Propaganda vs. The Truth about the (Unconstitutional, Communistic) Income Tax

Until 1913 there was no Income Tax on Americans (taxation based upon your earnings and income from labor).  It was unconstitutional to have such a tyrannical individual income tax because it was contrary to private property rights and basic civil liberty as a free American, i.e. that you own your own labor and income derived from it.  (Taxes are a necessity of all governments, but not a demanded tax on personal income!).  In order to force this ruse on Americans, which was ruled "unconstitutional" in 1895, Congress had to amend the Constitution with a 16th Amendment and there is legitimate controversy as to whether it was properly ratified by the states.  It is also common knowledge that a graduated income tax is a communist principle, whereby everyone works for the common government by their labor.  It is in fact a key plank in the Communist Manifesto (see plank 2)!  That's right, slavery was not abolished in America, everyone was merely given universal equality in the Government's Plantation.  Everyone's labor is now owned and claimed by the government.

So the government has always had to portray it as "patriotic" to pay Income Taxes which is setup as some kind of sign of moral righteousness to be a "good American".  The propaganda used to sell this is a proof that natural objections must be overcome to brainwash Americans into believing that it should be a thing of pride instead of subjugation and shame.

The following two videos in this regard are very enlightening and illustrate two contrasting views.  The Income Tax was introduced primarily as a means of financing an American war machine as an "arsenal of democracy" leading toward a system of world government with the ideals represented by the United Nations (also led by FDR, in context with the first video).   Republicans in particular should recall the great opposition they had historically toward FDR's New Deal (socialist) policies, also ruled as unconstitutional; a type and pattern that President Obama has followed almost precisely.  The truth is that both republicans and democrats have supported this same utopian global military vision of expanding "democracy" through wars for "regime change" which the Income Tax has been used to fund and support.

The Propaganda:  From the Federal Government (and Donald Duck, 1943)

Message:  "Be Patriotic!"  Income Tax represents "liberty and freedom".
The "axis" enemy just has a different name now:  Fascism Terrorism.

This kind of propaganda, making use of a cartoon to persuade Americans is frankly insulting, demeaning, and represents the stupid and childish mentality of the American mind.  It is also worth noting that the U.S. united and allied with the Communist Soviet Union to join Great Britain in the war against Germany (which the vast majority of Americans opposed until Japan, which was allied with Germany, bombed Pearl Harbor), which this propaganda film alludes to.  (See our previous article about President Herbert Hoover's opposition to WWII as well as a book by Pat Buchanan, where both claim that American freedom was "betrayed").




The Truth:  From Former Asst. Secretary of Treasury during Reagan Administration

Message:  The Government Owns Your Labor, Income Tax represents Slavery, Not Freedom

The Price Americans Are Paying at the Pump for Iran Sanctions

This is a quick follow up per our previous article about U.S. and Israel Middle East foreign policy driving high gas prices.   If you look at the gas price chart in that article you will see the steady rise in gas prices since Congress (i.e. both parties, as well as Obama) authorized AIPAC's plan of economic sanctions on Iran (which began in the last half of 2011).

The Christian Science Monitor recently posted this article just over a week ago providing more evidence that supports our article, citing experts, and also explaining those sanctions.  Are you sure you want Congress to impose those sanctions now?  Are you willing to bear the economic consequences of sanctions imposed due to pure propaganda and fear-mongering by the Israeli lobby (just as the neoconservatives did to sell you the Iraq war), when Iran has no nuclear weapons capability any more than Saddam Hussein did?  There is economic "blow-back" to all Americans due to this, and surely more to follow.  Think about it and let Congress know what you think!

What do Iran sanctions cost you? About 25 cents a gallon, experts say.

While consumers may support sanctions on Iran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapon, a foreign trade advocate says, they should also be told how sanctions impact Americans.

Then there is this good article too from Juan Cole:

Obama, GOP won’t Tell Americans that Iran Sanctions drive Gas Prices

Oh, and for good measure, to prove our analysis is unbias, even Fox Business has reported this, so it must be true [sarc]!   We just report, you decide:

 Experts To Congress: Iran Sanctions Fuel High Gasoline Prices

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. 

More 'Economic Sanctions' or War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls Out Congress

What's driving up gas prices, everyone asks?  The very real 'fear premium' (a fear of potentially restricted supply due to regional tensions) on oil that investors/speculators include in trading in the oil market.  It is therefore impossible to divorce Foreign Policy from America's Economy and National Debt.  (This was acknowledged briefly by the oil expert interviewed last week by Hoppy Kercheval on Talkline).  Yet seldom do politicians, or talk radio hosts, address such things together.

More economic sanctions on Iran is a clever way of walking (by the lobbyists' manipulation) the U.S. toward war and drives up the 'fear premium' about supply in the oil trading markets.  Limited Government (Tea Party) type people like Sen. Rand Paul understand how aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East not only endangers a casual, unconstitutional attitude toward war (particularly undeclared wars by the Executive Branch, by both Bush and Obama) but also has economic consequences for all Americans. In other words, there will and is already economic "blow-back" on Americans of economic sanctions on Iran!  Ironic, isn't it?

Remember, it was sanctions on Iraq that began that war.  Sanctions are economic warfare and an economic precursor to it.  AIPAC (the Israeli lobby, the most powerful in Washington) as well as Israeli PM Netanyahu, and a lot of false religious propaganda (i.e. Christian Zionism theology, prophecy) used to support the secular (not Biblical) state of Israel, is pushing American foreign policy with Iran.  The majority of Americans by far now know that Iraq was (at least) a "mistake" and want us out of Afghanistan now and out of the "nation building" (read "regime change") business altogether.  Yet under Obama we have proceeded, without Congressional approval or declarations of war, to use military campaigns in Libya for regime change while Syria and Iran are now entering the cross-hairs (and have been since the neoconservatives in the Bush administration used 9/11 as their pretense).

Tell Senators Rockefeller and Manchin, as well as Reps. Capito, Rahall, and McKinley to listen to you instead of AIPAC.  Economic sanctions on Iran are directly, already, increasing our gas prices and the price of all consumer goods will soon follow by consequence.  After all, do AIPAC and Israel care about the U.S. economic consequences of higher oil and gas prices from increased Middle East tension and wars?  No, not one bit.  And the elite in Washington that vote for sanctions do not feel the economic consequences like you and I do.  So make Congress listen to you instead.  Or, do nothing but don't complain about high gas prices or when groceries and consumer goods go up again as they did already during the Iraq campaign. When will everyone wake up to this!  Why not tell them what you think now instead of complaining about even higher gas and grocery prices later?

Listen to Sen. Rand Paul's objection on the floor (video below) and read about his reasonably offered amendment to the Sanctions bill which was intended to be a wake up call to Congress to think about the careless path they are being pushed into and complying too readily with.  What an excellent and persuasive speech!

War With Iran? Sen. Rand Paul Calls the Question

Gazette's "Trayvon" Bias in Charleston Double-Murder Case: Daughtery Freed, Two White Victims Forgotten

Our story begins with an excerpt from the Gazette's coverage of the recent verdict in the Charleston double-murder case:

Teenager acquitted of killing 2 people

James Daughtery spent 2 years in jail after his arrest

By Zac Taylor

The Charleston Gazette

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Seventeen-year-old James Daughtery embraced his lawyer as a judge read from a verdict form Friday afternoon, declaring him innocent of two brutal homicides that have kept him in prison for more than two years. ...

Several of Daughtery's family members stifled cheers and sobs as Stucky read the verdict Friday, and excused themselves from the courtroom as the boy exchanged a long hug with his lawyer, Rico Moore.
"Happy is not a strong enough word," Moore said of his client.

Prosecutors alleged that on Feb. 10, 2010, enraged that Daughtery had allegedly sold them fake crack, Duling and Pontier left several messages on his phone, calling him racial slurs and demanding their money back.

Prosecutors said Daughtery, then 15, arranged to meet the two near the Fas-Chek in Kanawha City. He jumped into the back of Duling's car, pulled out a .22 Peacemaker revolver, and shot both Pontier and Duling in the head, prosecutors said.

During the trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from Daughtery's friend, Mark Artez "Ace" Johnson, who told investigators that Daughtery had bragged to him about the crime soon after he committed it, claiming that he had "earned his stripes" as a drug runner.

On the witness stand, though, Johnson asked the judge several times if he could "plead the Fifth," or decline to answer questions for fear of self-incrimination -- especially when prosecutors asked him if he had used the phone he shared with Daughtery to make drug deals.

Johnson mumbled most of his answers to prosecutors and to Moore on cross-examination....

Thus, Charleston has its own case of a controversy in justice which is being overlooked.  It is a Trayvon-type case, but in reverse and twice as bad, while the public and media are too quiet about the outcome.  It was the double-murder of two white men while the only probable and potential perpetrator was Daughtery, a fifteen year old black male (at the time), who was declared "not guilty".  The Gazette, in the typical fashion of the agenda-driven national liberal media, has contributed to the injustice of the case by inserting their own very slanted and bias report.  Zac Taylor's article ascribed that Daughtery was declared "innocent" (a distortion and reporters misrepresentation, very different than what the judge said) while also painting him as the victim instead of the two deceased.  More than that, any reactions of the real victim's families were either omitted or redacted, neither of which reflects objective journalism or the whole truth about the verdict for unbias readers.  Why?  
 

While "happy is not a strong enough term" for Daughtery the reporter's back was turned away from any cries of the true victims' families (whether they were present or not).  Emotions expressed, as police know too well, are not indicative of any righteous judgment, but only reflect personal self-interest. Imagine if you were a family member of the two murder victims what your reaction might be as contrasted to that of Daughtery and friends.   

The damning fact is this, that the police have no other suspect "at large".  The key witness "Ace" Johnson ("Daughtery's friend" reports Zac Taylor!) no doubt perjured himself in his "mumbling" testimony in order to stay alive (the drug cartel would certainly avenge the conviction for murder of their young drug "mule", which Daughtery could threaten him with to coerce him to shut up in court) while the defense looked the other way and the Gazette bought the whole story as an exoneration since they see it their duty to help in perpetuating the myth of white prejudice against blacks in crime, as if color instead of behavior were criminal evidence.  (Certainly if the suspect is white and the victim black the Gazette is likely to see the suspect as guilty, no jury trial needed; e.g. Zimmerman vs. Trayvon).  

What if a white guy who had a witness that said he "bragged" about a murder, of two black men, and that he had "earned his stripes as a drug runner"--but then the witness suddenly reversed himself, two years later, in court?  What, pray tell, would have been the Gazette's reaction then!!  Al Sharpton would have come to town, with all national networks in tow, with one voice crying "injustice", would they not? 

But we all know better and so does everyone else on the street along with the prosecutors and police we pay to enforce justice in Charleston.  The silence, along with the hypocrisy in context of the Treyvon controversy, is deafening.  But the blood of those two murdered victims, who were truly shot "execution" style (a proven fact in this case), cries loudly up to a God in heaven for avenging of their blood (though they are not to be compared to innocent Abel in Genesis whom Cain killed in history's first murder), for which government is to be a minister of justice for the Divine Judge, even in a state which has disarmed itself of the Sword of Justice (see Romans 13) for the death penalty.   

The fact that the police and prosecutors are not calling it an "unsolved" crime ("they had their man") underlines the injustice of the trial's outcome of which the public has every right to be highly suspicious about and unaccepting of it.  Juries, especially with the evident perjury of a key witness, with a high standard of proof required, are not and cannot be infallible when a key witness bails on the prosecution after two years of consideration.  (One wonders however about the prosecutor's case, whether physical exhibits, particularly ballistics or gun powder residue were ever found on the suspect's person or clothing, which would have been "beyond reasonable doubt" of guilt if available.  Is this where the police and/or prosecution failed the case?)   

But the Gazette has trumpeted the outcome between their very bias lines as "justice", painting Daughtery as if he were a victim of what is labeled "white justice", while the shedding of blood of two men by someone carrying out their own arbitrary "death penalty" for personal satisfaction (all murder is a 'hate crime') remains at large and free.  Though evidently the editor had Zac Taylor give due credit to the same prosecutor, Mark Plants, for not even charging a black man who shot two other white men in St. Albans recently in "self defense" (though we know others who said he left his property and went to confront the other men, packing a weapon with a permit, for their dangerous driving in the neighborhood with children present), the article's message implied a "white prejudice" mark upon the police and prosecution while the only probable perpetrator, with motive, means, and opportunity, walks free.  This is "Treyvon" media bias all over again, based solely upon age and the color of the skin instead of evidence which was, until the trial, as hard as concrete.  Where is the outrage?  What about "Ace" Johnson's sudden and incredible about-face in testimony? 

Anarchy and vigilantism based upon any prejudice (prejudging without evidence) will be the rule if the principles of jurisprudence are abandoned for irresponsible reporting and inflammatory racially charged, incindiary speeches before the public (e.g. Al Sharpton) and this type of media-fomented activism which is presently inciting civil disturbance, and even violence, in Florida.  Even in Charleston some have taken to the streets over the Trayvon case (this is political insanity and radical activism outside of its proper jurisdiction) while the double-murder of two white men, "execution style", locally by the only probable suspect, now released, is met with strange silence!  Is that not troubling?  Will West Virginia media do any investigative reporting?  Of course not.  The suspect was a black youth instead of a white man, and would be met with (unjust) accusations of "racism", which the cowardly media avoids at all costs. 

The High Court of heaven surely has judged differently than the hand-tied Judge and Jury on this double-murder case and so will any thoughtful public opinion.  Meanwhile we might need a new Paper for justice to make its case to the public.  While Justice is blindfolded to color certainly the Gazette is not, but portrays her as needing to peek in order to shift her balance and recalibrate her scales for a particular outcome.  It's almost as if a double murder never took place, as if to have no conviction of anyone is "justice".  

We know full well that not all 15 year old black youths (or white) are harmless and "innocent" but in fact are fully capable of murder, as news reports prove.  The gross presumption that a young black youth could not have pulled the trigger where the evidence is clear that drug-dealing was involved (where money and guns are always present) is to be selectively and deliberately naive.  Was Daughtery a drug-runner or not?  Did he sell to the two victims or not?  It will take more than a journalistic "hoodie" of an article to cover up his character and behavior!  Did the prosecution paint a rational scenario based upon facts or was it their own fantasy?  Let the unbias reader decide. 

The public should be alarmed and crying out that Justice has not been done in this case!  And that West Virginia certainly needs a death Penalty.   A cold blooded, double-murder cannot go unpunished, and the murder rate is going up. 

For now The Gazette and Zac Taylor need to take a lesson in objective journalism from this excellent reporter from the Miami Herald involved in the Trayvon case (see interview on CNN below), who has dared to report the uncomfortable truth from all angles, instead of their blatant partial coverage:

Netanyahu and AIPAC Do Not Represent The Jews on Iran--Neither Do Romney and Santorum

Below is an article about what you will not hear on network mainstream news, or local talk radio, who pretend there is an absolute necessity of "stopping Iran from obtaining a [alleged] nuclear weapon", as if there is no dissent among Jews or Israel.  And what Americans think should be more influential to Congress and the President than AIPAC's heavy-handed lobby and the other propaganda arms to influence U.S. foreign policy (which will surely effect both gas prices and the entire economy, as well as global stability).

And in case you missed it, the former head of Mossad was interviewed on 60 Minutes, after he called a pre-emptive strike on Iran "stupid"!  Video here. 

A preemptive attack on Iran? US Jews are deeply divided.

The AIPAC conference in Washington elicited one hawkish pronouncement after another from US leaders. But American Jews are deeply split over how to deal with Iran's nuclear aspirations.

By Ron Scherer, Staff writer / March 8, 2012

• 

Republican presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum speaks before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), in Washington, Tuesday, March 6.

Charles Dharapak/AP

Spooky iSpy: Feds Defiantly Expanding 'Big Brother' Surveillance on Americans

The Federal power grab continues now under Obama as much as it did under Bush.  Now we did not expect any "change" for the better.  Obama has only tried to add the Nanny State to Bush's Security State, neither of which is Constitutional government.  (And the prospects for the next Presidential election are no better).  It is apparent that the Feds have found a way to circumvent the fact that Congress banned them from setting up their "Total Information Awareness" program, previously attempted under DARPA.  Under the plea of "necessity", for "counter-terrorism" purposes of course, they are resurrecting total electronic surveillance on American emails and phone calls, clearly unlawful per the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

During the Bush administration it was already proven that both AT&T and Verizon had setup a secret system for the same purpose contracted through (guess who) two Israeli companies that would tap and sort all phone data (including hi speed internet) from Americans, per this video interview (with the same author/source of the article below, James Bamford) here:




Note one of the former NSA informants in the article says its like a "turnkey totalitarianism state" being setup, very similar to the word we used to describe the NDAA 2012 act in the previous post.  Exactly!  All this while the government says it's "defending freedom" by these measures to "fight terrorism" since 9/11. 

‘Total Information Awareness’ surveillance program returns, bigger than ever | The Raw Story

 According to Bamford, the NSA’s new data center in Utah will be the most all-encompassing spy machine ever conceived, capable of breaking almost any encryption, reading any email and recording any phone call anywhere in the world, even if it’s not made over the Internet. A network of ultra-sensitive satellites enhance the center’s intelligence-finding capabilities with the unique ability to sniff electronic communications from a massive distance.

More troubling still, Bamford’s three covert sources who worked for the NSA reportedly claim that the agency is dumping Americans’ communications into the mix, knowingly violating the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of a modern-day Manhattan Project.

When Congress struck down the Pentagon’s “Total Information Awareness” program, they did, however, authorize funding for ”processing, analysis, and collaboration tools for counter terrorism foreign intelligence,” which is precisely how the NSA describes this data center.

 ...In these latest revelations, one of Bamford’s covert sources claims that the NSA is on the verge of a massive coup, putting the U.S. inches away from “a turnkey totalitarian state.”

 The full article is worth reading.  Then watch this quick video where Judge Napolitano (who knows the law and the Constitution) takes the NSA and government to task about a their new online surveillance system called "Perfect Citizen".

NDAA 2012: Cornerstone of Totalitarianism--"First they came for the [Islamists]..."

HOW TYRANNY IS ESTABLISHED:  
IT COMES PIECE BY PIECE UNDER THE PLEA OF "NECESSITY".

"Necessity, the tyrant's plea." --  John Milton

          "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.  Necessity is the plea of tyrants, the creed of slaves".  -- William Pitt

Beware of politicians making use of alarmist and inflammatory rhetoric when they propose the "necessity" of new laws "to secure the Homeland".  Here's why, with a familiar quote:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me

                     -- Pastor Martin Niemoller, 1946

First they came for the Islamists.  Now they are coming for Americans.

Now during the Obama Administration there has been significant talk about "home grown terrorists"--i.e. Americans, instead of just "radical Islamists" coming in from the outside.  It was the Obama Administration's Janet Napolitano (or Napolean-tano) that sent out watch bulletins like these just a few years ago which proves the danger of government assessments about "home grown terrorism".

Ever since 9/11 (that false-flag event done to change America completely as well as its global foreign policy) this blog has pointed out the dangers of America's post-9/11 government and its new unconstitutional superstructure, especially of the new Department of Homeland Tyranny (aka Security; a very fascist, anti-Constitutional Dept. that blends domestic, federal policing, usurping the States, with the Dept. of Defense), the so-called USA PATRIOT ACT (which violates 4th and 5th amendments toward totalitarian surveillance and arrest powers, and destroys personal privacy and makes ID theft easier), and the REAL ID Act (which coerces states to turn drivers licenses into National ID cards with biometrics) to name just three major changes.  All this was done by tricks in legislation and often with "must-pass" defense authorization bills and funding.  Whenever you hear about a "must-pass" piece of legislation in Congress be very worried and read the fine print. 

Well now President Obama signed what he knew was controversial very secretly this last New Year's Eve (while Americans were very distracted) after Congress passed it as "necessary to protect us against terrorism".  Buried in the fine print of the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012, passed by our totally untrustworthy bipartisan Congress before the end of last year, was the most dangerous and unconstitutional provision that permits the arbitrary and absolute detention of any American citizen based upon the very fallible, and sometimes politically or sinisterly motivated, designation by someone in authority within the Federal government that said individual is a terrorism threat or "material supporter of" such--without grand jury, trial, or even a judge-signed warrant for their arrest.  The purpose of the Constitution is to keep Americans safe from the Government while this dangerous legislation permits the Feds to take any American citizen, by-passing all Constitutional provisions in the Bill of Rights that keeps Americans free. 

The Founding Fathers warned us about governments that do this which is why the wrote a Constitution to prevent it!  This is just another column and support of the creeping totalitarianism being erected in America under the exaggerated threat of "terrorism" (while many more Americans, including West Virginians, are reported in the newspapers to be killing each other daily) since that infamous (and conveniently date-labelled) 9/11 "catalyzing event".  How long will Americans continue to let this happen, while waving flags, by Presidents and Congressmen who have sworn to "defend and uphold (the supreme law of) the Constitution of the United States"?  The truth is that Americans are no longer "free" but like the proverbial gradually-boiling-frog-in-the-pot of a Totalitarian stew.

WHAT REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO SAID ABOUT IT

 When a letter was sent to republican Representative Shelley Moore Capito against this bill in December, this is the letter we received back, fully supporting what President Obama signed on Dec. 31st:

       

But contrary to Rep. Capito's letter, and writing in bold that "American citizens will NOT be detained  under this bill", while she boasted it passed the committee "with my support", the following will prove that this is not the understanding of many from both left and right politically the way this law was written!  Intentions aside, many claim that the law actually gives broad arbitrary powers to any Presidential administration or federal authority to hold any American at will contrary to their Constitutional rights under the 5th amendment.  Let us call witnesses from the right and left and let's also call Fox's Judge Napolitano (3rd video) to give their view to the reader.

BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT ARE AWAKENING TO THE TYRANNY NDAA 2012 REPRESENTS

We will now prove that this article is neither hyperbole nor partisan whatsoever but is concerned with the real freedom of all Americans under the Constitution by evidence showing growing alarms from both left and right about this tyrannical and sinister legislation.

EXHIBIT A--From the Right:  Surprisingly, but more likely because Obama is in office instead of Bush, even Rush Limbaugh gets it:




EXHIBIT B--From the Left.  Article from Counterpunch:

Why the NDAA is Unconstitutional

by BRIAN J. TRAUTMAN

Each year, Congress authorizes the budget of the Department of Defense through a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA of 2012, however, is unlike any previous ones. This year’s legislation contains highly controversial provisions that empower the Armed Forces to engage in civilian law enforcement and to selectively suspend due process and habeas corpus, as well as other rights guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, for terror suspects apprehended on U.S. soil. The final version of the bill passed the House on December 14, the Senate the following day (ironically, the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights). It was signed into law by President Obama on New Year’s Eve. With his signature, for the first time since the Internal Security Act of 1950 and the dark days of the McCarthy era that followed, our government has codified the power of indefinite detention into law.
This pernicious law poses one of the greatest threats to civil liberties in our nation’s history.

All Americans, therefore, should be concerned, yet the U.S. Media has been strangely silent about it.

Bush introduced Preventive War (not truly pre-emptive war upon imminent threat)--a dangerous foreign policy (offensive instead of defensive wars) while now Obama has signed into law Preventive Detention--a dangerous domestic policy.