Friday, January 30, 2009

School Children Complain Of "Obama Worship" During Lessons

Obama youth brigades and Hitler youth strikingly similar

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
January 29th, 2009

Several disturbing stories have come to our attention over the past weeks and days that further highlight how sections of the American population have elevated Barack Obama to a dangerously inflated "messianic" status normally only associated with Royalty or totalitarian leaders.

What makes the following accounts so much more insidious, however, is that they all involve children.

Perhaps the most insidious is to be found on the Tree of Liberty forum where a concerned parent from Las Vegas reveals that his 1st grader son has complained of having to pledge allegiance every day at school to a huge projected image of the new president.

The post reads:

My son, who is in 1st grade, came home yesterday saying that he didn’t want to go back to school anymore. So I asked him why? He said that during the Pledge of Allegiance the teacher put up a large image of Obama next to the flag. I asked him if he was sure of this and I suggested to him that maybe the teacher just put up an 8×10 photo of the president. He said, "No, it is a large picture of Obama and when we are done Ms. **** turns off the image." I also asked if they did this for Bush last year? He again said, "No." This was my sons first day back to school since before Christmas, he was on a 5 week track break.

My wife volunteers a couple of days each week with helping out with my sons teacher doing various duties. She said that she would come in early this morning to see what was going on. She just got back and reported that this was true and then some. She said she waited out in the pod area and could see inside 3 of the 5 class rooms in this section of school. She said that when the kids stand each teacher flips on the classroom overhead and a full body image of Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from the flag that hangs on the wall. She said that the image has Obama staring straight at you with no facial expressions, just a serious look. I asked my wife if Obama had his hand over his heart? She said that she was so taken aback by this that she didn’t see it. What is worse is she said that all of the kids in each class faced Obama instead of the flag that hangs in the corner.

What the heck is going on?

Guys and gals, I need some advise on how to approach this. I can be somewhat hot headed so I need to plan accordingly with what to say to the principal when we go in to inquire about this. I am sure I will be brushed off so what is my next step? Obviously it will be the school district but then who? ACLU, Veteran groups, Christian groups? Who would be interested in this vile activity?

This is happening in the Clark County School District here in Las Vegas, Henderson area.

Anyone in their right mind will realize that Americans are not supposed to "pledge allegiance" or "service" to a president. The U.S. Constitution, that piece of paper that Obama clumsily swore to defend and protect, states quite clearly that elected representatives are supposed to act in "service" of the people’s best interests, not the other way around.

Imagine the outcry that would have ensued if it had been revealed that huge images of George W Bush were being projected onto the walls of schools every day during his presidency.

Indeed, a similar incident in 2006 did cause waves of consternation when video emerged of children at a so called "Jesus Camp" being asked to worship a life size cutout of Bush.

Seemingly, now that Obama is president this activity is not restricted to "wacky" religious gatherings and is becoming commonplace throughout schools in America.

Another concerned parent relates a similar story on our own PrisonPlanet forum:

I live in Toledo, Ohio & my 3 kids (16, 13 &10) had to watch the inauguration & ceremony in our Toledo Public Schools. My 13 year old daughter is supposed to write a letter to President Obama & my 10 year old is supposed to write 5 facts & 5 opinions on President Obama. what do i tell them so i dont get CSB called on me?

Given that he has been described as the "global leader", it is quite apt that Obama worship is apparently not restricted to U.S. schools. Two weeks ago the Toronto Star reported on how Rowntree Public School now has its own "Obama curriculum" complete with a theme song that "blasts" out the following lyrics from speakers in the school every day:

"Building blocks of a new vow/ A million stops and a new route …"

Children are asked to complete "Obama video worksheets" while learning all about the president’s life, but apparently not what his policies are or even what party he represents.

As part of the curriculum the students were asked to write a letter to the president, which is also featured in the article (see below).



The final paragraph states "You are the best because you are the first African American president in the United States of America!" and the children end by promising that they will "always remember your slogan, ‘Yes we can!’".

The "Obama curriculum" is clearly not an isolated phenomenon. We have also recently reported on how one teacher has suggested removing from school curriculums all classic novels that explore racial prejudice in society, purely because Obama is now president.

When added to the footage of glassy eyed children singing beautiful melodic songs about Obama (see below) and the now infamous footage of the Obama youth brigade children blindly reciting what their elders have told them to, these stories add up to a disturbing overall trend.



The youth brigades of Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union are obviously an extreme form of this kind of blind indoctrination, however they were more like scout organizations, their doctrines were never openly instituted in schools!

Perhaps even more disturbing is that there is no significant authoritative pressure pushing this kind of activity in schools. Clearly the teachers instigating the activities in the incidents related above are doing so of their own will, the phenomenon is a cultural one.

The fervor with which Obama is being received by portions of the American public is reaching a frightening level. It has come to the point where the new president is literally being hailed as the anointed savior of humanity.

We have flocks of celebrities encouraging Americans to "pledge service" to Obama, a disturbing notion given the fact that Obama has promised to found a "national civilian security force" and institute forms of compulsory community service for all Americans.

It is one thing for naive adults to buy into such groupthink, but to also subject young children to this, a mentality akin to the desperate prole worship of Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, is profoundly foreboding for any so called free society.

-------------------------------------

Alex Jones’ The Obama Deception — Coming March 15

Alex Jones The Obama Deception will be the first hard-hitting film to expose Obama, his agenda & handlers cutting through all the media hype, side-issues and Left/Right rhetoric. Alex has made several films exposing the Bush agenda and will approach the Obama Administrations plans from the same non-partisan point of view looking past the frontman in the White House to the real owners on Wall Street, in the Bilderberg group and at the Federal Reserve.

Please help spread the word about this powerful new film. Make sure everyone you know whether they claim to be a Democrat, Republican, independent or none of the above sees this film before it is too late. The Obama Deception hits DVD on March 15.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Turley: Obama ‘accessory’ to war crimes if no prosecution


David Edwards and Ron Brynaert
Raw Story
January 28, 2009

A few weeks ago, George Washington University Constitutional Law professor Jonathan Turley, while appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, essentially said that the Obama administration would "own" any war crimes — such as the reported waterboarding of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — if it chose to look the other way. On Monday’s show Turley went a little further and suggested that if Obama impedes investigations or prosecution that he wouldn’t just be an "apologist," but also an "accessory."

Olbermann started the segment by reading a statement released by the Obama administration in response to last week’s allegations from a former NSA analyst that President Bush’s national security agency targeted news organizations for surveillance and even pried into personal records like finance and travel."

The response stated, "As the president made clear [last week] his administration is ensuring that all programs are conducted in accordance with our values and the rule of law. There will be no exceptions."

Olbermann noted that that was similar to claims made by Bush the last few years, insisting that "all programs were conducted consistent with our values and rule of law," even though most experts have pointed out that methods such as waterboarding are considered torture, inhumane and against the law.

"How much daylight might there be between that and any of the analogs from the Bush White House?" Olbermann asked Turley, who immediately responded, "Not much."

Turley pointed out that the Obama administration response was written "..in the future tense. You weren’t asking whether he would do these things. Nobody thinks that Obama is George Bush. I think we believe that he’s better than these past programs. But people are not asking about the future. We are asking about the past."

"It takes a lot to avoid a very simple truism," Turley argued. "That, if true, these would be crimes and we prosecute crimes. We call people criminals who commit them. It is very easy to say. All you need is the principals and the courage to say it."

Turley said that he had "very little sympathy for the people that committed this torture. I’ve heard President Obama say we don’t want talented people at the CIA looking over their shoulders. Well those talented people in this circumstance would be torturers."

"But in reality nobody thinks that they’re going to be prosecuted," Turley continued. "They have something called the estoppel defense where they can say that they were told by people like John Yoo and others that what they did was legal. That does not protect the president and the vice president, and they’re the ones and the people just below them who deserve to be investigated and they must be prosecuted if they’ve committed war crimes or we will shred four treaties and at least four statutes."

[Turley has more background about the estoppel arguments at his blog.]

"And the problem here is it wouldn’t make Obama an apologist it would make him an accessory," Turley argued. "He would be preventing the investigation of war crimes. How could he go from that and say that he’s all about the rule of law?"

Referring to the fresh Rove subpoena, Turley said that "we could have an interesting fight where George Bush comes in and says ‘I’m still claiming executive privilege’ when the current president is saying we don’t recognize it. Indeed. Obama’s people could prosecute Rove and others and I think that the federal courts would give much greater rate to the man currently in the Oval Office than the man who just left it."

Olbermann agreed that "the current executive is the one who gets to decide what executive privilege is."

This video is from MSNBC’s Countdown, broadcast Jan. 26, 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.


"National emergency centers" on military bases to house American citizens

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 27, 2009

A new bill introduced in Congress authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a national emergency.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645 mandates the establishment of "national emergency centers" to be located on military installations for the purpose of to providing "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster," according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to "provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations".

Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security," an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Many credible forecasters have predicted riots and rebellions in America that will dwarf those already witnessed in countries like Iceland and Greece.

With active duty military personnel already being stationed inside the U.S. under Northcom, partly for purposes of "crowd control," fears that Americans could be incarcerated in detainment camps are all too real.

The bill mandates that six separate facilities be established in different Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions (FEMA) throughout the country.

The camps will double up as "command and control" centers that will also house a "24/7 operations watch center" as well as training facilities for Federal, State, and local first responders.

The bill also contains language that will authorize camps to be established within closed or already operating military bases around the country.As we have previously highlighted, in early 2006 Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root was awarded a $385 million dollar contract by Homeland Security to construct detention and processing facilities in the event of a national emergency.

The language of the preamble to the agreement veils the program with talk of temporary migrant holding centers, but it is made clear that the camps would also be used "as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency."

As far back as 2002, FEMA sought bids from major real estate and engineering firms to construct giant internment facilities in the case of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack or a natural disaster.

A much discussed and circulated report, the Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program, was more recently updated and the revision details a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations."

Alex Jones has attended numerous military urban warfare training drills across the US where role players were used to simulate arresting American citizens and taking them to internment camps.

Read the new legislation in full below.
————————————————————————
National Emergency Centers Establishment Act (Introduced in House)

HR 645 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 645

To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 22, 2009
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Emergency Centers Establishment Act’.

SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- In accordance with the requirements of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations.

(b) Purpose of National Emergency Centers- The purpose of a national emergency center shall be to use existing infrastructure–

(1) to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster;

(2) to provide centralized locations for the purposes of training and ensuring the coordination of Federal, State, and local first responders;

(3) to provide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizations; and

(4) to meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

SEC. 3. DESIGNATION OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AS NATIONAL EMERGENCY CENTERS.

(a) In General- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate not fewer than 6 military installations as sites for the establishment of national emergency centers.

(b) Minimum Requirements- A site designated as a national emergency center shall be–

(1) capable of meeting for an extended period of time the housing, health, transportation, education, public works, humanitarian and other transition needs of a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster;

(2) environmentally safe and shall not pose a health risk to individuals who may use the center;

(3) capable of being scaled up or down to accommodate major disaster preparedness and response drills, operations, and procedures;

(4) capable of housing existing permanent structures necessary to meet training and first responders coordination requirements during nondisaster periods;

(5) capable of hosting the infrastructure necessary to rapidly adjust to temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance needs;

(6) required to consist of a complete operations command center, including 2 state-of-the art command and control centers that will comprise a 24/7 operations watch center as follows:

(A) one of the command and control centers shall be in full ready mode; and

(B) the other shall be used daily for training; and

(7) easily accessible at all times and be able to facilitate handicapped and medical facilities, including during an emergency or major disaster.

(c) Location of National Emergency Centers- There shall be established not fewer than one national emergency center in each of the following areas:

(1) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions I, II, and III.

(2) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV.

(3) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions V and VII.

(4) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VI.

(5) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions VIII and X.

(6) The area consisting of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX.

(d) Preference for Designation of Closed Military Installations- Wherever possible, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall designate a closed military installation as a site for a national emergency center. If the Secretaries of Homeland Security and Defense jointly determine that there is not a sufficient number of closed military installations that meet the requirements of subsections (b) and (c), the Secretaries shall jointly designate portions of existing military installations other than closed military installations as national emergency centers.

(e) Transfer of Control of Closed Military Installations- If a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the Secretary of Homeland Security administrative jurisdiction over such closed military installation.

(f) Cooperative Agreement for Joint Use of Existing Military Installations- If an existing military installation other than a closed military installation is designated as a national emergency center, not later than 180 days after the date of designation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall enter into a cooperative agreement to provide for the establishment of the national emergency center.

(g) Reports-

(1) PRELIMINARY REPORT- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) an outline of the reasons why the site was selected;

(B) an outline of the need to construct, repair, or update any existing infrastructure at the site;

(C) an outline of the need to conduct any necessary environmental clean-up at the site;

(D) an outline of preliminary plans for the transfer of control of the site from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of Homeland Security, if necessary under subsection (e); and

(E) an outline of preliminary plans for entering into a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f).

(2) UPDATE REPORT- Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) an update on the information contained in the report as required by paragraph (1);

(B) an outline of the progress made toward the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(C) an outline of the progress made toward entering a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(D) recommendations regarding any authorizations and appropriations that may be necessary to provide for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(3) FINAL REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to Congress a report that contains for each designated site–

(A) finalized information detailing the transfer of control of the site, if necessary under subsection (e);

(B) the finalized cooperative agreement for the establishment of a national emergency center at the site, if necessary under subsection (f); and

(C) any additional information pertinent to the establishment of a national emergency center at the site.

(4) ADDITIONAL REPORTS- The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting jointly with the Secretary of Defense, may submit to Congress additional reports as necessary to provide updates on steps being taken to meet the requirements of this Act.

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

This Act does not affect–

(1) the authority of the Federal Government to provide emergency or major disaster assistance or to implement any disaster mitigation and response program, including any program authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.); or

(2) the authority of a State or local government to respond to an emergency.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated $180,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to carry out this Act. Such funds shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) CLOSED MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `closed military installation’ means a military installation, or portion thereof, approved for closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) that meet all, or 2 out of the 3 following requirements:

(A) Is located in close proximity to a transportation corridor.

(B) Is located in a State with a high level or threat of disaster related activities.

(C) Is located near a major metropolitan center.

(2) EMERGENCY- The term `emergency’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(3) MAJOR DISASTER- The term `major disaster’ has the meaning given such term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).

(4) MILITARY INSTALLATION- The term `military installation’ has the meaning given such term in section 2910 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).

Monday, January 26, 2009

Alex Jones’ The Obama Deception — Coming March 15


Infowars
January 26, 2009

Alex Jones The Obama Deception will be the first hard-hitting film to expose Obama, his agenda & handlers cutting through all the media hype, side-issues and Left/Right rhetoric. Alex has made several films exposing the Bush agenda and will approach the Obama Administrations plans from the same non-partisan point of view looking past the frontman in the White House to the real owners on Wall Street, in the Bilderberg group and at the Federal Reserve.

Please help spread the word about this powerful new film. Make sure everyone you know whether they claim to be a Democrat, Republican, independent or none of the above sees this film before it is too late. The Obama Deception hits DVD on March 15.

Watch the trailer

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Forget the liberals thinking that Obama is the Messiah, now they want to be black!

Blogger makes 27 racial references without mentioning Obama’s character or qualifications, and accuses me of being the racist just for pointing it out

by Larry Simons
January 22, 2009

Blogger Andy Ostroy, like the rest of the liberal left in the media, has completely lost it. Yesterday on his blog The Ostroy Report, he wrote a ridiculous story called, “I Want To Be Black”, a 485-word article that, although sections of it are obviously tongue-in-cheek, it reflects a mind-blowing obsession the liberal left have with our new President, Barack Obama.

Don't misinterpret the title of this story. I am in no way implying that there is anything wrong with being black, but because of Obama? Why not because of Frederick Douglass? Why not because of Martin Luther King? Why not because of Jackie Robinson, Richard Pryor or Tony Dungy? All of the above were groundbreakers who went through struggles only to rise to the top, but after these men achieved their feats, did you see a tidal wave of obsession like we are witnessing with Barack Obama? The irony here is that Obama is receiving a Messiah-like welcoming when, in fact, he was placed in the White House by the global elite. The others I mentioned actually worked their way to the top, all by themselves.

Enter Andy Ostroy. Ostroy’s usage of what would appear to be tongue-in-cheek comments like “I mean, is there anything duller than being white right now? Now black....that's the new white!”, get lost in its intention when he mixes them with more serious comments like, “Yes, on this joyous, emotional and historic day and on those to come, I want to be black. I feel black. Today we are all black. And I'm very proud of our great nation in its pivotal moment in history. Once again, as it has so many times in the past, America has demonstrated its true greatness. Better days are ahead...”

Another serious comment is this one, “Just 50 years ago blacks we're hung from trees, beaten in the streets, and denied access to "white" restaurants, bathrooms and other public establishments. Jump to 2009 and we have a 46-year-old black man named Barack Hussein Obama elected president…” After reading this, I wondered how Ostroy, being the obsessed Obama supporter that he is, could get his age wrong (Obama is 47). It may seem like nitpicking to point out that error, but I mentioned it to illustrate that even smart pundits like Ostroy occasionally write a ridiculous story and fail to research the most elementary of facts like someone’s age, which can be accomplished by doing a 5-second wikipedia search.

Here is a screen shot of the article showing Obama's incorrect age (click to enlarge)


Ostroy is right. 50 years ago black people were being beaten and hung from trees and couldn’t go into the “white” establishments. But although Ostroy makes a good point that 50 years ago it would have been unheard of for a black man to become president, he fails to give one example of why those facts alone makes Obama the right man for the job as president.

I noticed in Ostroy’s entire piece that he used the word “black” 16 times and made many more race-related comments but failed to provide any information on Obama’s character or policies. Ostroy’s message seemed to be “who cares what Obama believes about the issues and who cares about how he will execute his job…..we have a black man in the White House!” How absurd.

So absurd, that I wrote this comment:

"This article, even taken in its context (which is, I'm assuming, satirical) is ridiculous. It’s an exploitation of race. (You can exploit a race even by praising it too.) This article is not only ridiculous because, 1.) after your incessant love affair with him, you get his age WRONG (he's 47), but, 2.) because you make it appear as if the ONLY reason he got where he is is because of his race! Nowhere in this article did you mention his qualifications, his policies or any talents he might possess, but ONLY his race. Your article is just as ridiculous as if you would have said, "He's president because he's black" (which is the very thing that Rush Limbaugh has uttered on several occasions). I know you won’t "approve" of this post, because it's 100% FACT, but it's enough that you at least READ it."

I was wrong about one thing. Andy did approve and post my comment. But, he commented back and said this:

“Umm...er.....uh....can you please show me specifically where I said Obama won "only because he's black?" Might we have a little case of classic Freudian projection going on here??"

For those who don’t know, a Freudian projection is a defense mechanism in which a person will attribute their unacceptable thoughts or beliefs onto the other person. In this case, Ostroy was accusing me of holding the belief that Obama only got elected because of his race and then I was accusing him of saying it instead. So, I posted this response:

"Andy, apparently you can’t read, because I specifically said, "Your article is just as ridiculous as IF YOU WOULD HAVE said, "He's president because he's black". My main point was that it is an exploitation of race, no different than when Rush Limbaugh has made the claims that Obama has been endorsed by people like Colin Powell because he's black.

My goodness Andy, if you're NOT trying to say it's ONLY because his race, then mention something OTHER than race in the article. How many times did you use the word "black"? I'll tell you....16. There's 485 words in your article. I counted 27 words in reference to race (words like 'black(s)', 'white', 'caucasianhood' and even the word 'race' or 'racial'). That's a racial reference once every 17 words. There's ZERO references to Obama's character, qualifications, policies or talents. Isn't it odd that you mentioned MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech in which he specifically says, "Let us not be judged by the color of our skin but by the content of our character", but in your article you disgraced MLK by doing the complete opposite of his dream, mentioning ONLY the color of Obama's skin and not ONCE mentioning the content of his character. And you claim that you didn't at the very LEAST imply it was only his color that got him to the highest office in the land? Unreal.

Black people who read your blog should be HIGHLY offended by you saying, "I feel black". Tell us Andy, how does black FEEL? "Today, we are all black"? My goodness Andy, who do you think Obama is? Jesus Christ? Tell us Andy, how does electing a black man president, in and of itself, make America great just for doing so? What if he's a terrible president and sinks this country deeper in the hole? Shouldn't the greatness of America be measured by its citizens electing who is more Constitutional and who is the most faithful to our founding documents?

Obama has vowed to be the complete opposite of Bush in his policies. Well, let's see if Obama begins to spearhead investigations into George W. Bush's war crimes, or if he pardons him. Let's see if Obama begins to immediately end this war and start speedy withdrawals of troops. Let's see if Obama plans to begin a "national civilian security force" which basically ends freedom as we know it for American citizens.

He is not a savior or the Messiah, Andy. His color means absolutely nothing to me. What I care about is whether he upholds the Constitution or not. The civilian security force he wants to start is not Constitutional. It's the end of freedom. After an inauguration speech, I don't want to "feel black"; I want to feel AMERICAN."


This entire article, partly tongue-in-cheek or not, was an exploitation of race…and Ostroy couldn’t see that fact.

Ostroy has been a strong critic of Rush Limbaugh’s hypocrisy and racism in the past. Now that the liberal pundits have their man in the White House, they feel they can exploit race by saying, Obama got elected despite his race’.

In October 2008, Rush Limbaugh accused Colin Powell of endorsing Obama only because both were black men. The liberal pundits went apeshit, and for good reason. Limbaugh is a racist. Now that Obama is officially president, people like Ostroy can write articles chock full of references to race and it’s perfectly OK.

The most ridiculous segment in Ostroy’s article is the final paragraph, which reads:

“Yes, on this joyous, emotional and historic day and on those to come, I want to be black. I feel black. Today we are all black."

He “feels black”? What does being black feel like? One black president out of 42 other white ones makes him “feel black”? What would make him feel Mexican? Eating a taco? George Lopez becoming president?

“Today we are all black”? When George W. Bush was elected, were we all white? I bet that was news to the black community! Call me old fashioned, but I still like it better that we are all Americans.

UPDATE:

Ostroy posted my comment and responded with this:

“Larry, you seem like a very tightly wound fella. May I suggest a deep breath, a glass of scotch, and a little humor. Lighten up, man!

Now as I always try to do with my readers, I will briefly answer your question: "How does black feel?" This week, it feels, as it should to any American, to be enormously joyous, proud, accomplished, and most of all equal. If you really need me to explain this to you then you haven't truly been comprehending anything I've written.”


My response back (no longer pending approval; Ostroy did not post this comment. Hmm, I wonder why):

“So, you're now the spokesperson for ALL black people, Andy? You, a white man, are telling me how it feels to be black? Why don't you tell me how it feels to be a kangaroo? You're not one of those either! You said, "This week, it feels, as it should to any American, to be enormously joyous, proud, accomplished, and most of all equal."----so, Obama just reversed hundreds of years of black persecution because 53% of the American people picked him over JOHN McCAIN? I would have chosen Dolly Parton over John McCain if she would have ran for President! That wouldn't have made me feel like a woman with really big tits if she had won!

Therein lies the irony Andy. You blasted John McCain (and rightfully so) for a year, calling him the big, flip-flopping, aged idiot he is and then when Obama beats him in the election, you act like it was an accomplishment on Obama's part because he defeated the big idiot!

Oh, and by the way Andy, your entire story wasn't tongue-in-cheek humor. You were serious throughout most of it. Even through your "humor" I can detect the Messiah complex you bestow upon Obama. Quite frankly, I think Frederick Douglass' accomplishments FAR FAR outweigh Obama's. It's not even comparable. Douglass' achievements happened while we still had slaves! A black man in the White House was inevitable. It was just a matter of when.”


The amazing thing about all this is, I'm not even a conservative. I hated John McCain. I mean, really hated him...still do. So, I wasn't approaching this from an "anti-Obama, pro-McCain" angle. I even like Andy Ostroy (most of the time). I even posted some of his articles on my site over the past few years. But a funny thing happened when Obama was elected president. The liberal left Democrats showed us who they really are.......spitting images of the far right (in whom they've attacked over the past year).

They defended Obama tirelessly throughout the entire Bill Ayres 'Obama is a terrorist because Ayres is one too' saga, yet when I have mentioned on liberal blogs that Benjamin Emanuel, father of Obama-appointed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, was a Zionist terrorist as a member of the militant group Irgun in the late 1940's, I was banned from the liberal blog Crooks and Liars (from even accessing the site) and banned from posting comments on liberal Dave Neiwert's site, Orincus. I guess the truth was just too unbearable.

Now Ostroy, although he has 'approved' some comments, does not approve all of them, despite the fact that my comments did not violate his posting rules he issued a few months ago when a flurry of bloggers went on his site making vile and threatening comments. Seems Ostroy is taking his marching orders from the Crooks and Liars, Orincus playbook.....'don't like the comment? Delete it!'

When I have mentioned that Obama promised "change" throughout his campaign, even to the point of plastering the word "CHANGE" everywhere he went, and then question where the 'change' is when most of Obama's appointees to his cabinet are former Clinton administration staff (not to mention appointing Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton [in whom he had bitter disagreements with during his campaign], to Secretary of State), I get conveniently ignored as well. But, when John McCain was involved in similar contradictory acts, like condemning ACORN when he himself was the keynote speaker at an ACORN event in 2006, the liberals were on it like flies on shit.

This is why I will never be a pundit or a TV journalist who gets paid a million a year. Because I care too much about facts and I take no sides. I can't be labeled and I can't be classified into a particular ideology. I believe abortion is murder but I don't care if gay people marry each other. I believe 9-11 was an inside job and I believe in true Constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I believe that Abraham Lincoln was one of the worst presidents we ever had and I believe that FDR was a communist sympathizer. I don't critique things by whether they are Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal or left-wing/right-wing. My only litmus test is whether it is right or wrong. How do you label that?

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

It's A Wonderful Life


by Larry Simons
January 21, 2009

The resemblance is eerie. Dick Cheney is Mr. Potter......arrrgghh. Things are wonderful again now that we have the most evil, corrupt and secretive VP out of office for good. Cheney pulled a muscle lifting boxes. What were in the boxes? His Halliburton war profiteering cash?

Actually, Cheney and Potter are quite different......Potter didn't approve of torture or let the Pentagon get attacked after knowing something was heading toward it.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Celebrities Pledge Cult-Like "Service" To Obama Government


Creepy video resonates with "national civilian security force" fears

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 20, 2009

A mind-numbingly cringeworthy and deeply disturbing MySpace video release shows vacuous celebrities pledging their "service" to the incoming Obama government in the form of activities such as not flushing the toilet after taking a piss and selling their "obnoxious" cars.

The video was produced by actress Demi Moore for the MySpace Presidential Pledge project, and features a gaggle of highly annoying actors, singers and other patent phonies such as Sean P. "Diddy" Combs, Courtney Cox Arquette and Ashton Kutcher.

"The Presidential Pledge is a platform for people across the nation and throughout the world to make a first person commitment of service to our new President, articulating a specific intent or action to become an agent of positive change," said Kutcher.

In the video, Sean P. "Diddy" Combs pledges to "turn the lights off," presumably to help Obama combat "global warming" as America freezes under record low temperatures, while actor Jason Bateman promises to "flush only after a deuce never a single" and another celebrity states his pledge to "sell my obnoxious car and drive a hybrid". Red Hot Chili Peppers front man Anthony Kiedis pledges "to be of service to Barack Obama".

At the end of the clip, in perhaps the creepiest moment, Moore and Kutcher pledge to "be a servant to our President" as the shot pans out to show all the actors echoing a cult-like mantra, "because together we can, together we are and together we will be the change that we see," as the shot morphs into the now familiar Marxist motif 1984-style image of Obama.

Several respondents to the video noted that the sentiments expressed were at best misguided and at worst "creepy," "sick" and "cult-like".

Forgive my skepticism, but millionaire celebrities vacuously pledging to "plant 500 trees" when the American economy teeters on the brink of a depression that Obama’s stated policies for combating "global warming" will only make worse just doesn’t inspire me at all.

Furthermore, since when were the American people supposed to swear allegiance and pledge "service" to a President? The U.S. Constitution, that piece of paper that Obama will swear to defend and protect later today, states quite clearly that elected representatives are supposed to act in "service" of the people’s best interests, not the other way around.

Of course, the most disturbing aspect to all this cult-like messiah complex and "service" of government is Barack Obama’s intention to take this notion of "service," which is embraced by many well-meaning but naive people, and turn it against the American middle class in the form of Stasi-like informants spying on those that choose not to sacrifice their freedom and prosperity in the name of saving the planet from the menace of a problem wholly concocted and exploited by the very elite that Obama represents.

Indeed, the woman overseeing Obama’s climate agenda, Carol Browner, is a card-carrying member of Socialist International, an organization that has resolved to use the threat of global warming as a means to facilitate the creation of a system of global government.

How many of Obama’s promised "national civilian security force," a cadre we are guaranteed will be as strong or stronger than the U.S. Army, will make the "pledge" to spy on their neighbors for enviro-crimes and report them to the local green commissariat?

Perhaps these celebrities should spend less time worrying about when its morally right to flush the toilet and more time asking Obama and Biden about their "pledge" to protect Bush administration war criminals from prosecution.

Perhaps they should concern themselves more with Obama’s "pledge" to do nothing to stop Israel’s incessant and barbarian slaughter of Palestinian men, women and children in Gaza.

That really would be of "service," but only to the American people, humanity in general, and future generations, and not to the Obama government’s domestic political agenda.

Watch the video (it was removed from YouTube; apparently it was getting too many hits, lol)
MySpace Celebrity and Katalyst present The Presidential Pledge


Here is the myspace link to the Presidential Pledge

The end of the worst presidency ever


Bush exits; brings to an end the worst presidency in history and the most miserable 8 years of my life

by Larry Simons
January 20, 2009

I can’t believe on Wednesday morning I will wake up to someone else other than George W. Bush occupying the White House. The worst president in this country’s history exits today and leaves behind a legacy that I can only hope to high heavens is never to be surpassed, or even matched. Goodbye, Mr. Bush. I will never address you as president because you were never my president.

Here’s hoping this is the end of any Bush to hold a high office again. We’ve had enough.

I leave you with just a few of the reasons I’m glad to see you gone:

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.

First President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

Invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

Spent the U.S surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

Shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

Set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

Set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In his first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.

Members of his cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. The "poorest
millionaire” in his cabinet, Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

The all- time U.S. and world record holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

His largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of his best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron.

His political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

He protected his friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

Presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

Changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

Appointed more convicted criminals to his administration than any President in U.S. history.

Created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.

Broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

First President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

Withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

Refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Conventions.

First President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).

Set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

Set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August of 2001, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.

Garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest him in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

First President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. He did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. citizens and the world community.

Cut health care benefits for war veterans and supported a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In his State of the Union Address (2002), lied about the U.S.’ reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on the British.

First President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view their presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

Failed to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. (I’m guessing this has to do with the fact that the Bush family is business partners with the Bin Laden’s)

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in U.S. history.

Signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any president in U.S. history.

His presidency is the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.

First president in U.S. history to have all 50 states of the Union simultaneously go bankrupt.

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in U.S. history.

Created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the U.S. has ever been since the Civil War.

Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Presided over the biggest mishandling and incompetence of a natural disaster in the history of the United States (Katrina).

Presided over the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Called the Constitution a “goddamned piece of paper”.

His administration is the first since the Civil War to imprison US Citizens (Jose Padilla) as "enemy combatants" without charges, trial, or access to legal counsel. In a 5-4 decision (Rumsfeld v. Padilla) the Supreme Court dodged the opportunity to rule on the legality, ruling that the case had been improperly filed.
In his tenure, world terror attacks are now at their highest level in 20 years, up 36% since 2001.


To name just a few….

Whoever said you can’t accomplish a lot in 8 years?

Friday, January 16, 2009

Billo, still clueless on the facts…….this surprises you?

Billo criticizes Obama’s choice of CIA Director; says it may lead to more terror attacks; supports advice given by George Tenet (who was CIA director during the worst terror attack in US history!)

by Larry Simons
January 16, 2009

Nutball Billo is at it again. So hell bent on condemning those who don’t support his ideologies that he puts both feet in his mouth…again. On his stupid website, billoreilly.com, under the “column archives” section, Billo has written the amazingly hysterical column “Obama’s Big Gamble”, in which the Lord of loofahs goes on to criticize Obama’s selection of new CIA Director, Leon Panetta:

“The choice is perplexing. Mr. Panetta is very smart but has absolutely no intel experience unless you count his days as Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff. Some old hands inside the CIA are reportedly aghast at the choice.”

Let’s just clear up something first. Panetta served in Vietnam, served on the Iraq Study Group, and as Clinton’s Chief of Staff he sat in on National Security briefings. This alone made him a hell of a lot more experienced than Porter Goss was when he was appointed CIA Director in 2004 by President Bush. Goss had not worked at the CIA in 33 years and even admitted in 2004 during an interview with Michael Moore’s production company that he was “probably not qualified” to work at the CIA (today).

Porter Goss admitting he’s “not qualified” (removed from YouTube----why????)


I don’t give a rat’s ass if Panetta is experienced or not. That’s not even the point here. The point is the overwhelming and mind-boggling hypocrisy of the right-wing Republicans to make such an issue over experience, when there has been a smorgasbord of unexperienced Republican appointees and selections (for certain posts over the last 6 years) that make Leon Panetta’s nomination the best match for a role since Anthony Hopkins was chosen to play Hannibal Lector.


(Michael Brown, Harriet Miers and Sarah Palin...among the many selections of the GOP that had little or no experience)

Yet, the likes of O’ Reilly come out in droves crying inexperienced, inexperienced! Even some Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, have sneered at Obama’s pick, most likely because they wanted the nomination themselves and are crying they didn’t get selected.

Republican Christopher “Kit” Bond had this to say:

"Job number one at the CIA is to track down and stop terrorists"......."In a post-9-11 world, intelligence experience would seem to be a prerequisite for the job of CIA director."

What about the pre-9-11 world, Kit? Stopping terrorists wasn’t important then? If it was, why wasn’t George Tenet not fired for his massive incompetence for letting 3,000+ Americans die? Hmmm??

Billo goes even farther than not accusing Tenet of incompetence, he uses his advice! Billo said this:

“Besides his lack of experience, Panetta opposes many of the CIA's anti-terror measures. He's against any kind of coerced interrogation, wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed and would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries. Without those tools, which former CIA Chief George Tenet and others say have been very effective in uncovering terror plots, the agency's ability to disrupt potential attacks would be gravely damaged.”

How in the hell does Tenet know what’s effective? 3,000+ people died under his tenure as CIA Director, and Billo wants Panetta to take advice from him? And what advice (as Billo mentions)? “Opposes any kind of coerced interrogation.” What Billo means is ‘torture’, but he wanted to use the words “coerced interrogation” because it sounds better than saying “torture”. No spin huh? Billo sure as hell wasn’t going to say "waterboarding!" Are you kidding?

“Wants the FISA overseas wiretap law repealed..” Maybe because it’s not just for calls made in the USA to overseas, but calls made from the USA to within the USA. Many would argue that it’s just domestically, and of course, that makes it unconstitutional. Since Billo hates the Constitution is probably why he is against the law being repealed.

“Would completely disband the rendition program whereby the CIA sends captured terror suspects to be held and interrogated in other countries.” What Billo means here is that Panetta wants to disband the unconstitutional rendition program which states that anyone can be deemed an enemy combatant if Bush or his minions just think they are (no evidence required).

What Billo means by “other countries” is Guantanamo Bay, which, for the last 106 years the United States has had territorial control. What Billo also fails to mention, to the stupefied morons who watch his show and listen to his radio show, is that ever since June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Eight days later on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued a memo stating that all future detainees will have these protections.

So, even though our own Supreme Court ruled that detainees will be protected under the Geneva Conventions, Billo wants you to think not drowning detainees, not listening in on phone calls of American citizens and not swiping them off the streets of American cities will lead to the next terrorist attack. But, prior to 9-11 we did none of this and yet 3,000+ died under the watch of George Tenet, and Billo not only does not vilify Tenet, but also ordains Tenet’s advice on anti-terror tactics. Simply amazing.

As if it couldn’t get worse, Billo says this:

“So why is Obama putting himself in this position? Well, the media has convinced many people that the Bush administration degenerated into a bunch of criminal torturers-people who persecuted innocent Muslims worldwide.”

The media did this? The media? So, the Supreme Court is now the media? Navy Judge Advocate General Michael Lohr is the media? Oh, and let me guess Billo, ABC News put a gun to Dick Cheney’s head and forced him into admitting he oversaw the torture program?

Here he is last month admitting he approved of torture.


Billo then says this:

“Now, the committed left-wing media are demanding Obama reject any experienced intelligence people who have supported President Bush's terror initiatives.”

What he means here is that the media are demanding that Obama reject anyone who would be in defiance to the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Supreme Court.

Billo puts the icing on his delusional cake when he says this:

“It's the same thing with coerced interrogation. The president should have the power to order it when lives are in imminent danger from a terror threat.”

Here he is again; calling torture “coerced interrogation” because it’s a fancier, more serious sounding term. What Billo is simply saying here is that the President should be above the law and should be able to do anything he wants when it comes to stopping terrorists, even if it means violating the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. In other words, The President should have dictatorial powers. This coming from the same guy who demonized others, including teacher Jay Bennish, for comparing Bush to Hitler….and you just read his own words, admitting the President should have the power to do anything he wants.

Naturally, Billo doesn’t give one shred of evidence that proves torturing detainees is effective in extracting correct information. And naturally, Billo conveniently does not mention the fact that we (the United States) convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war after WWII. I guess you can chalk that up as yet another thing that Americans are completely justified in doing to others, but if you do it to us, then watch out buddy!

And thus ends another column by Billo that is riddled with unsubstantiated opinions, spin, deception and facts conveniently omitted. Looks like Billo is starting out the new year on the path to stealing the Fraud of the Year crown away from David H. Willis.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

9/11 Truth Rant Featured In Hit TV Show Rescue Me


Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
January 14, 2009

Debunkers and hit piece-obsessed establishment media titans were hoping that 9/11 truth had faded into the background as we accelerate further away from the attacks which took place over 7 years ago.

However, a scene from the second episode of the fifth season of Rescue Me, the wildly popular TV drama about New York City firefighters, reminds us that 9/11 remains at the forefront of American public consciousness.

In the scene, the character played by Daniel Sunjata, who is a dedicated truther in real life, goes on a lengthy, detailed and vehement rant about how 9/11 was an inside job to an intrigued female character played by Catherine Zeta-Jones.

The scene is part of a 9/11 conspiracy theme that runs throughout the fifth series, a fact revealed last month by Sunjata’s fellow Rescue Me star, Dennis Leary.

In part, Sunjata’s character Franco states:

"9/11? Inside job. Plain and simple. And all you gotta do is connect the dots. … I am talking about a massive neoconservative government effort, been in the works 20 years. Ever heard of PNAC? Project for a New American Century? According to them, the end goal of their effort is American global domination. Full spectrum dominance, they call it. Now, first question that pops into my mind is: How do you pull that off in this day and age?"

Watch the clip

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The United States Promotes Israeli Genocide Against the Palestinians


by Prof. Francis A. Boyle
Global Research
January 10, 2009

As long ago as October 19, 2000, the then United Nations Human Rights Commission (now Council) condemned Israel for inflicting “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” upon the Palestinian people, most of whom are Muslims. The reader has a general idea of what a war crime is, so I am not going to elaborate upon that term here. But there are different degrees of heinousness for war crimes. In particular are the more serious war crimes denominated “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the outbreak of the first Intifada in 1987, the world has seen those heinous war crimes inflicted every day by Israel against the Palestinian people living in occupied Palestine: e.g., willful killing of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army and by Israel’s illegal paramilitary settlers. These Israeli “grave breaches” of the Fourth Geneva Convention mandate universal prosecution for the perpetrators and their commanders, whether military or civilian, including and especially Israel’s political leaders.

But I want to focus for a moment on Israel’s “crimes against humanity” against the Palestinian people—as determined by the U.N. Human Rights Commission itself, set up pursuant to the requirements of the United Nations Charter. What are “crimes against humanity”? This concept goes all the way back to the Nuremberg Charter of 1945 for the trial of the major Nazi war criminals in Europe. In the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, drafted by the United States Government, there was created and inserted a new type of international crime specifically intended to deal with the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people:

Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

The paradigmatic example of “crimes against humanity” is what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish people. This is where the concept of “crimes against humanity” came from. And this is what the U.N. Human Rights Commission determined that Israel is currently doing to the Palestinian people: crimes against humanity. Expressed in legal terms, this is just like what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews. That is the significance of the formal determination by the U.N. Human Rights Commission that Israel has inflicted “crimes against humanity” upon the Palestinian people. The Commission chose this well-known and long-standing legal term of art quite carefully and deliberately based upon the evidence it had compiled.

Furthermore, the Nuremberg “crimes against humanity” are the historical and legal precursor to the international crime of genocide as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The theory here was that what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jewish people was so horrific that it required a special international treaty that would codify and universalize the Nuremberg concept of “crimes against humanity.” And that treaty ultimately became the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of genocide in relevant part as follows:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
….

As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his seminal book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians has been unremitting, extending from before the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948, and is ongoing and even intensifying against the 1.5 million Palestinians living in Gaza. Zionism’s “final solution” to Israel’s much touted “demographic threat” allegedly posed by the very existence of the Palestinians has always been genocide.

Certainly, Israel and its predecessors-in-law—the Zionist agencies, forces, and terrorist gangs—have committed genocide against the Palestinian people that actually started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of Genocide Convention Articles II(a), (b), and (c). For at least the past six decades, the Israeli government and its predecessors-in-law—the Zionist agencies, forces, and terrorist gangs—have ruthlessly implemented a systematic and comprehensive military, political, and economic campaign with the intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, racial, and different religious (Jews versus Muslims and Christians) group constituting the Palestinian people.

This Zionist/Israeli campaign has consisted of killing members of the Palestinian people in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(a).

This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Palestinian people in violation of Genocide Convention Article II(b).

This Zionist/Israeli campaign has also deliberately inflicted on the Palestinian people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in substantial part in violation of Article II(c) of the Genocide Convention.

Article I of the Genocide Convention requires all contracting parties such as the United States “to prevent and to punish” genocide. Yet to the contrary, historically the “Jewish” state’s criminal conduct against the Palestinians has been financed, armed, equipped, supplied and politically supported by the “Christian” United States. Although the United States is a founding sponsor of, and a contracting party to, both the Nuremberg Charter and the Genocide Convention, as well as the United Nations Charter, these legal facts have never made any difference to the United States when it comes to its blank-check support for Israel and their joint and severable criminal mistreatment of the Palestinians—truly the wretched of the earth!

The world has not yet heard even one word uttered by the United States and its NATO allies in favor of “humanitarian intervention” against Israel in order to protect the Palestinian people, let alone a “responsibility to protect” the Palestinians from Zionist/Israeli genocide. The United States, its NATO allies, and the Great Powers on the U.N. Security Council would not even dispatch a U.N. Charter Chapter 6 monitoring force to help protect the Palestinians, let alone even contemplate any type of U.N. Charter Chapter 7 enforcement actions against Israel – shudder the thought!. The doctrine of “humanitarian intervention” so readily espoused elsewhere when U.S. foreign policy goals are allegedly at stake has been clearly proved to be a joke and a fraud when it comes to stopping the ongoing and accelerating Israeli campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people.

Rather than rein in the Israelis—which would be possible just by turning off the funding pipeline—the United States government, the U.S. Congress, and U.S. taxpayers instead support the “Jewish” state to the tune of about 4 billion dollars per year, without whose munificence this instance of genocide – and indeed conceivably the State of Israel itself – would not be possible.

What the world witnesses here is (yet another) case of “dishumanitarian intervention” or “humanitarian extermination” by the United States and Israel against the Palestinians and Palestine. In today’s world genocide pays so long as it is done at the behest of the United States and its de jure or de facto allies such as Israel.

Of course miracles can always happen. But I anticipate no fundamental change in America’s support for the Israeli campaign of genocide against the Palestinians during the tenure of the Obama/Clinton administration.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Ron Paul: Gaza crisis is blowback for past US interventions


Congressman Paul declares that we (USA) created bin Laden just as Israel created Hamas

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
January 10, 2008

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) spoke on Friday in opposition to a non-binding House resolution (pdf) expressing “strong support for Israel” in its invasion of Gaza and decrying Hamas as a terrorist organization that has put “hundreds of thousands of Israelis in danger.”

“I rise in opposition to this resolution, not because I am taking sides and picking who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.” Paul stated. “I’m looking at this more from the angle of being a United States citizen, an American, and I think resolutions like this really do us great harm.”

“The weapons being used to kill so many Palestinians are American weapons, and American funds, essentially, are being used for this,” continued Paul. “There’s a political liability, which I think is something that we fail to look at, because too often there’s so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn’t be involved in.”

Paul pointed out that if Hamas now has too much power, it is the fault of past actions by Israel and the United States. “We first, indirectly and directly through Israel, help establish Hamas,” he noted, “then we have an election [in Gaza], then Hamas becomes dominant — so we have to kill them. It just doesn’t make sense.”

“There’s a lot of reasons why we should oppose this resolution,” Paul concluded emphatically. “It is not in the interests of the United States. It’s not in the interests of Israel, either.”

Paul’s statement was consistent with his past positions. Last March, he was the sole member of Congress to vote against a one-sided condemnation of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

Paul stated on that occasion, “I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.

Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. … I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.”

This video is from C-SPAN, broadcast Jan. 9, 2009.

Friday, January 9, 2009

The Difficulty of Being an Informed American


Paul Craig Roberts
Counterpunch
January 9, 2008

The American print and TV media have never been very good. These days they are horrible. If people intend to be informed, they must turn to foreign news broadcasts, to Internet sites, to foreign newspapers available on the Internet, or to alternative newspapers that are springing up in various cities. A person who sits in front of Murdoch’s Fox "News" or CNN or who reads the New York Times is simply being brainwashed with propaganda.

Before conservatives nod their heads in agreement, I’m not referring to "the liberal media." I mean the propaganda that issues from the US government and the Israel Lobby.

It was neoconservative Bush regime propaganda fed to America through Judith Miller and the New York Times and through Murdoch’s Fox "News" that convinced Americans that they were in danger from a small secular Arab country half way around the globe called Iraq. It was the American media that convinced Americans that getting rid of dangerous "weapons of mass destruction," weapons that did not exist in Iraq, would be a cakewalk paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

It is the same propagandistic American print and TV media that have rationalized Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan based on seven years of lies and deception.

It is the same media that today provids only Israeli propaganda as "coverage" of the Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

It was the New York Times that spiked for one year the leaked information from the National Security Agency that the Bush regime, in violation of US law, was illegally spying on Americans without warrants. The "liberal" New York Times agreed to suppress the story so that Bush would not face reelection under the cloud of his outlaw behavior.

Conservatives think the Washington Post is "liberal media" despite the fact that the editorial and commentary pages are controlled by neocons and their sympathizers.

During the run up to wars and during wars, the American press has always been a propagandist for the government. The only exceptions occurred during the later phases of the Vietnam war and the Contra-Sandinista conflict in Central America. Karen de Young and some others tried to honestly cover the Contras and Sandinistas and were demonized by "patriots" taken in by the government’s lies.

Conservatives still blame the "liberal" media for losing the Vietnam war, when in fact all the media did was to provide some truthful reports that opened some American eyes.

When the truth cuts against the position of the US government, conservatives see it as "liberal."
When propaganda supports the government’s lies, conservatives see it as "patriotic."

However, any resemblance to independent reporting disappeared from the American media when the Democratic regime of President Clinton allowed Murdoch and a small handful of moguls to concentrate the American media in a few corporate hands. That was the end of American reporting.

Journalists disappeared from media management and were replaced by corporate advertising executives with an eye not to offend any source of advertising revenue, and certainly not to offend the government, which controls the broadcast licenses that comprise the value of the mega-companies. Today reporters write the stories that their masters want to hear, or they are out. The function of editors is to make certain that no uncomfortable information reaches the public.

The public is slowly catching on, and the print media is dying. The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times are all on the ropes.

Americans are still subjected to Fox "News" and CNN propaganda piped into airport waiting rooms, doctors’ offices, and exercise centers

People ask me where they can get reliable information. I tell them that their goal cannot be reached without their commitment of time.

People who have access to television services that provide English language foreign broadcasts, such as Iran’s Press TV, Russia Today, or Al Jazeera, can get get news and insights from those parts of the world demonized by the US media.

The BBC World Service still reports facts while covering itself by providing the views of the US, UK, and Israeli governments.

Both the Asia Times and Israeli newspapers, such as Haaretz can be read online in English. There are other such newspapers, and all of them provide information that Americans will never see in their own media. Any American newspaper that was as truthful about the Israeli government as Haaretz would be closed down.

The only US print source with which I am familiar in which some honest reporting can be found on a regular basis is the McClatchy papers.

Americans addicted to print media must turn to alternative newspapers, which tend to be weekly or bi-weekly. However, the news and commentary provided are often superb.

Alternative newspapers are often the children of people motivated by a sense of justice and the love of truth. Such people have become an endangered species in the American "mainstream media." The free press Americans have today is online and in the alternative media.

The function of the "mainstream media" is to sell products and to brainwash the audience for the government and interest groups. By subscribing to it, Americans support their own brainwashing.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Billo and Limbaugh: Conspiracy theorists

The right-wing goons bellow that Al Franken's Senate win is just a big damned conspiracy

by Larry Simons
January 7, 2008

On Monday night’s telecast of FOX’s #1 lie machine, The O’Reilly Factor, Billo had this to say (in his Talking Points memo) about the Minnesota Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken (in which Franken has been declared the winner by 225 votes):

The Wall Street Journal is suggesting the Democratic structure in that state is cheating in the Coleman/Franken Senate race, where Franken leads by about 200 votes.” Then he goes on to quote an excerpt from a WSJ story that says this:

“We can't recall a similar recount…in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate (Franken). If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.”

What loofah boy fails to say is that one, he leaves out the words “…involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes” which was in this context, “But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate.” I mentioned this to show that once again, Billo loves to quote out of context (to thrust his agendas) when he claims he is continually the recipient of being “taken out of context”.

Second, Billo leaves out the fact that the WSJ piece, titled “Funny Business in Minnesota”, is not a story by a legitimate reporter. It was an opinion editotial (op-ed) by an anonymous writer. This is FOX News at its best ladies and gentleman. When you can’t get legitimate reporting and facts, you get support for your agenda anywhere you can find it, including opinion pieces by unknown authors in a newspaper owned by the same guy who writes your paychecks. Fair? Balanced? Ha! What a fucking joke! This couldn’t be any less fair and balanced than if Billo had written the op-ed himself!

The hilarious part of this story is that although the editorial is all opinions, even taking the opinions as facts still works in Franken’s favor. The article says this (IN its context), “it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.”

OK, let’s say that’s true. Franken still wins by 125-145 votes! Then, in another part of the WSJ editorial, it says this, “Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency.”

OK, let’s say that’s true. Franken still wins by 188 votes! And even subtracting the 80-100 extra votes from the OPINION that there was double counting going on, Franken still wins by 108-128 votes! Does the lord of loofahs mention this? Of course not! No spin zone my ever-loving asshole!

Another interesting fact is that if Billo was so confident in the accuracy of the WSJ editorial, then why didn't he have anyone mentioned in the article on his show? Did he even ask Tim Pawlenty to be on the Factor? Did he ask either of the two Republican state Supreme Court justices? Why didn't he even ask Norm Coleman to be on? Or even any of his attorneys? Why didn't Billo ask the person who wrote the WSJ editorial? Oh, that's right, no one knows who it is!

I'll tell you why. Because Billo knows there is not one asshair of truth in the WSJ editorial. This is why he didn't even mention to his faithful zombies who watch him every night that the editorial was just one person's OPINION. If there was any truth at all in the opinion piece, then surely the people mentioned in the article would be lining up in front of the News Corporation building to whistleblow the dark conspiracy that is descending upon Minnesota as we speak, right? But nope, Billo has NO ONE on his show to speak of the abundance of corruption that permeates the Minnesota Senate race, does he?

Here’s Billo the conspiracy theorist

Maybe Billo is just trying to eclipse his own shame for falsely claiming that Coleman had won the Senate race on November 18, 2008.

Watch the clip and laugh until your nuts ache

Reminds me of something else...hmmmmm


And then there’s Rush Limpballs, on his radio show reiterating the same conspiracy theory, that Franken stole the election. Limpdick says this:

“We did not elect Al Franken. He stole the race. They are stealing the race up there blind in front of everybody's nose. They are counting absentee ballots. The Wall Street Journal has a story on this. They're counting votes twice -- votes that were rejected, all kinds of things. That's just -- the Democrats are stealing the election up there. The Democrats run Illinois and Chicago. Of course they elected Blago and Obama and everybody else. That is -- that's not gonna change.”

Rush’s evidence? An unknown writer’s opinion editorial. And he wonders why Al Franken wrote a book called, “Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot”!

Does Rush mention (or loofah boy for that matter) the fact that the recount was conducted by the same number of Republicans and Democrats? Does he mention that the Republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty, approved it? Does Rush mention that on December 24, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the State Canvassing Board's decision? Does Rush mention that the canvassing board consists of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, 2 Republican state Supreme Court Justices (approved by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty), one Independent judge appointed by Gov. Jesse Ventura (an Independent), and a fourth judge (who it is unknown whether they are a Democrat or an Independent because the election was non-partisan)? Of course not!

That makes two Republicans, 1 Independent, 1 Democrat and 1 other that may be a Democrat or an Independent on the canvassing board. If you listened to and believed Rush and Billo, you’d be led to think it was a Democratic-controlled conspiracy!

Here’s Rush the conspiracy theorist

As if Billo and Limpnuts wasn’t enough, Joe “believe it or not” Scarborough buys into the WSJ opinion editorial as well and even goes as far as saying “…the WSJ REPORTING….irregularities in Minnesota.” Here are his exact words:

“Chuck, The Wall Street Journal reporting this morning that there are some irregularities in Minnesota. Tell me, how ugly do you think it's going to get before Franken's seated?”

Reported? This unknown person who wrote his opinion is now a paid reporter for the WSJ? I tell ya, I almost feel bad for taking credit for this story. It practically writes itself!

Here’s Joe Scarborough the conspiracy theorist

I, and the rest of the thinking population, already knew that the Republicans go to any lengths to propagate and lie to the American people. This time, sinking to a new low (even for them) by calling an opinion editorial (written anonymously) investigative reporting! It would have been much better if Billo, Rush and Scarborough had just burst out crying on the air that their guy lost!

So, let me just revel in this glorious moment.

Al Franken wins!


O’ Reilly, still the lying lord of loofahs

Scarborough, still the right-wing controlled shill

and Limbaugh, still a big fat idiot