If you look at America today or any massively overpopulated country like China, India, Great Britain, Mexico, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., you can see the quickening of the ‘tragedy of the commons’. You will also see millions in denial of their spiraling dilemma.
As published in my recent book, “America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans,” in our oceans, 100 million sharks suffer death at the hands of humans annually. Humans rape the oceans with drift nets and chemicals.
“The oceans of the world continue to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons,” Hardin said. “Maritime nations still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the “freedom of the seas.” Professing to believe in the “inexhaustible resources of the oceans,” they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction.
“The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The values that visitors seek in the park are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as a commons or they will be of no value to anyone.”
If we add another 100 million people, our parks cannot withstand the sheer numbers, but our cities will prove even worse.
As you can see, we cannot continue on this path of the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ much longer. How long is ‘much longer’? We will explore that in Part 2: Pollution and breeding.
Ever since President Obama (PBUH) dropped Rush Limbaugh’s name recently, the talk-show host has figured prominently in the news. And now he is being attacked by the mainstream press – and truly odious entities such as MoveOn.borg – for saying that he wants Obama (PBUH) to fail. It is being portrayed as an un-American sentiment by those great patriots on the left.
I actually agree with Limbaugh wholeheartedly. I also want Obama (PBUH) to fail – abjectly, miserably, completely – and visibly. I may even pray for it.
Anyone on the left who takes issue with this is either ignorant or a liar – and probably a hypocrite as well. I will explain.
To say it’s always unpatriotic to hope for the failure of your leader is illogical. It presupposes that a leader’s success is synonymous with his nation’s success, but this simply cannot be true in all cases. After all, different leaders have different ideologies, and ideologies run the spectrum from the sublime to the ridiculous, from the ethereal to the evil. Thus, in the cases of leaders with fatally flawed ideologies, their nations’ success may rest on their failure.
I’m just stating the obvious. Only servile, cult-of-personality types confuse the leader with the country. Would we have called a German who wished for Hitler’s failure in 1934 unwise and unpatriotic? What about Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein? Would it have been wrong to curse them with failure? On the contrary, even wishing that God would promptly liberate such people from the bounds of this material fold would be quite justifiable.
What I have just explained isn’t really that hard to figure out. And this is the reason why I said that those on the left who seize upon Limbaugh’s comment are either just playing political games or are supremely ignorant. And now we come to the reason why they also may be hypocrites.
The left absolutely hated George W. Bush. Their contempt for him was so profound and palpable that it was even given a name by psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer: Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now, most of the millions of leftists who despised the ex-president absolutely wanted him to fail; in fact, while they’re loath to admit it, they felt this way even when his success was synonymous with our nation’s (this even included the failure of the Iraq war). And “felt” is the operative word; they were governed by emotion and hated the man with a burning passion. Thus, they were more than miserably happy to wish for a descending tide that lowered all boats if it meant the U.S.S. George W. Bush would be sunk.
Oh, by the way, you leftists don’t have to bother denying it. You’re not nearly as sophisticated as you imagine and you’re really not that hard to read. The screeching, vicious lies, dripping venom, borne fangs and apoplexy sort of gave you away.
Besides, a few of the more honest leftists would even admit that they wanted Bush to fail. In fact, I seem to recall one man in particular (I don’t remember his name but he was a guest on the O’Reilly Factor) who even confessed that he wanted the Iraq war to go south. And his reasoning was exactly what I had propounded earlier. That is, he claimed to believe that Bush’s policies were so toxic that a greater good would be served by their failure. I was adamantly opposed to his ideology, of course; however, I did understand the principle in question. It is in no way moral to wish the president success in the pursuit of a policy that we know is damaging to the nation.
This brings me back to President Obama (PBUH). We are not children who are to just play “follow the leader” unquestioningly. We must first ascertain where the leader is leading. Is it toward the promised land or into an abyss? I know Obama (PBUH) to be a hard-core leftist – and perhaps a neo-Marxist. I know that his agenda could drive the last nail into America’ coffin and that it is a blow against all that is great and good. Thus, if I wished him success, it could only mean I hated my country, my fellow man, and God himself.