James Risen Might Be Imprisoned for Fighting for Our Constitutional Rights vs. The NSA

60 Minutes interviews both sides and parties of this historic Constitutional controversy of the NSA's surveillance--under the plea of necessity by the Bush administration and continued by Obama--of free Americans for the war on terrorism.

Instead of prosecution by the government, as this WAR ON LEAKS story reveals, James Risen deserves a Medal of Freedom (contrary to giving one to former CIA director George Tenet who supported the lie of WMD) for fighting to preserve our freedoms from the tyranny of government.

Chuck Todd: WSJ/NBC Poll 'Disaster for the President'--Obama has Officially Failed

ObamaCare: The Tyranny of the Nanny State Exposed

First came the erection of the Security State under George W. Bush after that conveniently labeled date of 9/11 introducing the Big Government and Big Brother institutions and programs like Homeland Security, REAL ID (which West Virginia incorporated unnecessarily into the DMV issued drivers licenses, despite resistance), USA PATRIOT ACT (which handed over your Social Security number to banks, enabled arbitrary detention or searches and seizures without a warrant), expanded TSA searches, and much more.  Suddenly, free Americans were all to be treated as terrorist suspects and "show their papers" and be opened to Federal (and state) surveillance, electronic and with a growing camera system.   It was something that George Orwell had warned of in his book 1984, and now almost prophetically. 

Now comes the Nanny State under Barack Obama with the Affordable Healthcare Act (neither affordable nor about improving health care) which is now more openly disclosed (though we warned of it before) as another data-mining system on all Americans easily tapped by Federal or even State authorities (which work in tandem with the Feds) whenever someone abuses or taps this medical surveillance system.

Read about the intrusive privacy-breaking power of Obamacare and then you will understand how the Security State + the Nanny State = Totalitarian superstructure (all unconstitutional per the 4th and other amendments) over all "free Americans".

The "plea of necessity", warned the founding fathers, is "the tyrant's plea".  Yet distracted Americans easily fall for this oldest trick in the political book, and that to our own peril.

Move over NSA, here comes the Obamacare Big Brother database

the potential for abuse is enormous. The massive, centralized database will include comprehensive personal information such as income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps. The Data Hub will provide web-based, one-stop shopping for prying into people’s personal affairs. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/move-over-nsa-here-comes-the-obamacare-big-brother-database/#sthash.oaZink0S.dpuf

the potential for abuse is enormous. The massive, centralized database will include comprehensive personal information such as income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps. The Data Hub will provide web-based, one-stop shopping for prying into people’s personal affairs. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/move-over-nsa-here-comes-the-obamacare-big-brother-database/#sthash.oaZink0S.dpuf

Obama's Liberal Drone Wars: The Real Reason Behind U.S. Embassy Protests, Attacks?

As this article puts it:

What's behind anti-US protests in Yemen?

One thing seems clear: it probably isn't a YouTube video that has protestors in Yemen so angry....Frustration with the US has been building up for some time now, and probably has very little to do with the film controversy. They're incredibly angry with the US over civilian deaths in drone strikes and how the State Department handled the uprising, supporting a settlement that granted former president Ali Abdullah Saleh immunity from prosecution.

 This video from Newsy puts the Obama administration's drone strikes in perspective, even as compared to those of former President Bush.

Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.

It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.



It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

U.S.-Israel Middle East Foreign Policy Behind High Oil and Gas Prices

 A FRESH VIEW:  

AN OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS ABOUT GAS PRICES

If you listen to talk radio, whether national or local, you will probably only hear about supply and demand influencing oil and ultimately our gas prices.  The purpose of this article is to provide summary proof that our high oil and gas prices over the last decade are not only, or even primarily, linked to supply and demand (as Economics 101 teaches us), nor solely to Big Oil (as others claim, albeit they play a role), but by other factors considered by market investors, which some call "speculators", on Wall Street who ultimately set the price of oil through market trading.  They of course take into account supply and demand, output in millions of barrels produced, imports and exports, etc.  But a large part of speculation is entirely driven by what they forecast for the oil business climate particularly in the Middle East too. The headline states the conclusion up front, but let us walk through the analysis to demonstrate how we got there.

First, let's look at the clear and non-partisan history of gas and oil prices.  (Click on any chart for a clear and enlarged view).

POINT 1:  GAS PRICES HAVE BEEN HIGH UNDER BOTH ADMINISTRATIONS

During the Bush administration they were as high as 4.19 per gallon nationally.  We are close to 4.00 per gallon under Obama, projected to pass over that threshold in May of this year.

High gas prices during both administrations; sharp drop during Nov. 2008 elections

So the highest and lowest marks have been shared by both administrations, respectively.  But Americans have grown way too complacent about and used to this.  Note that during the elections of 2008 we were only paying about $1.79 per gallon!  Yet that was still high compared to about $1.29 per gallon when Bush took office in 2001 (not shown in these graphs). 

So what changed gas prices so dramatically?  The "elephant in the room" that no one talks about, as each party tries to portray their own talking points, is foreign policy and middle east wars.  The history of oil and gas prices shows that it was after 9/11 in 2001, and primarily when President Bush, influenced by the Israeli-neoconservative propaganda and persons within his administration (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the PNAC group), moved America into a decade long war with Iraq under the false pretense of WMD and mythical images of "mushroom clouds".   That had a direct and immediate impact upon oil and gas prices as the following charts will show.

POINT 2:  WARS AND 'FEAR PREMIUM' TRUMPS SUPPLY & DEMAND--Middle East Activity, U.S. Foreign Policy and Wars, Drive Up Oil Prices 

Look over this graph very closely (click to enlarge) and try to refute or disbelieve that that wars and Middle East tensions are the most significant factor behind high oil prices.  Look and see what the norm of oil prices was prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11:

High crude oil prices began during Bush administration, invasion of Afghanistan/Iraq.

Now notice on this graph the volatility of price compared to growing, steady supply.

Supply has been steadily increasing yet oil prices fluctuate dramatically.

  

First note after Bush was in office, and even after 9/11, oil was still trading well under $30 per barrel.

Second, that oil prices only rarely crossed $40 per barrel before 2002 (i.e. note too the CIA fomented the Iranian Revolution, which led to the Iran/Iraq War on chart), when the war on Afghanistan began and the war on Iraq became inevitable to the investors/speculators, and oil prices have never recovered since war in the Middle East has continued to this day.  It is NOW THE NORM for oil prices to be over $80 to $100 per barrel through the decade long wars for "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are still to be completely ended.  And now Iran is in the cross hairs.  Thus the Bush administration's unnecessary war on Iraq has "reset" oil prices, with over a decade of Middle East wars now, including Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Syria during the Bush administration, per the market prices on oil.  Would not ramping down Middle East wars and tensions reverse oil prices?  Yes, just ask the traders who trade in oil.

POINT 3:  Growing Global Demand Does Not Account for the New Level of High Oil Prices

This article (with graph) shows that global demand (consumption) has indeed been increasing steadily and lately somewhat greater than supply, which does account for some upward pressure on oil prices.  But that does not explain the oil prices' dramatic fluctuations and much higher averages and spikes that this demand could account for.  In fact, recently the Saudis (who know quite a bit about oil supply and demand) called the present high oil pricing "irrational".  They mean that there is no limit of supply vs. demand that justifies the current market price of crude oil.   Note too that the Saudi oil minister spoke of "irrational fear" of shortage of supply versus that demand, affecting the spot price set in the market by investors and "speculators", which is a direct reference to the "fear premium" we have alluded to before, including regarding fears due to wars in the Middle East, past and present (Iraq, Iran, Syria, et al).  Already oil experts say that this year supply is catching up with demand while there is a price elasticity in gas prices--i.e. U.S. demand (consumption) has dropped during higher pricing.

POINT 4:  U.S. Oil Companies Are Not Helping with Supply--Cutting Refining, Increasing Exports

First, while just complaining about government hindrance of drilling refinery capacity has deliberately been reduced--to increase profits through efficiency, which puts a bottle-neck on supply!  I bet you have never seen this graph about their inventories as demand has increased.

 Second, though the U.S. is a leading oil producer (i.e. refining crude into petroleum products), it has recently become a greater exporter than importer!  Why?  Hoppy Kercheval should have asked this with the oil exec recently on Talkline.  Yes, more drilling is needed, which the current administration is hindering.  However, U.S. oil companies are not helping us either where they are able. 

U.S. Produces More Oil Than Iran

U.S. Companies Now Export More Oil Products Abroad

POINT 5:   Value of Dollar and Inflation Do Not Account for High Oil and Gas Prices


Look and compare this inflation adjusted chart to the ones above (noting differing date range).

Note again the same pattern, while considering these significant dates about foreign policy and regional tensions in the Middle East:

1.  The only prior high peak was during the 1979-80 Iran/Iraq War, which was in part sparked by the CIA's prior covert ops sparking the Iranian Revolution, which ran up prices immediately.  This is when Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and the U.S. was supplying WMD to Iraq and Saddam Hussein (ironically).

2.  Oil prices hit $60 per barrel during U.S. military ops against Iraq in Kuwait in 1991 under Bush I.

3.  Late in 2001 after 9/11 was a price spike as talk of war and invasion of Afghanistan began.

4.  Late 2002 was war-mongering moves by the U.S. and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.  The steep climb in prices began.  The war on Iraq continued officially for over a decade until 2011.

5.  Prices consistently escalated as the U.S. and Israel expanded the "war on terrorism" and violence in Iraq, along with a "surge" of more troops.  Note oil prices continually increase in the trading markets (while supply continues its normal growth, per previous graphs).  Israel bombs Lebanon in 2006 and bombs a site in Syria and also bombs Gaza against Hezbollah.

    Prices also rose after Hurricane Katrina which pinched some U.S. refining capacity for a time.

6.  As the U.S. and Israel increased war talk about Iran as a "threat to Israel" toward the end of Bush's 2nd term oil prices spiked dramatically into 2008.

7.  Elections Nov. 2008 showed a sharp drop in oil prices as talk of ending the Iraq War was entertained and a softer Middle East policy was hinted at by candidate Obama.

8.  Oil prices began to rise quickly in 2009 as Obama talked about a "surge" of his own, appointed the same Bush-generals in war operations and violence surged up into 2010.  (See, no matter the administration; "it's the war policy, stupid").  Granted, this is also when the Gulf Spill changed Obama administration's policy on off-shore drilling, but with no immediate effect upon supply.

POINT 5:  It is Economic Suicide for the U.S. to Increase Conflict with Iran

Do you think this chart shows the potential for such a conflict to inflate oil prices from a "fear premium" on Supply?  Experts think so: See here in regard to Economic Sanctions already begun (though propaganda Op-eds from pro-Israel groups are now attempting to downplay this, to protect their policy on Iran).

Does anyone want a repeated spike of oil prices like during the Iraq-Iran War (see graphs previous)?  Prices of over $200 per barrel have been mentioned if there was an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, because of certain retaliation by Iran, and immediate inflammation of war in the Middle East.   TELL CONGRESS TO BACK OFF THE WAR-MONGERING AND SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN UNLESS YOU WANT TO PAY FOR IT, LITERALLY, IN YOUR GAS AND CONSUMER PRICES.  (It is irrational to believe Iran would attack Israel without provocation).

POINT 6:  Oil Prices Influence All Consumer Prices, The Whole American Economy

CONCLUSION


If foreign policy affects oil and gas prices, then foreign policy affects the entire U.S. economy, of which oil and gas prices is a key factor.  Isn't that what we have seen since the invasion of Iraq?  The price of all consumer goods has gone up, and stayed up, along with oil prices.  This pattern is undeniable and will continue.

ISN'T IT VERY CLEAR WHAT DRIVES OIL PRICES UP?

Why does neither party bring the "war premium" or "fear premium" or "foreign policy" about oil prices?    Because they don't want to offend the powerful Israeli Lobby, AIPAC, which holds a hammer over every member of Congress and causes presidents to tremble.  It's all about wars for Israel and/or "democracy" in the Middle East; regime change by force.  But President Obama, being provoked, finally let the truth slip out, for which he was quickly hit with broadsides from all propaganda cannons for.  But he was partially right.  See the article:  Obama Administration blames Israel for high oil prices.  That was frankly a breath of fresh air to even read the headline (even though we are against his entire philosophy and most of his policies).  

The truth is often not politically-correct and particular interests groups are always pressuring others to prevent free public debate.  But it is blind beyond belief not to talk about Middle East and Iran foreign policy when discussing oil and gas prices and the U.S. economy.  It needs to be brought into the discussion immediately as even the graphs show that oil prices began their increase immediately as sanctions on Iran and war-mongering by Israel and the U.S. surged last year.  Market investors in oil, who indirectly set our gas prices by consequence, pay attention to all of that.  So why shouldn't we in the social and political arena?  It is stupid to ignore it.

This also demonstrates that unjust wars (e.g. Iraq, potentially Iran) have "blow-back" effects on the U.S. domestic economy.  It is a Biblical axiom that "you reap what you sow".  There is a Law of Consequences.  "What goes around" has effects that "come around".  It's time to pay attention to this, and talk openly about it, including in Congress and on talk radio.  If you think this argument has merits, then by all means pass it on for the benefit of all Americans, irregardless of party. 

Senator Byrd's Magnum Opus: "The Truth Will Emerge" Speech

This may have been his most masterful speech at a most crucial time, opposing the Iraq War, squarely against Bush, boldly and contrary to political-correctness, implying it was based upon fraud and lies, which is now entirely vindicated. He was in the tiny minority then, but the majority now. The Truth can never bow to a majority against it, even if its an entire nation.

In giving this speech, Senator Robert C. Byrd personally embodied The Truth, by personal example.

This is the difference between a Statesman and a Politician. This was oratory, truth speaking to power, against all odds, and now vindicated. It's a magnificent thing when someone stands for truth--alone!

This work begins with a great poem about Truth, proceeds into expounding the philosophy, states a daring premise against the majority, cleverly communicating that propaganda and intimidation has driven the war issue. The last line is the climax boldly prophesying vindication of the lone speaker.

clipped from onegoodmove.org The Truth Will Emerge by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Remarks - May 21, 2003 "Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - - The eternal years of God are hers; But Error, wounded, writhes in pain, And dies among his worshippers." Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually. Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation under false premises. And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.

Bush's Final Report Card: Biggest Spender Since LBJ

Fair and balanced analysis from Cato Institute. Republicans need to confess this if they expect to have any credibility in criticizing Obama's liberal spending. The American people are sick of bi-partisan lying and hypocritical finger-pointing

Obama's first report card, where all spending is under his watch, will not be available until next year, 2010 (which should be a doozy too).

President George W. Bush’s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama.Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, which includes outlays for the financial bailouts enacted under his watch.

clipped from www.cato-at-liberty.org George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ Figure 1 shows the average increase in total spending under recent presidents. Bush II was the biggest spender since LBJ. His spending increases were far larger than the three prior presidents. Of course, presidents share spending power with Congress and it is easier for presidents to control discretionary spending than entitlement spending. Nonetheless, the results in these charts reflect the general spending approach taken by the presidents quite well. Figure 2 shows total federal spending without interest payments. Presidents have the least discretionary control over interest. The biggest spenders by this measure were again LBJ and Bush II. The Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration’s record on spending from a statistical point of view. he presided over an 83-percent increase in overall federal spending

Barack W. Bush--Obama's "Preventive War" in Afghanistan

Obushma's Afghanistan war policy--the BUSH DOCTRINE CONTINUES. The word "terrorism" was hardly invoked, but "essential for our national interests....and attacks on our HOMELAND" implied the same thing. It's still all about the 9/11, and only the rhetoric has changed slightly.

See Rachel Maddow's MSNBC video analysis about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and proof that the Bush Doctrine continues. Powerful analysis.

clipped from www.theweek.com Afghanistan: Barack W. Bush? With his plans for an Afghanistan troop surge, some say Obama is embracing the "extremist" war policies of George W. Bush Obama's plan evokes Bush at his most despicable: "This year's Nobel Peace laureate just escalated the war in Afghanistan for the second time," says Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC talk show. Though Obama tried to frame the troop increase in his own terms, he called Afghanistan a preventative war. And "that's the Bush doctrine in all its Orwellian extremism…the concept of America at war, globally, indefinitely, against anyone at our own digression." (Watch the clip from "The Rachel Maddow Show") Same words, different president: If you compare Obama's Tuesday’s address with Bush’s January 2007 speech outlining his Iraq "surge," says Glenn Greenwald in Salon, you’d be hard pressed to find anything "new and innovative" in Obama’s rhetoric.

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

Robert C. Byrd Day Tribute: Byrd Spoke the Truth, and It Did Emerge

This is a non-partisan post, and excerpts of a great speech, to honor a true statesman (on his Congressional milestone and day of tribute), not a mere politician, who resisted the powers of propaganda and the tyranny of political-correctness to speak "truth to power" before it became more popular (and easier), in the aftermath of Sept. 11th.

This speech will be a historical classic (read it closely, not only its philosophic and practical discourse on truth, but wise analysis of post-9/11 national susceptibility of the public mind to rush into error) during the Bush presidency. Even now party loyalists, fearful of their political standing in the eyes of others, will dare not acknowledge its truth publicly, even though it now stands vindicated in full.

But let everyone, as the Bible so wisely counsels,"give honor to whom honor is due" and "rise up before the hoary (grey) head", in respect (instead of irreverent mockery for an aged man's frailties or weaknesses), for a Senator who has truly distinguished himself in not only age, but wisdom, oratory, industry, and integrity before his Congressional peers. It is a sad commentary upon Congress that there are few who bear these excellent marks and characteristics that he shares with some of the greatest statesman in American history, which even so many West Virginians of both parties do not appreciate or admire.

This speech was perhaps Senator Byrd at his Zenith, and at one of the most crucial times when speaking the truth, though drowned out, was needed in Congress to resist the "powers that be".

'The Truth Will Emerge'

By Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks - May 21, 2003

"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again,--
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."

Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually. But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue....

...in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his Cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ-laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post-traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger. Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation that has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But our costly and destructive bunker-busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided....

...What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the United States. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening, death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string....

...there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will. As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions that are begging to be asked....We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly....

But I contend that through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood--when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie--not oil, not revenge, not re-election, not somebody's grand pipe dream of a democratic domino theory. And mark my words, the calculated intimidation that we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.

Danger--America Becoming Statist: First Bush, Now Obama

Note: First the Security or Police State then the Nanny State. This is a must-read article, and hopefully an eye-opener to those still stuck in the "left" or "right" paradigm of thinking of partisan politics, both of which pick and chose which parts of the Constitution they want to dismantle for desired ends.

Put the Bush and Obama policies together, sprinkle in a couple more terrorist attacks, and one or two more state-caused financial calamities, and you have a recipe for . . .

* The destruction of American liberty
* The blossoming of a Leviathan State

clipped from www.downsizedc.org The End of Statism (after its rise) President Bush and the Republican Congress expanded government more than any administration in history. They also laid the basic foundations for a future police state. Now, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have . . . Retained, and in some cases expanded, all the Bush-era policies -- the wars, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless spying, REAL ID, imprisonment without due process, extraordinary rendition, etc. Begun to extend the already existing foundations for a future socialist state with things like direct government ownership of businesses, the health care bill, cap and trade, and a host of other measures big and small Put the Bush and Obama policies together, sprinkle in a couple more terrorist attacks, and one or two more state-caused financial calamities, and you have a recipe for . . . The destruction of American liberty The blossoming of a Leviathan State Read the signs . . . We are living through a Statist revolution.

Whistleblower: NSA Targeted Journalists, Snooped on All U.S. Communications (Wired.com)

Just one day after George W. Bush left office, an NSA whistleblower has revealed that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program targeted U.S. journalists, and vacuumed in all domestic communications of Americans, including, faxes, phone calls and network traffic.

Russell Tice, a former NSA analyst, spoke on Wednesday to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. Tice has acknowledged in the past being one of the anonymous sources that spoke with The New York Times for its 2005 story on the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

After that story was published, President Bush said in a statement that only people in the United States who were talking with terrorists overseas would have been targeted for surveillance.

But Tice says, in truth, the spying involved a dragnet of all communications, confirming what critics have long assumed.

"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications," he said. "Faxes, phone calls and their computer communications. ... They monitored all communications."

This is powerful testimony from an NSA insider that Bush lied about the extent and purpose of domestic spying being used upon Americans and this report reveals that journalists and media were specifically targeted. All this from a credible source, a former NSA analyst who had first hand knowledge and experience.

The mark of tyrannical governments is paranoia, particularly spying on the press as well as their own citizens.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Alarmism vs. Realistic Threat Assessment of Terrorism--The Government Lies

CATO Institute offers some sanity in this short podcast from the typical propaganda and exaggerated threats about Terrorism that seem to justify the neoconservative (and now Obama) "war on terrorism" and Homeland "Security State" agendas. In fact they prove that the government's latest "WMD report" was based upon nothing, and therefore a fabricated lie to justify policy decisions.

150 Top Economists Say "Hold Off" on Bailout

`The situation may get urgent, but it's not urgent right now. Right now it's a financial sector problem....`It's just nothing like the calamity the administration is making it out to be.''

Everyone should stop the ignorant panic and read this article from the best economists, who like doctors are best apt to understand both the problem and its cure.

Another great interview and source to better information was provided by CATO Institute's daily podcast, a Sept. 25th interview with an expert on mortgage-backed securities.

Hoppy Kerchevel had an excellent interview with a professor of Economics at West Virginia State University which was very similar in perspective to this article here. SO WHY IS NO ONE LISTENING TO THE EXPERTS, INSTEAD OF THE FED'S FRONT MAN TREASURY SECRETARY PAULSON AND A IGNORANTLY-COMPLYING PRESIDENT? Who do you trust more about the economy, ignorant lawmakers or economists?

The media also (including local talk radio) continues to parrot the "crisis", after Bush's Financial WMD Speech Wednesday, where a virtual "mushroom cloud" was imagined over the economy if "Congress does not act now".

It is a gross exaggeration and even outright lie and the bailout would make things worse, according to experts!

clipped from www.bloomberg.com Hundreds of Economists Urge Congress Not to Rush on Rescue Plan Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- More than 150 prominent U.S. economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, urged Congress to hold off on passing a $700 billion financial market rescue plan until it can be studied more closely. In a letter yesterday to congressional leaders, 166 academic economists said they oppose Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan because it's a ``subsidy'' for business, it's ambiguous and it may have adverse market consequences in the long term. They also expressed alarm at the haste of lawmakers and the Bush administration to pass legislation. ``It doesn't seem to me that a lot decisions that we're going to have to live with for a long time have to be made by Friday,'' said Robert Lucas, a University of Chicago economist and 1995 Nobel Prize winner who signed the letter. ``The situation may get urgent, but it's not urgent right now. Right now it's a financial sector problem.''

9/11: The Official Story is Mere Allegation and Fiction

THE FBI SAYS THEY HAVE 'NO HARD EVIDENCE' CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Why do you think the CIA closed its "bin Laden unit" in 2006 if he is wanted "dead or alive"?

THE 9/11 DOCUMENTARY THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Go to the 6-minute mark in Loose Change's new Final Cut with rare news clips to see the lack of evidence and the erroneous information which pinned 9/11 on Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) and 19 "Islamic terrorists" and justified the neoconservative's Sept. 2000 blueprint for wars for "regime change", "global hegemony", and a "new middle east" upon what they wrote then as a needed "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify their agenda.

A LIE LIKE IRAQ

The official story about 9/11 is as much of a lie as the "intelligence" about Iraq having WMD and being an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and designed to justify the neoconservative agenda, upon a false-flag attack, seize control of U.S. government, develop a fascist Homeland Security system of control and surveillance, and launch new wars for democracy for the global agenda. The War on Terrorism is Bogus, a front for global domination.

The FBI Obstructs Justice: Uncovering the Anthrax Cover-Up

THE FORGOTTEN ANTHRAX PROPAGANDA
Colin Powell waving the vial of anthrax at his UN Security Council presentation on February 5, 2003, making a fabricated case for war in Iraq.
CIA Director George Tenet (left), Director of National Intelligence John Negropante (right), perfectly positioned for the cameras as if to stand behind everything Powell presented.

________________

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished. Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

-- Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

By laying all blame for the anthrax letters on the award-winning Ft. Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins it can only be said that the FBI is obstructing justice. In fact, they were pressured to do just that from the very start, from very high up in the chain of command. The FBI official story now, after seven years, is highly incredulous. For whoever was behind the anthrax letters, and its several very specific targets, did more to further the neoconservative propaganda for a "war on terrorism" against radical Islam, to justify war in Iraq and regime change in the middle east, and to coerce Congress into draconian anti-constitutional legislation than any other action, other than 9/11 itself. To suggest that Ivins did all this for monetary gain is contrary to Criminology 101 which seeks solid evidence for "motive, means, and opportunity".

First, lost in the haze is that the Bush administration (per this Daily News article below) pressured the FBI from the very start to pin the anthrax letters on militant Islamics, especially overseas--without any such evidence:

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

Second, from Glenn Greenwald in his blog article at Salon.com. Here is just a small portion, the article should be read in its entirety:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

...If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

Third, there is the Democracy Now podcast on anthrax, which includes an interview with Greenwald, and an anthrax researcher who personally new Ivins. These interviews also include sound bites of McCain linking the Anthrax letters to Iraq on the David Letterman Show in 2001, as well as Bush, both knowing full well (per FBI) that there in fact was no link to Iraq, or even "Islamic militants" inside or outside the US!

Anthrax Mystery: Questions Raised over Whether Government Is Framing Dead Army Scientist for 2001 Attacks

---

The FBI’s prime suspect in the October 2001 anthrax letters case died last week in an apparent suicide. Bruce Ivins was an elite government scientist at the biodefense research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. He was among the nation’s top experts on the military use of anthrax. But many of his colleagues have expressed deep skepticism over the FBI’s claims. We speak to anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass and blogger Glenn Greenwald. [includes rush transcript]

---

LISTEN WATCH

Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More…

---

Guests:

Glenn Greenwald, attorney and blogger at Salon.com. His recent posts include “Vital Unresolved Anthrax Questions and ABC News”, “Additional Key Facts Re: The Anthrax Investigation” and “Journalists, Their Lying Sources, and the Anthrax Investigation”

Dr. Meryl Nass, expert on anthrax and editor of the blog AnthraxVaccine.blogspot.com

Finally, here is a dated article (when the FBI zeroed and harassed Hatfill with the same zeal as they did Ivins later) about another Ft. Detrick former scientist, who did have access, even motive (to blame Arabs), and an interesting profile. Dr. Zack for some reason is not a suspect while he fits the profile of the crime closer than Ivins. He is Jewish and a dual Israeli citizen, it happens, with a demonstrated hatred for Arabs (see how he persecuted his Egyptian co-worker and was fired for it), much like many of the neoconservatives behind the war on terrorism agenda that they wrote well before 9/11. There is sufficient prima facia evidence here to consider him a suspect whose behavior was both malicious and suspicious. Yet the FBI says now that Ivins is the ONLY suspect and they are convinced he would have been found guilty, contrary to a larger body of evidence and lack of witnesses.

While Media Spotlights One Anthrax Suspect, Another Is Too Hot to Touch

---

Before the investigation of Dr. Hatfill captured national headlines, another insider scientist had come under FBI scrutiny without much media fanfare. It was easy to miss the few stories published in January 2002 about Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who, like Hatfill, also had access to a well-equipped laboratory with lax security. Zack, moreover, actually worked with military-grade anthrax at Fort Detrick.

---

Dr. Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991 amid allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Jewish scientist and others were accused of harassing their co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad, until the Egyptian-born American scientist quit

---

Inexplicably, the national press ignored these documented unauthorized visits to a top-secret government lab embroiled in the anthrax attacks. Did journalists fear being labeled anti-Semitic for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist?

---

She is convinced that the FBI knows who sent the anthrax letters

Original news investigative articles from the Hartford Courant are noteworthy too about Dr. Zack, and furthers the details:

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad,who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until last October, until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter - a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known - naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. FBI agents decided the note was a hoax after interviewing Assaad.

McCain on David Letterman,
Plays Anthrax Propaganda Card to Justify Iraq War