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.

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

Benghazi-Gate, 'The Bob Schieffer Moment': Obama Administration Confronted on "Face the Nation"

This will go down as "The Bob Schieffer moment", where now even the media, which has given the Obama administration a hedge of protection, now has broadcast clearly that the administration deliberately misrepresented and is refusing to come clean about the Benghazi attack and their official story.

We all know when we are being lied to. It is clear now that CBS knows it too. "Why are YOU here?", Schieffer asks the rookie sent to "take care of that interview" from the Administration.  Then listen to what he says about Susan Rice's "representation" of the Benghazi event for the Administration (play from 1:20 minute mark).

It goes without saying that avoidance is a mark of cover-ups and lies. It's about time the mainstream media recovered their sense of smell as journalist hounds and started tracking the truth of the story instead of following the fake trails put down by the fox in the White House to cover their tracks (including Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State too). They are onto him now, and you can almost hear the media hounds line up baying and chasing behind CBS's Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation.  The old "bloodhound" reporter now knows the fox led them astray and their official story did not pass the smell test.  Isn't this what the media is supposed to do, as a public service for us? This is the purpose of a free press after all.

Remember too that while the Administration tried to satisfy the media by releasing a torrent of emails regarding the Benghazi event, that none of the emails that were released were dated any earlier than 67 hours--almost 3 full days--after the attack and the official explanations.  It would be insulting to not call it a cover-up, and from what Obama promised would be "the most transparent administration ever".  Actually, they would like it to be transparent...but only as transparent as a ghost or vapor that might quickly disappear.  But it's too late for that now.

McConnell on IRS Scandal: 'We've Only Started to Scratch the Surface'

Bearing Arms in West Virginia: "Sen. Jay Rockefeller Owns an AR-15"

The editor of the Charleston Gazette, known for its blatant anti-gun advocacy (i.e. their "bearing arms in West Virginia" comments appear regularly to harass law abiding citizens in Sunday's opinion briefs), should be interested in this.

     Senator 'Jay' Rockefeller owns one of these.

"I voted for the assault weapons ban in 1994, which also included a ban of high capacity clips, and it's unacceptable that it hasn't been reauthorized...."  -- The State Journal

Take a look at the arms that (if correct in the interview below) Senator Jay Rockefeller is bearing! For the record, this is what is being labeled an "assault weapon" (anything semi-automatic with high capacity clips), the very type of weapons that Obama and the Left side of Congress in particular want to limit by Executive Order or new unconstitutional legislation.  Sen. Joe Manchin (NRA approved) has advocated limits too.

It makes the rest of us appear rather tame by comparison, doesn't it?  Now by comparison even Senator Joe Manchin may not be as well armed as this, who fired a round from a .306 to gain points in a political campaign ad.  Yet both of them seem to want to limit the types of arms West Virginians can bear, grossly limiting the 2nd amendment by pleas of "necessity".  What do you think of that?

Yet Senator "Jay" Rockefeller owns one of these according to Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America (i.e. "the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington"--Ron Paul) in this recent interview and debate below with a very frustrated Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC  (point made just after the 4:00 min. mark).

Mitchell: "Who...why would someone own a Bushmaster?"

Pratt: "[Senator] Jay Rockefeller [D-West Virginia] owns an AR-15".

Touche'!  Point scored.  After all, the Gazette always likes to make a big story of any hypocrisy.  Well here is a good piece for them to put into print then, from an opposing view in their next "bearing arms in West Virginia" piece.  But don't hold your breath for it.

Be sure to tell your two West Virginia Senators what you think of Obama's plethora of executive orders or any limitations and further regulations of gun ownership in this state.  Call or write them now, and Rep. Capito too, since she is aiming to take Senator Rockefeller's seat upon his announced retirement at the end of his term.

Why Semi-Automatics, Ammo Clips, and Unregistered Guns "shall not be infringed"!

What is the real purpose of the 2nd amendment of the Constitution?  Is it to protect the ability to hunt?  Or merely self-defense?  Or is it more than that?  Let's hear from the author of the Constitution himself.  Here is just a few excerpts of what Mr. Madison had to say about it. 

"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Is this clear enough?  Something is very wrong when the government becomes "afraid to trust the people with arms".  It would be a major revolution from America's foundational grounds of government from a "free country" to a tyrannical state.  Even after the Civil War the armies of the Southern States, particularly Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, were permitted by General Grant to keep their weapons upon their surrender.  So why should American's rights be taken away now because of some insane criminals?  In no other case are criminals allowed to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens to "prevent tragedies like this".  If that were the case we would have no rights at all.

Congress has no legal authority to pass any law that infringes on the free and unencumbered right to bear all kinds and types of private arms, including "assault" (i.e. actually semi-automatic) weapons and multiple clips, and that without compulsory registration, tracking, or any other "infringement".  Only those legally tried and convicted and sentenced lose their rights.  No one else.

Listen to Walter Williams on this, who takes President Obama and Congress--including Senator Joe Manchin--and the very bias media to school about this subject, and sets the record straight.

By the way, "Mountaineers are always free" (West Virginia's state motto) only if they resist such anti-second amendment tyranny.

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. 

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.

NBC Nightly News Comes to West Virginia for Manchin/Raese Contest

Governor Joe Manchin and his campaign underestimated Raese's challenge for Byrd's Senate seat. Now they are fighting desparately to win. Campaign Manchin overestimated themselves and were entirely blind, until too late, at how upset average West Virginians are at Washington, thinking that the outrage and discontent was "just a Republican thing". Wrong.

Manchin, who wanted the glorious stamp of approval from the voters, might be wishing now he would have just appointed himself to fill Byrd's seat, which as Governor he had full power to do. But, he was absolutely sure he would be stamped 'approved'--relying on his popularity as Governor--without any trouble from an outsider with almost no political experience. Wrong again. A proverb warns: "Pride comes before the fall", and the "certainty" of Manchin winning the election (as he thought when deciding not to appoint himself) seems to be slipping from his political grasp. Rasmussen just reported that Raese's lead has increased.


It's all about Obama and a referendum against the present Congress and Obama administration in power that has railroaded sweeping new European type legislation that is the most socialist since FDR.

Now West Virginia wants change, ironically, and Raese is just a far better bet than the governor who is loyal to the Democrat party establishment. Obama is experiencing blow-back to his "Change" agenda. Mark it, for it will continue two years after this as well, when Rockefeller's seat comes up for election.

The State and local media too, which leans Democrat, has underestimated just how angry and vehement West Virginians are against the present Washington agenda. Even Rockefeller would have a hard time this year, if his seat was up for election against even the most novice Republican candidate.

The NBC video also proves the Gazette and Democrat establishment wrong in trying to portray the Tea Party movement as "extreme right-wing republican conservatives", as they interview Democrats voting for Raese too.

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

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.

Don't Portray Obama or Global Governance in a 'Negative Light'

Obama's media liaison meets with Fox News (Satire). Pardon, it just fits so well.

clipped from www.youtube.com

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

The Truth About the War in Afghanistan That Every American Should Know

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy...

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines...

But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan.

-- Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent

Obama's tour in Afghanistan demonstrated that he supports the war there and an expansion of it. In fact he justified the entire "war on terrorism" on his trip, precisely as the neoconservative Bush administration has presented it. In the previous post (below) we highlighted Obama's interview with Lara Logan on CBS where he stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are "planning attacks [on America] from here". Based on what evidence other than repetitious allegation? That is a lie straight from the neocon propaganda machine that this "change" candidate is parroting. Not only McCain then, but Obama himself would expand the "war on terrorism", in Afghanistan and even into Pakistan. Obama in fact appeared closer to McCain and Bush in this rhetoric while he claimed Bush and McCain were shifting toward him on Iraq. Americans should not be fooled by this candidate who, like the rest of the candidates that were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (i.e. McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, Romney, Thompson) will continue the global policy of regime change under guise of a "war on terrorism".

The truth is that most Americans have justly criticized the Iraq war (finely seeing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor had WMD to produce "mushroom clouds") while giving Afghanistan a pass, since the Taliban are based there. This is because the basic argument used against the Bush administration's Iraq war was that IF the "war on terrorism" was legitimate (the premise), THEN it should be waged against those blamed in the official 9/11 story--i.e. bin Laden and the Taliban connected to him in Afghanistan (conclusion). But most have not examined that claim about the Taliban that was asserted as often as Saddam having WMD. To claim that the Taliban, or even bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11 is beyond any evidence available, and they both denied any knowledge or participation (CNN report here) in that "catalyzing event", as the neoconservative's forenamed it in their Project for New American Century policy paper (Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000) drafted a year prior to 9/11.

The following article excerpt from Eric Margolis (Foreign Correspondent and Defense Analyst), At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan, is a must read then for just how Americans were tricked into war with not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, on the basis of 9/11, while the plans to begin both wars for "regime change", per the neoconservative blueprint for a "new middle east", were already in works, and only waiting on some "catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify attacking and invading and overthrowing the governments of two sovereign countries. Here is the truth about the War in Afghanistan, and even into Pakistan, which Obama is legitimizing, that every American should know, and consider during this campaign season where the Democrat and Republican candidates are sounding closer together on war policy than ever, and the fraud of a war on terrorism is being perpetuated by both. The question that begs an answer is this: If the war in Afghanistan, like Iraq, is based upon plans laid well before 9/11, and in fact there is no connection between the Taliban and 9/11, how can the war continue to be justified? An oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan explains a great deal about the "war on terrorism", in this region.

At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

...Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west. ...

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan...

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it `on side’ for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.

The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former Unocal `consultant’ Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route...

Obama's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon--Unjust Wars Will Continue

The real Obama policy, "Al Qaeda, Taliban, war on terrorism" continues. Must see video from CBS interview where Obama:

1 legitimizes the neoconservative war on terrorism as a necessary and true war ;
2 escalate war in Afghanistan for regime change, like Iraq, continues (which is also a civil war);
3 willing to attack targets inside Pakistan--i.e. invade any sovereign country to kill and destroy alleged terrorists (think collateral damage on civilians or wrongly accused from missiles and UAV drones).

Watch the interview, Obama does not answer one "why?" question (a great question) of Lara Logan with any credible response ("they are planning attacks from here?"--evidence please) about the necessity of the war on terrorism , he simply dodges and assumes its legitimacy without reason or debate. UNJUST WAR is the problem here. Where is the protest?



The war on terrorism is not a true or legal constitutional war, and enabling Obama to do the same as Bush without criticism is hypocritical and partisan blindness. It has always been the goal to finish Iraq and legitimize and spread the war on terrorism.

Note the media here in this article, where being "hawkish" is elevated and War equals Patriotism.

The only conclusion one could have then is that a vote for Obama is a vote to continue Unjust Wars under pretense of fighting "terrorism" while it is plainly for "regime change". The war against Afghanistan for the neoconservative agenda is as unjust as the war in Iraq, for there was no evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban or bin Laden (both of which denied knowledge or participation in 9/11 in BBC and foreign press in Oct. 2001) had anything to do with what the neocons called "the new Pearl Harbor".

Is it enough for hypocrites to have a black man and democrat in the White House to constitute "change"? What has everyone been complaining about for over 5 years, if not unjust war, and how would THIS, from Obama's own mouth, change any of it? Dare we mention again his vote FOR the Telecom Immunity and Spy Powers bill?

There is no escape from these facts, and burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or turning your head and voting for Obama CONTINUES THE SAME AGENDA.

clipped from www.cbsnews.com Obama Shows Hawkish Side On Mideast Trip CBSNews.com Reports: Democrat Talks Tough About Afghanistan To Show Skeptics He Can Be Strong Commander In Chief Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. | Share/Embed It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism - just 37 percent of voters identified Obama as "very patriotic" in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll - and his toughness when it comes to foreign policy. On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.

Senators Votes on Telecom/Spy Bill--Obama, Clinton, McCain, Byrd, Rockefeller

Clinton, Nay; Obama, Yea; McCain, No Vote. McCain ducked!

As usual, Byrd got this one right, Nay, (Constitution in pocket) and Rockefeller, Yea, got it wrong, again. See more traitors and defenders of the 4th amendment at the linked source.

clipped from senate.gov U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 ) Vote Number: 168 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ) Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 69 NAYs 28 Not Voting 3 Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Byrd (D-WV), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting Webb (D-VA), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting

The Senate Votes to Abolish the 4th Amendment, Permit Spying on Americans