Bhutto murder blamed on Pakistan agents - Scotsman.com News

FACTIONS within the Pakistan intelligence service might have been behind the assassination of the country's opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, sources within MI5 told Scotland on Sunday last night.

read more | digg story

Bhutto email named killers weeks before assassination

Benazir Bhutto claimed three senior allies of Pakistan's president General Musharraf were out to kill her in a secret email to Foreign Secretary David Miliband written weeks before her death, including one responsible for her protection.

read more | digg story

U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.

read more | digg story

Bhutto Assassination: US Orchestrating Regime Change and Destabilization from Uncompliant Musharraf

The definition of covert operations differs among countries and administrations. As defined in the 1976 final report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, such operations include any clandestine activity designed to influence foreign governments, events, organizations, or persons in support of United States foreign policy. Covert action may include political and economic actions, propaganda and paramilitary activities [and is] planned and executed . . . so as to conceal the identity of the sponsor or else to permit the sponsor's plausible denial of the operation...the new administration should also explicitly prohibit such actions as assassination plots, economic destabilization measures, and interference in election processes. Aside from questions of morality, a major reason for prohibiting assassinations is a practical one. It is something the United States does not do well.

-- Cato Policy Analysis, The Pitfalls of U.S. Covert Operations

Global Research has four good articles on the recent assassination and Pakistan crisis. Here is just one excerpt below, published on Dec. 12th, two weeks prior to Bhutto's assassination, discussing same. People are missing the fact, merely because she was a woman from a predominant populist family, that Bhutto was a favored change for President by the U.S. (neoconservative dominated) government, which was a direct threat to the former puppet President Musharraf whose installation by coupe in 1999 was assisted by covert CIA operations. Musharraf, taking his plays from the neocon propagandists, is of course blaming the assassination of Bhutto (under cover of a holiday season, and prior to elections) on Al Qaeda and "jihadists" (after all, it works in America) for what more than likely was his own conspiracy and plot, to preserve his own power, eliminating his chief opponent, whether he "let it happen" or "made it happen". This game of political tension, however, was started by the U.S. installing him, and financing him with billions (now unaccounted for), some of which might have been extorted as hush money to keep secret what Musharraf knows to be lies, namely about the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and the lies and propaganda about Usama bin Laden being there.

It is likely that Musharraf, who declared martial law earlier and fears for his own life (especially after Cheney's "unannounced" summer visit to threaten him to conform to their ruse for a "war on terrorism" inside Pakistan), will likely be the next target of either the CIA or provoked Islamic "blow-back" of what even a former CIA agent admits was U.S. meddling and covert actions in a major Islamic country that possesses WMD in the form of nuclear weapons. Musharraf will not step down willingly, which implies force will be used against him next.

Interestingly, even the neoconservative UN Ambassador Bolton agrees with this assessment in this FOX interview.

The plan to topple Pakistan's military?

by Ahmed Quraishi

The New Nation, Pakistan - 2007-12-12

...Another worrying thing is how US officials are publicly signaling to the Pakistanis that Bhutto has their backing as the next leader of the country. Such signals from Washington are not only a kiss of death for any public leader in Pakistan, but the Americans also know that their actions are inviting potential assassins to target Bhutto.

If she is killed in this way, there won't be enough time to find the real culprit, but what's certain is that unprecedented international pressure will be placed on Islamabad while everyone will use their local assets to create maximum internal chaos in the country. A dress rehearsal of this scenario has already taken place in October when no less than the UN Security Council itself intervened to ask the international community to "assist" in the investigations into the assassination attempt on Bhutto on October 18. This generous move was sponsored by the US and, interestingly, had no input from Pakistan which did not ask for help in investigations in the first place.

Some Pakistani security analysts privately say that US "chatter" about Musharraf or Bhutto getting killed is a serious matter that can't be easily dismissed. Getting Bhutto killed can generate the kind of pressure that could result in permanently putting the Pakistani military on a back foot, giving Washington enough room to push for installing a new pliant leadership in Islamabad.

Getting Musharraf killed isn't a bad option either. The unknown Islamists can always be blamed, the military will not be able to put another soldier at the top, and circumstances will be created to ensure that either Bhutto or someone like her is eased into power.

The US is very serious this time. They cannot let Pakistan get out of their hands. They were kicked out of Uzbekistan last year, where they were maintaining bases. They are in trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran continues to be a mess for them and Russia and China are not making it any easier. Pakistan must be "secured" at all costs.

Americans Held Captive to Lies, Losing Freedom

Another must-read article by Paul Craig Roberts, former Reagan administration official. Just another conservative you will never hear quoted on talk radio or the news networks.

clipped from www.counterpunch.org The Great American Lock-Up We Are All Prisoners Now All Americans are now imprisoned in a world of lies and deception created by the Bush Regime and the two complicit parties of Congress, by federal judges too timid or ignorant to recognize a rogue regime running roughshod over the Constitution, by a bought and paid for media that serves as propagandists for a regime of war criminals, and by a public who have forsaken their Founding Fathers. Americans are also imprisoned by fear, a false fear created by the hoax of "terrorism." It has turned out that headline terrorist events since 9/11 have been orchestrated by the US government. For example, the alleged terrorist plot to blow up Chicago's Sears Tower was the brainchild of a FBI agent who searched out a few disaffected people to give lip service to the plot devised by the FBI agent. He arrested his victims, whose trial ended in acquittal and mistrial. Freedom and democracy in America have been reduced to no-fly lists, spying

Oil Prices Jump on "Geopolitical Issues"--Calculate Your War Tax

Oil "prices have risen 55 percent this year"! You are paying a war tax at the pumps. Gas prices were 1.50 per gallon in 2003 pre-Iraq invasion, and even 2.09 last year at this same time, compared to 3.09 today.

CALCULATE your personal war tax for yourself by comparing just the increase in gas prices versus last year at this same time. Example: If you fill up 4 times per week, at 12 gallons per fill up, you are paying an additional $48 per week, over $200 per month, and over $2400 per year on gas versus last year! How does that compare to any pay increases? What has that done to your discretionary income, and potential spending in the economy? Is it any surprise that due to gas prices alone a recession is threatening?

The war is not only increasing the national debt, but also killing the economy and robbing Americans through gas prices, energy costs (home heating) and fuel prices as well for transportation of all the consumer products (groceries to durable goods) being purchased! TIME TO WAKE UP AND CALCULATE THE COST OF WARS BEING WAGED THAT ARE NOT EVEN WARS OF SELF DEFENSE!!

Are Americans now willing to consider changing the neoconservatives' war policy?

clipped from www.bloomberg.com Oil Rises After Report Turkey Attacked Kurdish Rebels in Iraq Dec. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil rose for a third day in New York on concern shipments from Iraq may be disrupted after the Turkish military attacked bases of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Turkish planes bombed an area of Iraq near Turkey's border to attack Kurdish rebels, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday, citing an unidentified Iraqi-Kurdish security official. Iraq exports crude oil through its northern pipeline to Turkey. ``That has made the market nervous,'' said Tetsu Emori, a fund manager at Astmax Futures Ltd. in Tokyo. ``Geopolitical issues are still out there keeping the upside risks intact.'' Prices have risen 55 percent this year.

Homeland Tyranny: U.S. to Get Secret Star Chamber Courts

One of the requirements for a totalitarian police state is a system of kangaroo courts, star chambers which operate in secret and in parallel to the existing judicial system. Attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey has proposed the United States adopt such a system of courts.

read more | digg story

Huckabee: Of Course He's a Fascist

The gang at Fox & Friends was happily engaged in their familiar morning routine when one of them made the mistake of asking Rep. Ron Paul about a campaign ad produced by a rival presidential aspirant, Mike Huckabee....

...it was Dr. Paul's boldness in using the “F-word” that caused his hosts at Fox & Friends to suffer a brief fit of the vapors. It's not as if the inhabitants of the Fox News Universe are unfamiliar with the term; it's just that they have been programmed to assume that it can only be used in a purely historical context unless it follows the prefix “Islamo-.” The morning show pixies were pixilated that Dr. Paul would apply that term to a fellow Republican, even – or perhaps especially – one as deserving as Mike Huckabee.

read more | digg story

Republicans Should Not Trust Romney

The Concord editorial unleashed a broadside against Romney, but fairly painting him in an objective manner based upon his ever-changing positions. Romney, like a chameleon, will change his colors to manage his own ambitions, something we also noted previously.

Romney's main business experience is as a management consultant, a field in which smart, fast-moving specialists often advise corporations on how to reinvent themselves. His memoir is called Turnaround - the story of his successful rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City - but the most stunning turnaround he has engineered is his own political career.

If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats. If you followed only his campaign for president, you'd swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost. Pay attention to both, and you're left to wonder if there's anything at all at his core.

As a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994, he boasted that he would be a stronger advocate of gay rights than his opponent, Ted Kennedy. These days, he makes a point of his opposition to gay marriage and adoption.

There was a time that he said he wanted to make contraception more available - and a time that he vetoed a bill to sell it over-the-counter.

The old Romney assured voters he was pro-choice on abortion. "You will not see me wavering on that," he said in 1994, and he cited the tragedy of a relative's botched illegal abortion as the reason to keep abortions safe and legal. These days, he describes himself as pro-life.

There was a time that he supported stem-cell research and cited his own wife's multiple sclerosis in explaining his thinking; such research, he reasoned, could help families like his. These days, he largely opposes it. As a candidate for governor, Romney dismissed an anti-tax pledge as a gimmick. In this race, he was the first to sign.

People can change, and intransigence is not necessarily a virtue. But Romney has yet to explain this particular set of turnarounds in a way that convinces voters they are based on anything other than his own ambition.

In the 2008 campaign for president, there are numerous issues on which Romney has no record, and so voters must take him at his word. On these issues, those words are often chilling. While other candidates of both parties speak of restoring America's moral leadership in the world, Romney has said he'd like to "double" the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, where inmates have been held for years without formal charge or access to the courts. He dodges the issue of torture - unable to say, simply, that waterboarding is torture and America won't do it.

When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state's first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we'll know it.

Mitt Romney is such a candidate. New Hampshire Republicans and independents must vote no.

Christians Opposition to Christmas Justified--A Superstitious Tradition

The Charleston Gazette last week ran a very good lead article about a pastor opposing Christmas who had written a book documenting its historical observance (see below).

Contrary to the superficial and politically-correct, largely compromised of the modern corrupt churches, Christmas was historically resisted even to the death by Protestant Christians as a gross superstition associated with Roman Catholicism. The Pilgrims refused to observe Christmas as much as they resisted the tyrannical Church of England and the tyrant King James yes of the King James Bible who hated the Calvinist Geneva version .

Here is a sample of some of the arguments by a Presbyterian patriot and pastor (very influential during the American Revolution), Rev. Samuel Davies of Virginia, on a (too compromising) sermon on the subject during the 18th century, who concedes to both scriptural and historical arguments against it, and also the very real problems practicing such superstitious observances can bring--including waste of time, money, and poverty:

...the example of the same apostle [Paul] will authorize us modestly to propose our own sentiments and the reasons of our practice, and to warn people from laying a great stress upon ceremonials and superstitious observances. This he does particularly to the Galatians, who not only kept the Jewish holy-days, but placed a great part of their religion in the observance of them. “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years;” therefore, says he, “I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11). The commandments of God have often been made void by the traditions of men; and human inventions more religiously observed than divine institutions; and when this was the case, St. Paul was warm in opposing even ceremonial mistakes. Having premised this, which I look upon as much more important than the decision of the question, I proceed to show you the reasons why I would not religiously observe days of human appointment, in commemoration of Christ and the saints. What I have to say shall be particularly pointed at what is called Christmas day: but may be easily applied to all other holy-days instituted by men.

The first reason I shall offer is, that I would take my religion just as I find it in my Bible without any imaginary improvements or supplements of human invention. All the ordinances which God has been pleased to appoint, and particularly that one day in seven, which he has set apart for his more immediate service, and the commemoration of the works of creation and redemption, I would honestly endeavor to observe in the most sacred manner. But when ignorant presuming mortals take upon them to refine upon Divine institutions, to make that a part of religion, which God has left indifferent, and consecrate more days than he has thought necessary; in short, when they would mingle something of their own with the pure religion of the Bible: then I must be excused from obedience, and beg leave to content myself with the old, plain, simple religion of the Bible. Now that there is not the least appearance in all the Bible of the Divine appointment of Christmas, to celebrate the birth of Christ, is granted by all parties; and the Divine authority is not so much as pretended for it. Therefore, a Bible-Christian is not at all bound to observe it.

Secondly, the Christian church, for at least three hundred years, did not observe any day in commemoration of the birth of Christ. For this we have the testimony of the primitive fathers themselves. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived about the year one hundred and ninety-four, “We are commanded to worship and honor him, who, we are persuaded, is the Word, and our Savior and Ruler, and through him, the Father; not upon certain particular or select days, as some others do, but constantly practicing this all our life, and in every proper way.” Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth century, has these words, “It is not yet ten years, since this day, that is, Christmas, was plainly known to us;” and he observes, the custom was brought to Constantinople from Rome. Now since this day was not religiously observed in the church in the first and purest ages, but was introduced as superstitions increased, and Christianity began to degenerate very fast into popery; ought not we to imitate the purity of these primitive times, and retain none of the superstitious observances of more corrupt ages?

Thirdly, if a day should be religiously observed in memory of the birth of Christ, it ought to be that day on which he was born. But that day, and even the month and the year, are altogether uncertain. The Scriptures do not determine this point of chronology. And perhaps they are silent on purpose, to prevent all temptation to the superstitious observance of it; just as the body of Moses was secretly buried, and his grave concealed, to guard the Israelites from the danger of idolizing it. Chronologers are also divided upon the point: and even the ancients are not agreed. The learned generally suppose that Christ was born two or three years before the vulgar reckoning. And as to the month, some suppose it was in September, and some in June. And they imagine it was very unlikely, that he was born in the cold wintry months of December, because we read, that at the time of his birth, shepherds were out in the field, watching their flocks by night; which is not probable at that season of the year. The Christian epocha, or reckoning time from the birth of Christ, was not introduced till about the year five hundred; and it was not generally used till the reign of Charles the Great, about the year eight hundred, or a little above nine hundred years ago. And this must occasion a great uncertainty, both as to the year, month, and day. But why do I dwell so long upon this? It must be universally confessed, that the day of his birth is quite uncertain: nay, it is certain that it is not that which has been kept in commemoration of it. To convince you of this, I need only put you in mind of the late parliamentary correction of our computation of time by introducing the new-style; by which Christmas is eleven days sooner than it was wont to be. And yet this chronological blunder still continues in the public prayers of some, who give thanks to God, that Christ was born as upon this day. And while this prayer was offered up in England and Virginia on the twenty-fifth of December old-style, other countries that followed the new-style, were solemnly declaring in their thanksgivings to God, that Christ was born eleven days sooner; that is, on the fourteenth of December. I therefore conclude, that neither this day nor any other was ever intended to be observed for this purpose.

Finally, superstition is a very growing evil; and therefore the first beginnings of it ought to be prevented. Many things that were at first introduced with a pious design have grown up gradually into the most enormous superstition and idolatry in after ages. The ancient Christians, for example, had such a veneration for the pious martyrs, that they preserved a lock of hair, or some little memorial of them; and this laid the foundation for the expensive sale and stupid idolizing of the relics of the saints in popish countries. They also celebrated their memory, by observing the days of their martyrdom. But as the number of the martyrs and saints real or imaginary, increased, the saints’ days also multiplied to an extravagant degree, and hardly left any days in the year for any other purpose. And as they had more saints than days in the year, they dedicated the first of November for them all, under the title of All-saints-day. But if the saints must be thus honored, then certainly much more ought Jesus Christ. This seemed a natural inference: and accordingly, these superstitious devotees appointed one day to celebrate his birth, another his baptism, another his death, another the day of Pentecost, and an endless list that I have not time now to mention. The apostles also must be put into the Calendar: and thus almost all the days in the year were consecrated by superstition, and hardly any left for the ordinary labors of life. Thus the people are taught to be idle the greatest part of their time, and so indisposed to labor on the few days that are still allowed them for that purpose. This has almost ruined some popish countries, particularly the Pope’s dominions in the fine country of Italy, once the richest and best improved in the world. Mr. Addison, Bishop Burnet, and other travelers, inform us, that every thing bears the appearance of poverty, notwithstanding all the advantages of soil and climate: and that this is chiefly owing to the superstition of the people, who spend the most of their time as holy-days. And if you look over the Calendar of the Church of England, you will find that the festivals in one year, amount to thirty-one. The fasts to no less than ninety-five, to which add the fifty-two Sundays in every year, and the whole will make one hundred and seventy-eight: so that only one hundred and eighty-seven days will be left in the whole year, for the common purposes of life. And whether the poor could procure a subsistence for themselves and their families by the labor of so few days, and whether it be not a yoke that neither we nor our fathers are able to bear, I leave you to judge. It is true, that but very few of these feasts and fasts are now observed, even by the members of the established church. But then they are still in their Calendar and Canons, and binding upon them by the authority of the church; and as far as they do not comply with them, so far they are dissenters: and in this, and in many other respects, they are generally dissenters, though they do not share with us in the infamy of the name. Now, since the beginnings of superstitious inventions in the worship of God are so dangerous in their issue, and may grow up into such enormous extravagance, we ought to shun the danger, by adhering to the simplicity of the Bible-religion, and not presume to make more days or things holy, than the all-wise God has been pleased to sanctify. He will be satisfied with the religious observance of his own institutions; and why should not we? It is certainly enough, that we be as religious as he requires us. And all our will-worship is liable to that confounding rejection, “Who hath required this at your hands?” (Isaiah 1:12).

Some are waking up to the truth of the so-called "holy-day", which is necessary. It is impossible for the superstitious to be truly free or for those who relish fantasy and sentimentalism (blinding them to present realities, and gross corruptions of church and government) to not give preference to vain delusions, at expense of the truth. Is America more free now than in the 1700s, when Christmas was less observed, even frowned upon by Christian churches? It appears that Christmas is the mark of anti-Christian Empires, historically, who stamped the name of Christ on their governments while brutally persecuting true Christians and establishing their own "new world order". It would be better to lament that Christmas is now observed, as the early Christians in America resisted it, than to lament that it has its critics. The real Scrooges on Wall Street love it, as well as the modern Pharisees who also collect many "tithes and offerings" from their flocks too eager to follow the "traditions of men".

clipped from wvgazette.com Just another day Some Christian churches still follow historical Protestant rejection of holiday As Christmas draws near, Princeton-based Pastor John Foster won’t be decorating a tree, shopping for last-minute gifts or working on a holiday sermon for his flock. After all, it’s been 50 years since Christmas was anything more than a day of the week to him. He’s one of very few American Christians who follow what used to be the norm in many Protestant denominations — rejecting the celebration of Christmas on religious grounds. In researching his book, “Christmas: A Candid History,” Forbes discovered that major American denominations — Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Methodists and Congregationalists — either ignored the holiday or actively discouraged it until the late 19th century.

9/11 Commission Says CIA Lied and Impeded Investigation

Caught in a lie. "Whatever is hidden shall be revealed...". The truth has a way of surfacing.

So the CIA it appears is guilty of perjury, or obstruction of justice, yet Bush gave Tenent the American Freedom medal.

How many still blindly trust the government? Remember Bush and Cheney testified (but not under oath, and without transcript, per their insistence) before the Commission as well. It is impossible to tell if they lied without such documentation. Would the government lie about 9/11? There is plenty of evidence that they have.

clipped from www.nytimes.com 9/11 Panel Study Finds That C.I.A. Withheld Tapes WASHINGTON — A review of classified documents by former members of the Sept. 11 commission shows that the panel made repeated and detailed requests to the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 and 2004 for documents and other information about the interrogation of operatives of Al Qaeda, and were told by a top C.I.A. official that the agency had “produced or made available for review” everything that had been requested. A seven-page memorandum prepared by Philip D. Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director, concluded that “further investigation is needed” to determine whether the C.I.A.’s withholding of the tapes from the commission violated federal law. In interviews this week, the two chairmen of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, said their reading of the report had convinced them that the agency had made a conscious decision to impede the Sept. 11 commission’s inquiry.

Big Brother: FBI Expanding Massive Data-Base on Americans

This is precisely what the 4th amendment was written to prevent i.e. the "searching and seizing", collecting of personal information "without warrant issued upon probable cause".

Note the part about employers granting permission to give the FBI your data from background checks.

Americans must resist or lose their freedom in the Bill of Rights forever. This is a major issue of the 2008 presidential campaign. There is only one candidate, Ron Paul, who will prevent this from being done to "free" Americans.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics $1 Billion Project to Include Images of Irises and Faces CLARKSBURG, W. Va. -- The FBI is embarking on a $1 billion effort to build the world's largest computer database of peoples' physical characteristics, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad. The FBI will also retain, upon request by employers, the fingerprints of employees who have undergone criminal background checks so the employers can be notified if employees have brushes with the law. The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny. It is drawing criticism from those who worry that people's bodies will become de facto national identification cards. Critics say that such government initiatives should not proceed without proof that the technology really can pick a criminal out of a crowd.

Behind the Propaganda about the Surge: The Real Situation in Iraq From an Unembedded Reporter

From a blog call The Vinyard of the Saker, this excellent audio podcast is linked, from a speech by Dahr Jamail, who spoke in West Virginia also this summer. He is not with the corporate media, nor works for any contractor like the guest Michael Agnello frequently has on 58 Live who always comes on to say "the surge is working". West Virginians and all Americans need to hear from an independent inside source who puts the entire situation, from his own experience there, in perspective. Among the reality that you will not hear about from the "liberal media" (beholden to the agenda of the International Bankers, neoconservatives, and Zionists) is that over 4.5 million Iraqis are displaced, and over 1 million Iraqis have been killed. Listen to this and stop paying attention to sports or hiding reality behind a stupid Yule tree. THIS IS THE REALITY THAT AMERICANS HAVE CREATED FOR IRAQIS FROM THE CRY OF "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS". Operation Iraqi Freedom is Operation Iraqi Destruction.

On December 8th of this year Dahr Jamail made an interesting in Vancouver, Canada. His speech was recorded by Radio Ecoshock and made available for download here (I have also uploaded a copy of this presentation here).

I highly recommend Dahr Jamail's excellent presentation which totally debunks all the nonsense about the 'Surge' which the corporate media sheepishly repeats day after day. To anyone wanting to hear the truth about what Iraq looks like "Beyond the Green Zone" Dahr's presentation is a must.

Also, make sure to get a copy of Dahr's book Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq.

House Judiciary Members Call for Impeachment of Cheney NOW!

Faced with an obstructionist leadership in the House, and a mainstream media that have forsaken their role as a Fourth Estate monitor of government abuse, three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee are calling on the public to demand that the Congress initiate impeachment hearings immediately against Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wexler, a six-term congressman seeking re-election, says, “I believe that there is a constitutional obligation for the Congress to hold this administration accountable, and it should not depend on what people think the impact might be on an election. The only question should be: Did Vice President Cheney abuse his powers?” He adds, “If the American people believe that the democrats are holding a legitimate inquiry into serious issues of constitutional importance, they will not hold it against them. And besides, initial polling would indicate that this is not some off-the-reservation idea.”

After all PERJURY for the purpose to initiate the war in Iraq, "fixing the intelligence around the policy" to do so, is a "high crime", no "misdemeanor".

read more | digg story

Anthrax Linked to Government Sources; Foreign Terrorism Ruled Out by FBI

Finding link to anthrax, professor set NAU apart

The article states this:

It was here that Professor Paul Keim made a significant discovery: the 2001 anthrax letter attack on a Florida photo editor came from a genetic strain identical to one developed in U.S. government labs. The finding led the FBI to rule out foreign terrorist attacks in the jittery days after Sept. 11.

Here is the summary, with commentary, by CLG:

One of the world's foremost anthrax researchers toils in a cramped, windowless lab at Northern Arizona University. Inside a locked room only a few can enter, he and his research team study germs so dangerous that the U.S. government considers them top bioterror threats. It was here that Professor Paul Keim made a significant discovery: the 2001 anthrax letter attack on a Florida photo editor [AND Democrats poised to vote against the Patriot Act] came from a genetic strain identical to one developed in U.S. government labs. They compared the results with their anthrax database. They found a match: a virulent type called the Ames strain. The U.S. Army developed the lab strain in the 1980s as a test for the anthrax vaccine. The anthrax-spiked letters, which sickened 22 and killed five Americans, had been "weaponized." Someone Cheney's bioterrorists had concentrated the bacterial spores to make them easier to inhale and more lethal.

In fact their comment about Cheney has more credibility than some may think since it was Cheney who had the White House staff put on Cipro (the treatment for anthrax) just prior to 9/11, something Judicial Watch has questioned.

Despite "Allah is Great" on the fake letters from an elementary school, the FBI concurs that it was not a foreign terrorist attack, so then it must have been a "false flag" to paint it as if Islamists had done it. Now just who would do that?

Bush Began Spying on Americans Feb. '01--Why?

Note this is well before 9/11, yet the official story by the administration is that it received no notification of any national threat, while in stealth it began comprehensive spying on American citizens, to which the telecoms objected upon legal grounds as contrary to their obligations to protect consumer rights even from government demands.

Further consider that the government could have issued "warrants" for such if it indeed had any "probable cause" with specific evidence to justify it. The fact that Bush government did not issue warrants, or attempt to get them, proves it was trying to circumvent the law, and the Constitution, to spy on Americans secretly, in order to do so in stealth.

Such a secret pattern by government, before 9/11, could be regarded as evidence of secrecy and providing for its own security, not against foreign terrorists, but from the American people at large whom its surveillance plans desired to freely sift through. The question of MOTIVE must be answered.

clipped from www.nytimes.com “What he saw,” said Bruce Afran, a New Jersey lawyer representing the plaintiffs along with Carl Mayer, “was decisive evidence that within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.” N.S.A. officials met with the Qwest executives in February 2001 and asked for more access to their phone system for surveillance operations, according to people familiar with the episode. The company declined, expressing concerns that the request was illegal without a court order. Other N.S.A. initiatives have stirred concerns among phone company workers. A lawsuit was filed in federal court in New Jersey challenging the agency’s wiretapping operations. It claims that in February 2001, just days before agency officials met with Qwest officials, the N.S.A. met with AT&T officials to discuss replicating a network center in Bedminster, N.J., to give the agency access to all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through it.

Ron Paul versus the Terror World

Blog entry that criticizes recent editorial in WSJ about Ron Paul.

The WSJ argument confirms that Ron Paul indeed is the only candidate for limited government (that the Constitution prescribes and Reagan advocated) while pushing that it is inappropriate for a "terror world" which must require a radical and insanely irrational agenda to "kill them before they kill us" policy that makes paranoid lunatics look like "conservatives". In typical form MSM articles say Paul is "kooky" in order to diminish him as a serious candidate ("we report, you decide"?) through obvious media interventionism, which this article plainly refutes. Great analysis for particularly republicans to consider, if they dare to re-evaluate the new republican establishment's repetitious dogma that threatens our freedom while claiming to defend it.

read more | digg story

Are Americans Really Free? Do They Really Want to Be?

The following address by Ron Paul ought to be read by every American. I challenge especially flag-waving republicans to examine it and answer the question just how free Americans really are, especially since Sept. 11th. We hear much propaganda on talk radio about "Islamo Fascism", as if we are threatened by a centralized (as the term fascism implies) Islamic government that wants to rule us all. This is a distraction and far from the truth. The only Fascism being established over the American people has been, and is being erected from Washington under the pretense of "the common good" or "security", whether from the left or the right.

When Americans cannot eat, drink, employ themselves in work, and travel, make purchases, yea even be born, get married, pursue education, and die, without the government's permission and taxation in each, in the forms of licenses, certificates, or "security" numbers, in a matrix of data-mining and almost total surveillance, and much more than we could physically catalogue here, it cannot be called 'freedom' and the founders of this country would be shocked at the sight of it. The idea of a Homeland Security agency, Social Security system, Income Tax (a plank of communism), or property tax, (or food tax in West Virginia), or total government surveillance and monitoring, would have made the early Colonists set sail for another country. These innovations were not set up until well over 125 years after 1776, yet today are treated as normal. Much of the change is directly attributed to the overthrow of the Constitution in the so-called Civil War, when the Southern States sought freedom to dissent, until Washington's "majority rule" (i.e. Democracy) centralized power by force of arms. Union without consent cannot possibly be freedom, only bondage, and the loss of States Rights was the starting point. Reconstruction changed everything, and Washington then rapidly expanded its power in the 1900s, and further expanded in military adventurism for the cause of "democracy" and a Utopian world, establishing the League of and then United Nations, which directly led to world wars. During all these wars civil rights have always come under attack, and dissent treated like treason, while the government tramples the Constitution.

But since 9/11 government power has been grossly expanded by a rogue White House and complicit Congress, seemingly eager to trample the tattered remains of the Constitution which was designed to prevent this very thing. Now the government claims authority over civil or personal rights, and is treating "free Americans" like criminal or terrorist suspects, without probable cause. It can no longer be called a government of "the free", but only be called what it really is, a tyranny by an over-intrusive, constant surveillance and revenue-covetous government, designed to oppress and feed off the people while claiming to serve for their common good. This type of extra- and anti-constitutional government must come to an end if freedom is to be more than just a word devoid of any real meaning in America. It is the illusion of "freedom" in word and symbol that must be exposed for the people to realize the reality that they have become too accustomed to. It is impossible that government can be so expansive and the people truly be free.

Ronald Reagan knew this. But the new republican party no longer cares, and the proof is that they propose no radical change to the present course. Ron Paul, however, does and people are embracing his message because they are awakening to the true nature of America's post-9/11 government and find it to be what Americans have historically opposed.
-----------------------------

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2005

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
-- Ronald Reagan

We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

*Politics and the English Language, 1946.

Iowa Debate: GOP Candidates Awake to Economic Crisis--Sort of

Note Fred Thompson's quote. Almost sounds like Ron Paul doesn't he? But they offer no concrete proposals as does Ron Paul and their cheer leading for "optimism" (e.g. blue-blood Romney) is a denial of the severity of the problem that Americans already realize. Ron Paul offers the real solution, to eliminate the Income Tax cut the Federal government back to Constitutional limits and stop excessive spending particularly on a trillion dollar war policy. At least Thompson has acknowledged the truth, while hedging on solutions. So republican voters should bear this in mind as an issue that is as equally important now as the war.

clipped from news.yahoo.com In a debate that did not address hot campaign trail topics like the Iraq war and immigration, the Republicans found plenty of room for agreement on the need to rein in federal spending, bring down taxes and achieve energy independence. The focus on economic issues gave the candidates a chance to lay out already published plans to ease growing public worries about the economy and reduce a federal debt they said was becoming a national security threat. "Our country has a $9 trillion debt. A good chunk of that is owned by China. We're bankrupting the next generation, without any question," said Fred Thompson, the former Tennessee senator and Hollywood actor. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has fallen behind Huckabee in Iowa polls after leading for months, said the future was bright and the country's leaders should not "wring their hands." "We need leaders up in Washington that will rein in excessive spending," he said.

The Impending Destruction of US Economy and Ron Paul's Solution

Economist and former assistant treasury secretary in the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, does not mince words in the article below. Recall that some Wall Street firms this week finally issued a warning of coming recession. (Yes, Don Surber, there is a recession coming). Roberts points out just who Washington and the Fed will support--and it will not be you, the American citizen or taxpayer. (In fact just yesterday the Fed compromised, lowering interest rates a quarter percent, which sent investors grumbling as too little.)

Meanwhile Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate consistently warning about the economy and taking on the Fed (interest rates and money supply) while offering the best solution for this problem: (1) stop the utopian global wars for "democracy" (costing $1 trillion thus far) per the neoconservative agenda (its not really about terrorism, but hegemony per their own blueprint), (2) eliminate the Income Tax (which would be the biggest economic stimulus package in US history), (3) reduce the size and scope of the federal government by eliminating useless and corrupt agencies (like Reagan on steroids), all of which would retrieve much of our freedoms.

Why should conservatives or republicans be against any of this, given the present economic danger? Do republicans really want to stop big government and limit it and stimulate the economy and lower taxes, or 'stay the course' into certain economic disaster? Republicans, being hijacked by the neoconservatives, have forgotten what made Reagan popular, which is the reason behind the "revolution" of Ron Paul as well. It was speeches like this:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem...It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment.
--Ronald Reagan

And the same applies to the present. We will soon see what the republican electorate says, if they can be heard over the repetitious propaganda coming from the establishment to continue on the same course as the first neoconservative republican ever to hold the White House.

Meanwhile the lives of Americans hangs in the balance. The issue is now on the table and the people should demand it to be dealt with openly, whether republican or democrat.

Impending Destruction of the US Economy Hubris and arrogance are too ensconced in Washington for policymakers to be aware of the economic policy trap in which they have placed the US economy. If the subprime mortgage meltdown is half as bad as predicted, low US interest rates will be required in order to contain the crisis. But if the dollar’s plight is half as bad as predicted, high US interest rates will be required if foreigners are to continue to hold dollars and to finance US budget and trade deficits. Which will Washington sacrifice, the domestic financial system and over-extended homeowners or its ability to finance deficits? The answer seems obvious. Everything will be sacrificed in order to protect Washington’s ability to borrow abroad. Without the ability to borrow abroad, Washington cannot conduct its wars of aggression, and Americans cannot continue to consume $800 billion dollars more each year than the economy produces.

RON PAUL RADIO AD - ELIMINATING THE INCOME TAX

Ron Paul Unplugged - John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul

ABC's John Stossel Interviews Ron Paul on the Role of Government!

read more | digg story

Scott Ritter on the NIE Report and War With Iran

The Truthdig columnist (and WMD expert) warns that war with Iran could be inevitable, despite the National Intelligence Estimate report that says Iran dismantled its nuclear program in 2003. Bush, Ritter argues, doesn’t let facts get in the way of what he wants.

When will Americans stop playing partisan politics and demand an end, and prosecution (impeachment) for perjury, for downright lies to provoke wars! (Would republicans not hold a democrat President and Vice President accountable for the same?)

The article includes a must-hear audio podcast interview with Ritter.

read more | digg story

Ron Paul Leads in West Virginia GOP Delegates

HuntingtonNews.net broke the story ahead of the newspapers, and the GOP is too reluctant to post on their website (while they were not reluctant to collect delegate fees from everyone). This is a big development since the GOP establishment is pushing Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani.

Based on numbers released by wvgopconvention.com, Ron Paul has overtaken Mitt Romney to lead the state's committed delegate count 217-212. The other candidates stack up this way: Fred Thompson 163, Mike Huckabee 129, Rudy Giuliani 90, John McCain 25, Duncan Hunter 7, Alan Keyes 5 and Uncommitted 630.

A list of delegates registered as of 3 p.m. Dec. 6 can be found at: http://www.wvgopconvention.com/conte...ions_12_06.pdf.

As state campaigns launch, Paul's support has not come from a staff of paid consultants or advisors. Most of those supporting Paul have given freely of their time....

After all of the delegate registrations are processed, an online vote will be conducted among at-large candidates competing for more spots than there are vacancies. The West Virginia Convention will have a total of 1,446 delegates.

According to online postings, Kanawha County will be highly contested. As of the latest count, 130 delegates will compete for 51 slots in the online balloting. In Cabell County, 50 at-large delegates will be vying for 27 slots.