Thursday, November 27, 2008
Despite clear and contradictory evidence to suggest otherwise, corporate media brings out the boogeyman once again as a poster child for the ailing war on terror, Pakistan link claimed
Paul Joseph Watson
November 27, 2008
The majority of the corporate media has gleefully seized upon the terror attacks in Mumbai to claim that they are the work of "Al-Qaeda," despite clear and contradictory evidence suggesting otherwise, as a pretext to increase bombing campaigns in Pakistan and beef support for the ailing war on terror in Afghanistan.
The swiftness with which the media blamed "Al-Qaeda" was staggering, especially considering the fact that the attacks had not even concluded before the boogeyman was whipped out of the closet once more to act as a poster child for the war on terror and allow the TV networks to show lots of blood, panic and authority figures pointing guns at people.
The only claim of responsibility for the attacks came from the "Deccan Mujahideen," the Deccan Plateau being an area in southern India, but the press, usually breathless to take the first obscure claim of culpability and set it in stone, are now belittling this explanation as a likely hoax in an attempt to pin the blame on the all-mighty mythical Al-Qaeda.
"Earlier eyewitness reports from the hotels suggested the attackers were singling out British and American passport holders," reports the BBC.
"If the reports are true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it implies an Islamist motive - attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda."
Really? Perhaps the BBC’s "security correspondent" should be worried about his job security, because the facts directly contradict previous alleged "Al-Qaeda" attacks.
Since when do Al-Qaeda take hostages? Since when do they hang around to be caught? Since when do Al-Qaeda use grenades rather than bombs or suicide bombs?
And if the attacks were targeted against British and American citizens then tell me why, out of at least 101 killed, was there only one British victim?
If the attacks were targeted against British and American citizens then why were the terrorists reported to be firing AK-47’s indiscriminately into crowds of (mainly Indian) people? Out of 101 victims, only six were foreigners, the rest were Indian. This was blatantly not a targeted attack against British and American citizens, but it is being spun that way by the media so as to justify a coordinated British and American military response, which will no doubt take the form of more bombing raids inside Pakistan and an increased presence in Afghanistan.
The London Times are already busy proclaiming that yesterday’s events were the work of Osama bin Goldstein, reporting, "Targeting Bombay’s most luxurious hotels and a crowded railway station had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation."
But voices of skepticism have broken through the firewall of fearmongering and propaganda.
"Chrtistine Fair, senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation, was careful to say that the identity of the terrorists could not yet be known. But she insisted the style of the attacks and the targets in Mumbai suggested that the militants were likely to be Indian Muslims - and not linked to Al Qaeda or the violent South Asian terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba," reports the International Herald Tribune.
"There’s absolutely nothing Al Qaeda-like about it," she said of the attack. "Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don’t do hostage taking, and they don’t do grenades."
"Indians will have a strong incentive to link this to Al Qaeda. ‘Al Qaeda’s in your toilet!’ But this is a domestic issue. This is not India’s 9/11," said Fair.
Terrorism expert Professor Bruce Hoffman agreed that the assault was "not exactly Al Qaeda’s modus operandi, which is suicide attacks."
"The very name (Deccan Mujahideen) - if it is a real group - suggests a domestic agenda," adds the report, highlighting a probable link to the riots in Gujarat State near Mumbai six years ago (alluded to in the claim of responsibility), which killed 2,000 Muslims.
But that’s not how the media are portraying the event, hyping the situation beyond all proportion with a crazed obsession and linking it to Barack Obama’s mandate to carry on the endless war on terror started by George W. Bush.
As Mike Rivero over at WhatReallyHappened.com points out, "FOX News and CNN are now both reporting that the "terrorists" who took hostages at the Oberoi hotel were specifically seeking people with US and British passports. So, regardless of whatever the "Deccan Muhajedeen" claims their objective may be, the real agenda is to provoke a British and US response."
"The timing is suspect, occurring just when Bush needs an excuse to kick off one more war of Obama to have to deal with and certainly convenient timing for Israel, which sees Obama as far less likely to engage in more wars for Israel. And, for the last several weeks Israel has been starving Gaza mercilessly, in advance of an obvious military action, and has kept reporters and even the Papel Envoy out of Gaza."
How long before the terrorist group is linked with elements of the Pakistani government, giving Obama the perfect pretext to prolong and expand bombing raids inside the country?
Indeed, the London Guardian reports today, "What is likely is that the attacks will get blamed on Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), as have previous Islamist atrocities.
US counter-terrorism officials believe some ISI members played a role in an attack this year on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan."
In our first report on the events yesterday, we predicted that a Pakistan link would eventually be claimed as a reason for Barack Obama to increase U.S. aggression inside the country as he promised to do during his election campaign.
Reports are now emerging claiming that the terrorists arrived on speedboats from Karachi in Pakistan. The claim of responsibility from the Deccan Mujahideen is being sidelined in favor of a more convenient culprit, the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba militant outfit.
"Hawkish elements in Pakistan stage-managed (the) terror attacks," claims one report, citing intelligence sources.
India’s premier said those behind coordinated attacks against Mumbai were based "outside the country" and warned "neighbours" who provide a haven to anti-India militants. This is obviously a reference to Pakistan.
The Mossad media front outlet Debka File are already proclaiming that the "MV Alpha freighter (is) suspected of having sailed the terrorists to Mumbai’s shore from Karachi, Pakistan."
The media is also exploiting the attacks to throw more weight behind the annual fearmongering about Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. transport networks, a tediously regular piece of propaganda that crops up during every holiday season to remind Americans that they must submit to bag searches and other infringements on personal freedom while authority figures shove them around all in the name of keeping them safe from the terrorists.
India, Corporate Media Moves To Frame Pakistan For Suspicious Attacks
Sophisticated Attacks, but Al Qaeda Link Disputed
Mumbai attacks: Jumble of tactics and targets seems to indicate a homegrown Indian outfit
Citizen journalists told to stop using Twitter to update on Bombay attacks
FM: No Israelis in Mumbai Hospitals
Up to 100 dead in coordinated terror, India blamed previous attacks on Pakistan
Paul Joseph Watson
November 26, 2008
Coordinated attacks across Mumbai, India’s financial capital, which have killed up to a hundred people and injured hundreds more, are likely to be blamed on a terrorist organization linked to the Pakistani ISI, providing further justification for controversial U.S. bombings inside Pakistani territory and heightened rhetoric against Pakistan on behalf of President elect Barack Obama.
Terrorists armed with AK-47’s and grenades conduced a series of rampages on hotels, restaurants and public transport facilities today, killing around 80 and injuring over 250 people.
Initial reports that terrorists had seized western hostages were later dismissed by Indian government officials.
With the corporate media desperate to pin the blame in order to score much needed propaganda points for the ailing war on terror, suspicion is likely to fall on Pakistan, a country that President elect Barack Obama openly threatened during his presidential campaign.
The bombings in Mumbai will also likely silence questions about controversial U.S. bombing raids inside Pakistani territory aimed at terrorists, strikes that have repeatedly killed innocent civilians.
It is commonly asserted that the Pakistani ISI helps fund and train terrorists.
Journalist Stephen Schwartz notes that several terrorist and criminal groups are "backed by senior officers in the Pakistani army, the country’s ISI intelligence establishment and other armed bodies of the state." Author Daniel Byman states, "Pakistan is probably today’s most active sponsor of terrorism."
Indeed, Indian police claimed that the Pakistani ISI directed the July 2006 train bombing in Mumbai which killed 186 people, which was blamed on the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, an organization based in Pakistan. Look for the same organization or an affiliated group to be blamed for today’s attacks.
As Bloomberg reports today, "The government has previously blamed terrorist attacks on organizations linked to foreign powers, without offering evidence or making arrests. Local media often blame the attacks on groups backed by Pakistan or Bangladesh, without identifying the security officials who provided the information."
With shrill corporate media outfits begging for a scapegoat to be used as war on terror propaganda, it won’t be long before an Al-Qaeda-Pakistan link is claimed. Indeed, early reports already state that the attacks are "thought to be linked to Al-Qaeda," offering no evidence and in spite of the fact that an unknown group, Deccan Mujahideen, has clamed responsibility for the massacre. The Deccan Plateau is a large plateau in India, suggesting this is where the terrorist group was based.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Demonstrators call for government to resign in wake of financial collapse
Paul Joseph Watson
November 25, 2008
Riots and protests in Reykjavik calling for the government of Iceland to resign have increased following a financial catastrophe that has wiped out half of the krona’s value and put one third of the population at risk of losing their homes and life savings. Could similar scenes of civil unrest be repeated in the United States as the economy continues to implode?
"It was the latest in a series of protests in the capital since October’s banking collapse crippled the island’s economy. At least five people were injured and Hordur Torfason, a well-known singer in Iceland and the main organiser of the protests, said the protests would continue until the government stepped down," reports the Scotsman.
As crowds gathered in the drizzle before the Althing, the Icelandic parliament, on Saturday, Mr Torfason said: "They don’t have our trust and they are no longer legitimate."
Hundreds more gathered in front of a local police station, pelting eggs at the windows, using a bettering ram to force the doors open and demanding the release of a protester.
A banner hung from a government building read "Iceland for Sale: $2,100,000,000," the amount of the loan the country will receive from the IMF.
Gudrun Jonsdottir, a 36-year-old office worker, said: "I’ve just had enough of this whole thing. I don’t trust the government, I don’t trust the banks, I don’t trust the political parties, and I don’t trust the IMF.
"We had a good country and they ruined it."
These aren’t the actions of unwieldy mobs in third world countries, we’re talking about a country that had one of the highest living standards in Europe and a relatively wealthy and sedate population, the vast majority of whom are now in revolt over mass redundancies and the fast disappearing values of their paychecks and savings.
More peaceful protests against the Federal Reserve during the End the Fed events over the weekend were largely ignored by the U.S. corporate media, but the potential for wider chaos exists should the dollar finally cave in to the hyperinflationary bubble that is being created by the ceaseless printing of money to fund the multi-trillion dollar bailout.
Those who continue to assert, "It can’t happen here," only need to look at the scenes in Reykjavik to realize that similar events could unfold across the U.S., where the reaction of militarized riot cops and even the military itself may be a little more heavy handed to say the least.
With top Russian analysts predicting the breakup of the U.S. into different parts, allied with people like deadly accurate trends forecaster Gerald Celente warning of food riots and tax rebellions, the scenes in Reykjavik may be amplified in the U.S. should a significant portion of the public wake up to the monumental fraud of the bailout and begin to feel the impact of its consequences as we enter 2009.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Williams correctly predicted oil dropping to $50 in early July when oil was near $140
by Larry Simons
November 22, 2008
Here is yesterday’s interview with Lindsey Williams on the Alex Jones Show
On July 9, 2008 (which was his first radio interview 5 weeks after he had received a threat to stop talking, in which afterward he did shut down his website), Lindsey Williams predicted the price of oil would go to $50 within a few months according to information he had received from a longtime acquaintance he worked with on the Alaskan pipeline. The price of oil at the time of this interview was $138 a barrel after reaching its peak of nearly $150 around the beginning of July 2008.
Here is a chart showing the drop in oil over the past 5 months. Website showing this chart is here. (Click to enlarge)
Williams said getting the oil at $50 a barrel would be done by opening up two major oilfields in the world: one in Indonesia and the other will be north of Russia. He said they will not open up any oil fields in America. Williams said that his source told him that the plan was to bankrupt the Arab world and that war with Iran wasn’t their plan, but breaking them financially by bankrupting them is.
Here is the big problem with this according to Williams. The interest for our national debt is bought mainly by the middle east countries. Whenever our national debt is not monatized, our dollar will be officially dead. Williams said that while people are dancing in the streets that gas is at $2 a gallon, our dollar will be in its last days as being our currency and they will have their excuse to usher in the North American Union and replace the dollar with new currency.
Williams then said his source told him that the next thing that will happen would be that Amrerica would be in a “financial state” like they’ve never seen before. Williams said he wouldn’t use the terms “depression” or “1929”, but he said the “financial state” would take years to recover from.
Here is the July 9, 2008 interview
New comments cause more outrage after leftist historian said he didn’t care about what really happened on 9/11
Nov 21, 2008
Just days after left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, he has repeated the sentiment, stating that questions regarding the attacks have "no practical political significance" and that 9/11 truth activists are "fanatics" who are wasting their time.
During a lecture at UQAM university in Montréal, Zinn was once again asked if he would support a new 9/11 investigation.
"I have said that what happened on 9/11 deserves to be investigated more than it has been because I don’t accept and believe official investigations and official reports.
But having said that, and I want to say that this has really annoyed a lot of people, but why not, and I will annoy more people by saying that I think there are many people who have become fanatics about 9/11. By fanatics I mean, they think we should drop everything and just concentrate our energies on finding out what happened on 9/11.
I don’t think the question of what really happened on 9/11 is the most important question we can ask."
Zinn then took a direct swipe at the 9/11 truth movement by stating:
"To tell a movement of citizens in the United States that this is something that we really have to make an issue of, I don’t believe it because we don’t need what happened on 9/11, we don’t need that to tell us about the crimes of the Bush administration.
I believe there are certain things that happen in history and certainly questions that are asked that divert us from the important things that we have to do at hand.
The truth is I don’t think anyone will ever really know what happened on 9/11 just as I don’t think anyone will really know who killed John F. Kennedy, and there are a lot of people who wasted a huge amount of time working on something that did not have any practical political significance."
Zinn then asserted that his previous comments at a lecture in Colorado has been distorted and that he never said he did not care about 9/11 or the fact that it was in the past.
Zinn’s exact words that day were "I don’t know enough about it (the 9/11 conspiracy) and the truth is I don’t much care, that’s past."
Watch the video
In our previous article we analysed how other leftist luminaries such as Noam Chomsky have belittled the efforts of 9/11 truth activists and attempted to dismiss the political significance of asking questions and highlighting evidence of government complicity in the attacks, while at the same time clearly acknowledging that the truth remains covered up and withheld.
This cements commentators such as Zinn and Chomsky as intellectual cowards and allows them to be used as leftist gatekeepers by an establishment that even they admit has used 9/11 as a means to facilitate aggressive and monstrous foreign and domestic agendas.
What really happened on 9/11 is not a distraction, it is the key to everything:
Without 9/11 there would be no "war on terror".
Without 9/11 there would be no "clash of civilizations"
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iraq.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iran.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in… (insert any country classified as part of the "axis of evil" or defined as being "with the terrorists")
Without 9/11 thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.
Without 9/11 hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.
Without 9/11 there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Without 9/11 there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.
Without 9/11 there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).
Without 9/11 there would be no Patriot Act.
Without 9/11 there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
Without 9/11 there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.
Without 9/11 there would be no Military Commissions Act and no coordinated program of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture of those defined as "enemy combatants".
Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence under the newly created office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Without 9/11 there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers who are suffering crippling and fatal respiratory illnesses.
Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in military and security spending that goes arm in arm with huge cutbacks in other key social programs (such as levees in New Orleans).
Without 9/11 there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint, which has contributed to plunging the nation into an abyss of debt and looks likely to tip the world into a deep recession if not a complete depression.
And on and on and on.
Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".
The ongoing ignorance of official 9/11 lies will continue to feed the fear and hostility that this post 9/11 environment is founded upon. If it is "fanatical" to attempt to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, so to speak, then every member of the 9/11 truth movement should plead guilty.
The definition of a "fanatic" is, in this writer’s humble opinion, much closer to the actions of the fawning audience at both of Howard Zinn’s afore mentioned lectures, who proceeded to inanely cheer their hero no matter what came out of his mouth.
Much more fanatical are the kind of pocket radicals who latch on to one way of thinking, stick steadfastly to one political paradigm, completely close their minds to the wider picture, proceeding to repeat adfinum to their friends in the "coffee revolution" shops what Zinn, Chomsky, Vidal and their ilk have said, in between conversations about the finer points of Jack Kerouac’s stream of consciousness prose, their understanding of the term ‘multiculturalism’ and the origins of Che Guevara’s seminal manual on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare.
Such people can groan all they like when questions over 9/11 are raised, it doesn’t change the fact that every single significant action the Bush administration has taken over the last seven years, every attack on freedom and crime against humanity that they have committed stems from the events of 9/11.
Yes Mr Zinn, you have angered a great many politically minded people with your comments, but what do you expect when you state that you do not care about what really happened on the most historically significant day in our recent history, and in the lifetimes of many of us?
Indeed, this is the key to Zinn’s comments. To him, what really happened on 9/11 is not significant because it is HE who represents the past, it is HE who is wasting his time and it is HE who is politically insignificant.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Coast to Coast with George Noory
November 19, 2008
Alex Jones talks with author and JFK researcher Jim Marrs and author, photographer and JFK researcher Robert J. Groden
November 20, 2008
While Leftists Celebrate "Change," Obama Appointees Suggest Massive Expansion Of Bush War Doctrine
Paul Joseph Watson
November 20, 2008
While naive, giddy and myopic establishment leftists have been celebrating the great "change" heralded by the election of Barack Obama, the President elect has been busy appointing people to key positions who advocate the same Neo-Con imperialist foreign policy crafted during eight years of the Bush administration.
The New York Times, widely recognized as the voice of the establishment Democratic left, set the tone of what we can expect from an Obama foreign policy in a lead editorial last Sunday entitled, "A military for a dangerous new world."
The editorial calls for U.S. military imperialism not to be scaled back under Obama, but to be vastly expanded both in terms of budget and scope.
Iran, China, Somalia, Russia and Pakistan are all listed as potential targets of U.S. military aggression and the paper echoes what Obama himself has said he will implement - an addition of nearly 100,000 more soldiers and marines to American ground forces, bringing the total to 759,000 active duty forces, at a cost of $100 billion dollars over the next six years.
Does this sound like a "change" from the Project For a New American century framework of endless "multi-theatre warfare," the inspiration for eight years of Bush administration militarism, or an expansion of that very doctrine?
Obama’s announced appointees and those that are expected to follow differ only from their Bush administration contemporaries in proficiency and competence, their zeal for military adventurism is coequal, while others that shaped eight awful years of spying, torture, eviscerations on freedom and unprovoked military attacks on sovereign nations will merely stay on in their roles.
Welcome to the "change that you can believe in".
Obama’s likely selection of Hillary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State highlights the brazen hypocrisy with which the "change" agenda has begun to be implemented since Obama won the election two and a half weeks ago.
Clinton voted for the invasion of Iraq, a point on which she was attacked by Obama during the phony punch and judy show of the debates. Obama also denounced Clinton for voting in favor of a Senate resolution branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton promised to "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel, a mantra echoed by Obama when he assured AIPAC, the notorious Israeli lobby, that military strikes against Iran were very much on the table.
Does this sound like the language of diplomacy or a change from eight years of the Bush doctrine?
Likewise, one of the favorites to become Obama’s Defense Secretary is Michèle A. Flournoy, deputy assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and president of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank.
As Alex Lantier writes, "Members of CNAS, a rather small Washington think tank with a staff of 30 employees founded in 2003 by (John) Podesta and Flournoy, play an outsized role in the Obama transition team."
"So many CNAS members are likely to join the Obama administration that CNAS officials told the (Wall Street) Journal they were concerned the think tank might fold after Obama’s inauguration."
CNAS has opposed a set timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, has advocated the deployment of more troops in Afghanistan and has called for U.S. troops to be stationed in Pakistan. CNAS has also urged military spending to be beefed up in order to compete with China’s growing Navy.
"CNAS publications, many of which are publicly available on its web site, make it clear that the Obama administration’s foreign policy will have a thoroughly imperialist character," notes Lantier.
How does this represent a "change" from eight years of Bush administration foreign policy? How does this represent a shift from a strategy of diplomacy based on intimidation, invasion and occupation?
Obama’s advisors have also been floating the likelihood of Robert Gates remaining as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, so it looks like we’re either going to have a warmonger or a warmonger in the position - what a choice!
The Financial Times reported this week, "President-Elect Barack Obama and Robert Gates are negotiating terms under which the defense secretary would remain as Pentagon chief in the new administration."
Gates of course has a history of entanglement with the military-industrial complex having pushed for the U.S. bombing of Nicaragua when he was deputy director of the CIA and later being indicted for his involvement in covering up the Iran Contra scandal.
Gates was the primary advocate for the Iraq "surge" which increased the U.S. military presence in the country.
Obama’s decision to appoint Eric Holder as Attorney General caused a flutter of controversy considering Holder’s involvement in ensuring billionaire fugitive investor Marc Rich received a presidential pardon at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, but the real dirt on Holder is far more shocking.
After leaving the Clinton administration, Holder, who played a key role in the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, which Obama voted for, set up the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling. The firm’s most high-profile case was its defense of Chiquita Brands International, Inc, whose executives were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia.
As Bill Van Auken writes, "Using his longstanding ties at the Justice Department, Holder managed to get Chiquita off the hook with a fine that amounted to 0.55 percent of its annual revenue. This was despite the overwhelming evidence—and the company’s own admission—that it had paid out millions of dollars to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym AUC), as its gunmen carried out the massacre, assassination, kidnapping and torture of tens of thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists."
"Holder’s record is not that of a champion of civil and democratic rights or a defender of the oppressed, but rather a legal servant of the corporations and the state, complicit in their criminality and repression."
Holder’s law enforcement deputy in the Obama administration is likely to be Robert Mueller, who will remain as FBI Director despite his involvement in the use of National Security Letters to illegally spy on American citizens via the collection of email, telecommunications and financial records.
Obama’s head of the CIA transition team is none other than John Brennan, an aide to former CIA director George Tenet and a key participant in the formulation of policies that led to the torture scandal, extraordinary renditions and secret prisons.
Van Auken notes, "Brennan, like Tenet, deserves to confront a war crimes tribunal, yet he is shaping intelligence policy for Obama."
"Given these appointments, a report published Monday by the Associated Press that the incoming Obama administration "is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in" torture hardly comes as a surprise."
Then we have Rahm Emanuel, "the enforcer", and Obama’s new chief of staff.
Emanuel is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.
Upon news of his appointment, Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, told the Jerusalem Post, "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House."
But forget sins of the father, Rahm Emanuel himself is a former Israeli IDF soldier who has a penchant for making death threats against his political enemies while crazily slamming a knife into a dinner table. Sounds like a diplomatic kind of guy.
When Emanuel’s appointment was confirmed, top Israeli newspaper the Maariv Daily hailed the news with the headline, "Our man in the White House."
Another Israeli news outlet, Y Net, reported, "Emanuel is pro-Israeli, and would not be willing to consider accepting the job unless he was convinced that President-elect Obama is pro-Israel."
Recall that President elect Barack Obama’s first act of "change" upon winning the Democratic presidential nomination back in June was to don a joint US-Israeli label pin, head on over to AIPAC and prostrate himself in front of the Israeli lobby, vowing to keep military action in mind for Iran and promising to hand over another $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money in military assistance to the Zionist state.
It seems that Obama has already answered the question of whether he can be a more hardcore Israel hard-liner than George W. Bush - ‘yes he can’!
When are left-wing establishment liberals going to overcome their inane idolatry for Obama and realize that the people he is putting into positions of power are the same and in some cases worse than the Neo-Cons who ran eight years of Bush foreign policy?
When are leftists going to get over their petty power trips and understand that the mantra of "change" is a mere illusion to provide left cover for a massive expansion in U.S. imperialism the likes of which the Bush administration could never have accomplished?
When are liberals going to stop behaving like gloating children and understand that Obama’s exalted messiah status and political capital, allied with his publicly stated agenda and the nature and track record of those he has appointed to key positions, is a recipe for a new wave of militarism and an expansion of the pre-emptive Bush foreign policy doctrine that Obama himself campaigned against with his rhetorical and empty promises of "change"?
Over the last few days, unlike scores of other left-wing websites who are still in a zombiefied trance over their new "ObaMassiah", WSWS.org have put out a series of excellent articles concerning the "change" illusion and we encourage you to read them via the links below.
Obama’s "seamless transition" to endless war by Bill Van Auken
Obama’s transition: A who’s who of imperialist policy by Alex Lantier
Obama’s attorney general pick and the illusion of change by Bill Van Auken
Monday, November 17, 2008
I’m now discovering that “Crooks and Liars” couldn’t be a more appropriate name for them!
by Larry Simons
November 18, 2008
David Neiwert of Crooks and Liars is at it again, doing what he does best, smearing people in whom he disagrees without debunking one thing his victims say. Neiwert, once again, has smeared Ron Paul and, as usual, provides no counter argument or debunks anything the Texas Congressman claims. Niewert is a regular Ron Paul basher at Crooks and Liars and on his own site here.
Ron Paul joined Alex Jones’ talk show a day after the election and gave this interview on how Obama could be the shift for the New World Order. David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars simply didn't like hearing this about his newly elected Savior, so he resorted to doing the only thing he CAN do, call Ron Paul a "nut" and "kook" without researching a single word that came from Ron Paul's mouth. Here’s the interview.
Of course, these facts about Obama didn’t sit too well with the zombies at the liberal site Crooks and Liars. Writer David Neiwert said this today in one of his usual “smear without refutation” stories.
Ron Paul already has a considerable track record of actively promoting Patriot-movement "New World Order" conspiracy theories. In recent years, he's even been joined by mainstream right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck.
And while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign, now that the election is over, he's back to business as usual -- and predictably, he's casting Barack Obama as the new embodiment of the conspiracy.
Paul recently gave an interview to a conspiracy-theory radio program in which he warned against "a cataclysmic shift toward a new world order":
It has been clear for awhile now that the far right would see an Obama presidency as a pretext for reviving its 1990s-style conspiracy-mongering and scapegoating on a broad scale, and so far that's clearly the case. We saw signs of this before the election with the resurrection of zombie 1990s-style black-helicopter smears of Obama.
And now Ron Paul, who successfully presented himself as a mainstream "libertarian" throughout the campaign -- when the reality is that he is a classic Bircherite -- is advancing "New World Order v.2" for mass consumption.
Boy, we can hardly wait to see what this produces. If the 1990s -- when last we endured a wave of paranoid fearmongering like this -- were anything to judge by, it won't be pretty. The next four years or more are as fraught with rightist peril as they are with promise for progressives.
Notice how Neiwert says, "In recent years, he's even been joined by mainstream right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck", but the link he provided in that sentence, here, takes you to a story that only references Glenn Beck without mentioning Ron Paul at all.
Neiwert says that Ron Paul has a track record of actively promoting Patriot-movement "New World Order" conspiracy theories without mentioning one word about what is wrong with being involved in Patriot movements. Then he conveniently adds the words "New World Order" and "conspiracy theories" to it to make it appear to his readers that this is some fringe movement or a part of some club that only "nutballs" are in, without explaining what New World Order even refers to and does not refute one thing Ron Paul says in the Alex Jones interview.
He calls Ron Paul "far right" despite the fact that Ron Paul has openly rejected what the far right peddles. Ron Paul has not endorsed President Bush on just about everything he has done and did not support hardly any of the views of the other Republican candidates for president. Ron Paul has had interviews with far-right people like Bill O’ Reilly and Glenn Beck and has rejected their views, but Neiwert conveniently leaves this out.
Nearly every link Neiwert provides in his story to "attempt" to prove his points about Ron Paul take you to his own site here, a site that continually makes the claim that just because some of Ron Paul's supporters just happen to be "conspiracy theorists" and even some Klansmen, then Ron Paul must be a conspiracy theorist and racist too. Yet, this is EXACTLY what Obama supporters were very angry at the McCain camp for during the presidential campaign...that just because Obama was friends with terrorist William Ayres didn't make Obama a terrorist. Can you say 'hypocrite'? Say it loudly, please.
If there's one group of people that should refrain from saying that just because supporters of a presidential candidate have certain views doesn't mean the candidate himself endorses those views, it should be the Obama people!
In fact, the Obama/Ayres comparison could be viewed as worse than Ron Paul's associations, since Neiwert has not said, nor can he, that Ron Paul is friends with the 'conspiracy' people or the Klansmen, as Obama is with Ayres. Obama is also friends with Rahm Emanuel, whose father was a Zionist terrorist as a member of the militant group Irgun in the late 40's. When will Neiwert do a story on Obama being friends with his newly appointed Chief of Staff whose father was a terrorist? We're anxiously awaiting, Neiwert.
I’m sick and tired of Neiwert’s attack columns when he offers ZERO refutes of what he complains about. According to Neiwert, if he thinks were kooks and nuts, well, ‘nuff said! No proof needed. No facts needed. No research has to be done. Neiwert said Ron Paul is a kook----so, he must be!
Also, I noticed that Neiwert posted an old video clip of Ron Paul from last year talking about Obama, yet in his article he said this, “And while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign, now that the election is over, he's back to business as usual -- and predictably, he's casting Barack Obama as the new embodiment of the conspiracy.” What's funny is, Neiwert says, "...while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign...", and he posts a clip of Ron Paul speaking during his presidential campaign! This guy has Bill O 'Reilly-itis! Also, why did he post an old clip when the story is about a recent Ron Paul interview he gave November 5 in which he just posted a link for?
So, I posted this comment (click to enlarge)
Roughly 8 minutes after I posted my comment, there was a message from the site monitor attached to my post. It reads this:
[You stay on topic, refrain from abusing other posters and simply follow the commenting policy and you won't be deleted. Site Monitor]
Yet, when I read the site monitor’s comment, I was going to post another comment in response to that, but noticed the words “POST COMMENT” were gone at the very bottom of the page. I was logged in and normally when you are logged into Crooks and Liars you see the words “POST COMMENT” at the very bottom of the page where the comment thread is on. 8 minutes after I posted my comment, those words were gone. I had already been BANNED from Crooks and Liars despite the site monitors’ comment “…and you will not be deleted”. No, they didn’t DELETE my comment, they banned me from posting further comments!
I also noticed where other comments were the words “Reply” were gone as well. This is where you can click the word “reply” and respond to a particular post. Gone too. I was officially banned 8 minutes after my comment condemning their smear story.
What I find very interesting is, even funny, is the fact that it’s this very behavior that we “conspiracy theorists” talk about when we say there are cover-ups or censorship of our views. We are called “kooks” and “nuts” when we tell others how we have been censored or when there are efforts made to silence us, and here we are with another example of the very people claiming we are “nutty” when they are the very ones silencing us.
Here are screenshots of posts on C & L of what it normally looks like when you are logged in to the site and you are free to post a comment. Notice the words “Reply” and “flag as inappropriate” beside each post. (Also notice the negative policy-breaking comments by other posters who were NOT banned) (click to enlarge)
Here is a screenshot AFTER I was banned from the site. I am still logged in but notice the words “Reply” and “flag as appropriate” are gone. (click to enalrge)
Here’s the kicker. Roughly 30 minutes later, I logged out of the Crooks and Liars site. I went back into the site around 10:40pm (my time) and what I discovered was unbelievable. I was banned from the entire website! Can you believe this? I posted the above comment on their site and it got me banned for good! Is the first amendment dead and Crooks and Liars? Apparently so. Here’s the screen shot of what I see when I type in www.crooksandliars.com and hit “enter”. “Access denied”. They blocked my freaking IP address!
I will email site founder John Amato and ask WHY I was banned for simply expressing my opinion and not violating the post policy---even while others were violating it! I’m learning very fast now if you speak in dissent of Obama, you are the anti-Christ and will be banned, maybe even arrested or jailed. You can’t speak out against their new Messiah!
I will keep you posted on what John Amato’s response is….if there’s one.
I'm sorry I couldn't provide a link to the story, I was banned, so I couldn't copy the link. (I now have the link. It's posted above in the very first sentence of this story)
Thanks to PrisonPlanet.com for posting my story and joining my fight to expose these hypocritical frauds
Senator calls for blank check to be cancelled, says passage of legislation was predicated on lies
Paul Joseph Watson
November 17, 2008
Senator Jim Inhofe has slammed the continued secrecy behind where the bailout money has gone, saying that Hank Paulson could have given it to his friends and that the "blank check" must be cancelled now.
The Federal Reserve has failed to comply with congressional demands for transparency and disclose the destination of at least $2 trillion dollars in bailout funds, underscoring once again the failure of top down socialism and the folly of trusting the foxes to guard the henhouse.
Speaking with Tulsa World, the Oklahoma Republican said, "It is just outrageous that the American people don’t know that Congress doesn’t know how much money he (Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson) has given away to anyone," adding, "It could be to his friends. It could be to anybody else. We don’t know. There is no way of knowing."
Inhofe chastised Paulson for carrying out a bait and switch in which he abandoned the central promise to buy out bad mortgage debt after passage of the bill by Congress.
"He was able to get this authority from Congress predicated on what he was going to do, and then he didn’t do it," Inhofe said.
Inhofe also highlighted the urgency with which the bailout bill was pushed and said this was a tell-tale sign that its advocates were lying about the problem in order to ram through the legislation.
"I have learned a long time ago. When they come up and say this has to be done and has to be done immediately, there is no other way of doing it, you have to sit back and take a deep breath and nine times out of 10 they are not telling the truth," he said.
"And this is one of those nine times."
As we reported at the time, some members of Congress were threatened with martial law in America if they failed to vote for the bill.
Inhofe is now trying to rally support for a freeze on what’s left of the initial $350 billion of bailout money with his "roll back the bailout" proposal, which will also require an affirmative vote on the part of Congress to approve Treasury’s plan for the remaining $350 billion.
"It is imperative that we not allow that amount of money to be added to a deficit approaching $1 trillion this year without any input from the legislative branch," stated Inhofe on his website.
"Congress abdicated its constitutional responsibility by signing a truly blank check over to the Treasury Secretary," he wrote.
"However, the lame duck session of Congress offers us a tremendous opportunity to change course. We should take it."
Inhofe dismissed the premise of the bailout, affirming that giving away money does not stimulate the economy.
"If we keep on nursing a broken system, then we can’t expect to have a different result come later on," he said.
"I just think we have to draw the line someplace, and the time is here."
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Although not effecting the game’s outcome, it effects the integrity of the game
by Rick Simons
November 16, 2008
In Sunday’s game against the Pittsburgh Steelers and San Diego Chargers, with 5 seconds left in the game something bizarre happened. On the last play of the game San Diego quarterback Philip Rivers throws a 9-yard forward pass to one receiver. He runs about 3 yards and tosses to another receiver about a yard behind him (shown in picture above). That receiver drops back about 2 yards and throws a 3-yard backward lateral to another receiver, which is then batted down by Pittsburgh safety Troy Polamalu, who bends down and scoops up the ball and runs 11 yards for a touchdown.
The game is delayed a few minutes, then refs rule the play a touchdown. A few moments later, after a booth review, the play is called "dead due to an illegal forward pass" made by the Chargers, then the game is declared officially over. No big deal is made about it since the Steelers won the game anyway without the touchdown, although the play only added to the frustration of Steelers coach Mike Tomlin because of his team being the victim of a whopping 13 penalities in the game.
I know the outcome of the game was not in jeopardy. The Steelers win either way. But that call has to be the biggest blown call in the NFL since I can remember. Polamalu earned that touchdown. There was clearly no illegal forward pass. For any analyst to say that the play didn't matter other than in Vegas, or fantasy football, CLEARLY doesn't have the integrity of the NFL in mind.
It was stunning to see on TV these ‘so called’ NFL experts totally ignoring that play (only touching on it briefly), and showing no clips of it!!! How are we to believe them the next time they touch on a play without showing the clip? NBC’s Keith Olbermann needs his eyes checked for blatantly lying when he announced during the Redskins-Cowboys pre-game show, “It was clearly a forward pass”. Even a writer for Steelers.com didn’t mention the play in her story here.
I don't know what’s going on regarding that play, but its obvious something is amiss. Bias, or just plain stupidity?
Worthless in the aspect of the win; priceless in the aspect of what’s right. I thought instant replay was designed to get the call right. It didn't work here.
by Larry Simons
I also found it interesting that after the play was over, the referee said, “the illegal forward pass would have killed the play. There was no time remaining on the clock. The game is over.” Just minutes before making this announcement, the ref said it was a touchdown but obviously reversed the call. This has to be the most blatant blown call since 12-year old Jeffrey Maier interfered with a fly ball hit by Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter in the 1996 Championship series that would have been easily caught by Orioles right fielder Tony Tarasco, but was ruled a home run.
One question I want answered: If the play was killed after the “illegal forward pass” (which there was none), where was the flag? The play was even reviewed and the wrong call was made.
The NFL needs to further examine this play and reinstate the points to the Steelers to make the final 18-10 (assuming the extra point was made), and to credit Troy Polamalu with his personal career stats he was denied.
It appears that referee Scott Green has now ADMITTED the Polamalu touchdown was a touchdown in yesterdays Chargers-Steelers game.
“The rule was misinterpreted,” Green said. “We should have let the play go through in the end, yes. It was misinterpreted that instead of killing the play we should have let the play go through.”
What’s he talking about? The play was NOT killed. The play DID go through. Doesn’t anyone remember the refs first calling it a touchdown and then overturning it? If they killed the play (like Green claims) there would have not been a touchdown ruling at all, but they DID call it a touchdown first, so Green is blatantly lying.
How is Green getting away with blatantly making an incorrect call that was CLEARLY wrong and then blatantly lying about “killing the play”?? If the play HAD been killed, there would have been a flag, or whistle. But there were neither.
ESPN’s Chris Berman said after the game that the reason why the TD was overturned was because “you can’t advance a recovered lateral”. 2 BIG problems with this analysis:
1- The referees did not mention this on the field as the reason for overturning it and
2- the fact that Scott Green has now ADMITTED it was a touchdown. If a mistake is now admitted, how can Berman’s analysis be correct?
Further investigation reveals that this is not the ONLY incident in which Green and his crew’s inconsistencies were in question. The Steelers LOST a playoff game to the Jaguars earlier this year 31-29 on an incorrect call by the Green clan. Does Green have it in for the Steelers? It appears so.
Here’s the clip
London Times report conveniently links alleged terror cells to Obama’s number one target - Pakistan
Paul Joseph Watson
November 15, 2008
The notion that terrorists will attack America shortly after Barack Obama takes office is again being vigorously pushed by the corporate media as well as shadowy intelligence sources, and has reached the same crescendo that preceded 9/11, a disturbing sign that the public is being prepared for a newly manufactured mass casualty event.
The London Times today reports, "Barack Obama is being given ominous advice from leaders on both sides of the Atlantic to brace himself for an early assault from terrorists."
"Lord West of Spithead, the (UK) Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a "huge threat", saying: "There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this."
The report links the activity to so-called Al-Qaeda cells operating out of Pakistan, which is certainly convenient considering Obama’s stated intention to support and even expand the scope of continued bombing raids on the country in the name of killing terrorists.
Is a new atrocity being planned so as to provide President Obama with the complete justification to attack areas of Pakistan, just as 9/11 provided the pretext for Bush to launch the pre-arranged attack on Afghanistan in the same year that he took office in 2001?
Warnings that Obama will face a crisis shortly after entering office have been voluminous.
Vice-President elect Joe Biden, told an audience in Seattle last month "We’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
Biden was vehement in his proclamation, stating that it was a "guarantee" and a "promise" that Obama would face an international crisis and that "tough" and "unpopular" decisions would have to be made to combat it.
Colin Powell made similar statements when he endorsed Obama on Meet the Press, saying "There’s going to be a crisis which will come along on the 21st, 22nd of January that we don’t even know about right now."
Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright also told CNN’s John Roberts, "It’s just a statement of fact…something unexpected, you always have to be prepared for that."
Top Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski also told CNN that Obama will face "imminent problems" immediately upon taking office.
The confidence with which top globalists are forecasting a crisis that will unfold at some point next year is staggering and it strongly hints that a new manufactured horror is in the works to get the country behind Obama and mandate him to make the "unpopular decisions" that he is already preparing.
Here are the video/audios of Colin Powell, Biden and Albright's remarks
Saturday, November 15, 2008
November 15, 2008
George Noory talks with Peter Joseph, creator of the films, “Zeitgeist” and the new “Zeitgeist: Addendum”. From the November 14, 2008 interview.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
In newly rediscovered audio interview, Rahm Emanuel describes militarized training aimed at preparing Americans to deal with terrorist attacks
Paul Joseph Watson
November 11, 2008
A newly rediscovered 2006 audio clip has shed more light on Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama’s plan for compulsory community service and a "national civilian security force". In an interview with Ben Smith of the New York Daily News, Emanuel outlined the agenda for military-style training, essentially a domestic draft, aimed at preparing Americans for a chemical or biological terrorist attack.
Asked by Smith about the universal service plan and whether people would have to live in military barracks, Emanuel laughed before responding, "We’re going to have universal civil defense training, somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months of training….but there can be nothing wrong with all Americans having a joint similar experience of what we call civil defense training or civil service in service of the country, in preparation, which will give people a sense of what it means to be an American."
In response to the point that the program was significantly expanded in comparison to what the U.S. government already has in place, Emanuel responded, "Guess what - we have a lot more challenges so we are going to need a lot to do it."
What challenges is Emanuel referring to? The same crisis foretold by Joe Biden, Colin Powell and others that we are "guaranteed" will unfold shortly after Obama takes office?
"It will be a common experience and we will be prepared, God forbid, God forbid that there is a chemical hit, another terrorist act or natural disaster becoming more frequent - there’ll be a body of citizens who are ready and capable and trained - that’s all you have to think about," said Emanuel before smugly declaring, "We’re all here for you OK? It’s a circle of love."
Asked if the training would be military style, with people wearing uniforms, Emanuel stated, "If you’re worried about are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks the answer is yes," adding that the service could be done through state national guard.
A jumping jack is a military term for an exercise otherwise known as a star jump. What on earth does Emanuel mean when he says Americans are going to be forced to perform military-style physical exercises and what does this have to do with civil defense or preparing for a terrorist attack? It sounds more like the state-mandated physical workouts described in Orwell’s 1984.
The video then features a clip from C-Span from August 2006 in which Emanuel is asked whether the program will be compulsory, to which he responds, "In a sense it’s required of everybody, 18 to 25, three months, and at some point at that point you do it."
The use of the word "required" is noteworthy, because this exact terminology was removed from Obama’s change.gov website when controversy over the program arose last week.
The militarized nature of the program and its supposed intention sounds more like a draft-lite than the "community service" angle now being pitched on Obama’s website. It also bears similarities to the nationwide FEMA-run program training pastors and preachers to act as "pacifiers" in the event of martial law being declared after a terror attack or a natural disaster.
Will the liberal left pay as much attention to Emanuel’s stated agenda to implement a proxy domestic draft as they did to rumors of Bush bringing back conscription, or will the true scope of Obama’s "national civilian security force" continue to fly under the radar?
Watch the clip below
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
by Larry Simons
November 11, 2008
General O’ Reilly (only in his own mind) has rallied his troops in the past to “defeat” the ‘enemies of Christmas’, which is just about everyone who uses the term “holiday” to describe Christmas (as in ‘happy holidays’): department stores, politicians, singers, ‘left-wing liberal’ bloggers, Santa Claus himself and humans in general around the globe. Well, Billo can add one more hater of Christmas to his list: News Corporation (the media conglomerate that owns FOX News).
The website mediabistro.com on its TVNewser section has posted this story:
“TVNewser has learned News Corp. is canceling its extravagant holiday bash normally held at the Hilton in midtown Manhattan. The annual party is for all News Corp. employees, including Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network the New York Post, the TV stations division, 20th Television, etc., etc.”
It appears Billo was ‘defeating’ the ‘enemies’ of Christmas on the battlefields but was losing in his own house. You’re pretty effective Billo. You can’t even get the people in your own building to call it Christmas! Why has “fair and balanced” Billo kept this story from us? We have proof he still subscribes to this ridiculous fairy tale. On Billo’s website, he is now offering a new “we say Merry Christmas” bumper sticker, as long as you make the mandatory purchase of $19.95 from any item on his website store.
So, let me get this straight. If you buy products from a phony (O’ Reilly), you get a bumper sticker that represents a phony claim (that there’s a war on Christmas), but you have to send him REAL money! Nice, Billo. That’s the Christmas spirit.
Actually it all makes sense. Billo the phony is simply using phoniness to profit from a holiday (and that’s what it is, a holiday) that is a common belief among millions and millions of phonies (religious people). And here’s the irony of it all….I would bet my left gonad that the majority of people who believe loofah boy’s insane conjecture that there is this big conspiracy to do away with Christmas are the religious! I thought Billo and religious people didn’t believe in conspiracy theories?
A News Corp HOLIDAY party. Notice there's no religious scenes, no Jesus, no manger, no wisemen....and most of all, no objections!
Maybe it’s an inside job? Maybe Billo created the phony war on Christmas so he could get you to buy those stupid little trinkets from his website. $19.95 gets you the “we say Merry Christmas” bumper sticker. $29.95 gets you the “we say Merry Christmas” loofah. $39.95 gets you the “we say Merry Christmas” strap-on dildo (an additional $10 for Billo’s autograph on the shaft). Billo seems to love conspiracies when it’s those evil liberals who are “out to get him”, but when you mention things like 9-11, Billo will call you a “kook”, probably because he hasn’t found a way to profit from it yet.
Yes, the “war on Christmas” does exist, I’m afraid to say; but in the only place it has ever existed….in the heads of Billo’s other personalities.
Worst Person tonight was a smorgasbord of Billo----a 3-fer! He won the silver for his Christmas crap!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Obama's chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service
by J.D. Tuccille
November 6, 2008
Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Barack Obama's choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:
"It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. ...
Here's how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They'll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we're hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities' most pressing needs."
Emanuel and co-author Bruce Reed insist "this is not a draft," but go on to write of young men and women, "the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service." They also warn, "[s]ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom," ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service.
As chief of staff, Emanuel will not be in a position to directly introduce public policy, but his enthusiasm for compulsory service, combined with Barack Obama's own plan to require high school students to perform 50 hours of government-approved service, suggest an unfortunate direction for the new administration.
by Larry Simons
I find it interesting that although the phrase "will be asked" is used in reference to the manner in which young Americans will serve. But, in the exact same excerpt the phrase "the nation will enlist them" when it says, "Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service".
"Will be asked" and "the nation will enlist them" are complete opposites since people can only enlist themselves; they cannot be enlisted by others. When the phrase "the nation will enlist them" is used, the word "enlist" in this sentence can be translated "force". Do you really think the government will ask young people? What if NO ONE enlists?
This is nothing more than communism/Nazism/fascism and whatever "ism" you choose to attach. Protect your children America. This is not a made up conspiracy theory. It is written right in Emanuel’s 2006 book. Look it up. Remember, if something is universal it cannot be at the same time voluntary. If it’s universal, everyone has to do it.
Welcome to the new authoritarian America under Obama’s national service plan. This is the "change" people voted for? Yes, it will be change alright, only the change will be making Americans less free.
Alex Jones talks about this
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Rahm Emanuel’s father was member of militant terror group that bombed hotels, massacred villagers - Obama pick is keen supporter of lobbying group aimed at creating militarized youth brigades
Paul Joseph Watson
November 6, 2008
President elect Barack Obama’s first appointment, Rahm Emanuel, who is set to become chief-of-staff, is the son of a member of the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, which was responsible for bombing hotels, marketplaces as well as the infamous Deir Yassin massacre, in which hundreds of Palestinian villagers were slaughtered.
Revelations about Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Weather Underground domestic terrorist, which dogged him during the final weeks of the campaign trail, pale in significance to his selection of Emanuel, whose father, Benjamin Emanuel, was an Irgun member.
Irgun has been labeled a terrorist organization by both The New York Times newspaper and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.
Irgun was closely affiliated with the widely feared hardcore terrorist Stern Gang, an organization that carried out assassinations, train bombings and bombed police stations in an attempt to pave the way for unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine. Irgun operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.
Following the ideology of right-wing Revisionist Zionism, Irgun’s doctrine was that, "Every Jew had the right to enter Palestine; only active retaliation would deter the Arabs and the British; only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".
This manifested itself by way of terror attacks such as the July 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which killed 91 people. In 2006, Israelis including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing organized by the Menachem Begin Centre.
Buses and marketplaces were also a target for Irgun, who were widely chastised for favoring attacks against civilian targets.
The widely condemned Deir Yassin massacre, which occurred in April 1948, involved Irgun working in consort with the Stern Gang and going house to house slaughtering Palestinian villagers. Eyewitness accounts of spies working for mainstream Jewish authorities, such as Meir Pa’il, reported Irgun members running around shooting civilians "full of lust for murder".
"I saw the horrors that the fighters had created. I saw bodies of women and children, who were murdered in their houses in cold blood by gunfire, with no signs of battle and not as the result of blowing up the houses," said eyewitness Eliahu Arbel.
"[One body was] a woman who must have been eight months pregnant," noted Jacques de Reynier, a French-Swiss Representative of the International Red Cross, "He hit in the stomach, with powder burns on her dress indicating she’d been shot point-blank.".
The son of a man who helped carry out this slaughter has now been selected by Obama to be his chief-of-staff. Cries of "sins of the father" lose their gusto when one considers the fact that, after the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel "Was so angry at the president’s enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting ‘Dead! … Dead! … Dead!’ and plunging the knife into the table after every name." Sounds like a nice guy.
Rahm Emanuel is also an enthusiastic supporter of the United States Public Service Academy Act, a lobbying group founded in 2006 in order to promote the foundation of an American public service academy modeled on the military academies - a youth corps whose students would be trained in "civilian internship in the armed forces".
This rings the alarm bells when we recall Obama’s pledge to create a "civilian national security force" that is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the U.S. military.
A creepy You Tube video of a brown-shirt style Obama youth brigade chanting and marching military style emerged last month, raising fears about where the messianic cult-like status of Obama’s image could eventually lead.