by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.
Money and Markets Is Greece going to default right now — THIS weekend?!The Greek finance ministry has given its officials instructions to deny, deny, deny!But Bloomberg reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is making contingency plans for possible 50% wipeout losses that could sink German banks if Greece defaults — even as soon as the next 72 hours.Whether it happens now or later is uncertain. But no matter when, the repercussions will undoubtedly be devastating — a global credit freeze that could dwarf the Lehman Brothers disaster of 2008.
That’s why the Dow, the Nasdaq and the S&P are crashing today.
[Then Martin goes on to invite you to watch his video, America's Financial Doomsday, which I feel certain contains his ideas about how to protect yourself, likely all good, but I'm not in the business of promoting anyone.]
Good luck and God bless!
Martin
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Bag'o'Dust: 9/11 Truth Niels Harrit on Nanothermite Evidence GoodMorning Denmark
Here's a good visual of where the dust evidence comes from:
Notice it doesn't say Good Morning America because America isn't awake yet to say "Good Morning" to before showing them evidence of foreknowledge and pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings on 911.
Former Prime Minister of Denmark WAS TOLD which demonstrates that somebody had foreknowledge. Damn, didn't they tell the building occupants to go back into the second tower? Look here.
"We - ehh - I received a message 5-10 minutes before it physically happened"
Here's another worth seeing if you haven't already:
Type "Pullit" into Google and see what you think about the vid.
---------------UPDATES
OCT 18, 2009 From 911Blogger on Foreknowledge, vids check it out: (click) HERE
--------
OCT 18, 2009 DON'T FORGET RUDY GIULIANI admitted foreknowledge on ABC - video see 24 second mark: here. Giuliani says he was told the building would collapse in ten or 15 minutes.
-----------------------
OCT 18, 2009 From File No. 9110161
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW, EMT RICHARD ZARRILLO, Interview Date: October 25, 2001 click HERE with video
------------------
OCT 18, 2009 For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.-from Sept 12, 2001
-----------
OCT 18, 2009 Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
----------------
OCT 18, 2009 John Ashcroft warned:CBS - July 25, 2001: "In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term...The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.
---------------
OCT 18, 2009 Pentagon foreknowledge-or just good advice? Jim Miklaszewsky reporting from Pentagon feels an explosion - wonders if it is part of the construction going on...(bomb-proofing the segment of the Pentagon that took the hit) - "interestingly enough...uh..one intelligence official here in the building said, after what appeared to be a coordinated attack on the world trade center, his advice was to stay away from the outside of the building today just in case..."
Note: The intel person got the outer ring and day of attack correct. Why not stay away from the outside of the building for as long as it takes to know the "coast is clear?" There were fighter aircraft flying over Washington D.C. for many days following the attacks. If it was prudent to maintain vigilance elsewhere, why not especially at the Pentagon in the following days?
Notice it doesn't say Good Morning America because America isn't awake yet to say "Good Morning" to before showing them evidence of foreknowledge and pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings on 911.
Former Prime Minister of Denmark WAS TOLD which demonstrates that somebody had foreknowledge. Damn, didn't they tell the building occupants to go back into the second tower? Look here.
"We - ehh - I received a message 5-10 minutes before it physically happened"
Here's another worth seeing if you haven't already:
Type "Pullit" into Google and see what you think about the vid.
---------------UPDATES
OCT 18, 2009 From 911Blogger on Foreknowledge, vids check it out: (click) HERE
--------
OCT 18, 2009 DON'T FORGET RUDY GIULIANI admitted foreknowledge on ABC - video see 24 second mark: here. Giuliani says he was told the building would collapse in ten or 15 minutes.
-----------------------
OCT 18, 2009 From File No. 9110161
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW, EMT RICHARD ZARRILLO, Interview Date: October 25, 2001 click HERE with video
------------------
OCT 18, 2009 For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel.-from Sept 12, 2001
-----------
OCT 18, 2009 Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11
----------------
OCT 18, 2009 John Ashcroft warned:CBS - July 25, 2001: "In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term...The Justice Department insists that it wasn't Ashcroft who wanted to fly leased aircraft. That idea, they said, came strictly from Ashcroft's FBI security detail. The FBI had no further comment.
---------------
OCT 18, 2009 Pentagon foreknowledge-or just good advice? Jim Miklaszewsky reporting from Pentagon feels an explosion - wonders if it is part of the construction going on...(bomb-proofing the segment of the Pentagon that took the hit) - "interestingly enough...uh..one intelligence official here in the building said, after what appeared to be a coordinated attack on the world trade center, his advice was to stay away from the outside of the building today just in case..."
Note: The intel person got the outer ring and day of attack correct. Why not stay away from the outside of the building for as long as it takes to know the "coast is clear?" There were fighter aircraft flying over Washington D.C. for many days following the attacks. If it was prudent to maintain vigilance elsewhere, why not especially at the Pentagon in the following days?
Watch Obama’s Jobs Speech In 35 Seconds
Watch Video
Video - Obama's Jobs Speech Before Congress - Sep. 8, 2011
The full speech is below for anyone who can tolerate it.
(Reuters) - A jobs program in the Southern state of Georgia, cited in President Barack Obama's plan to fight unemployment, needs big fixes and would not work as a federal initiative, says the official who runs it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-obama-jobs-georgia-idUSTRE7880LV20110909
- "Pass this jobs bill..."
The full speech is below for anyone who can tolerate it.
(Reuters) - A jobs program in the Southern state of Georgia, cited in President Barack Obama's plan to fight unemployment, needs big fixes and would not work as a federal initiative, says the official who runs it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/09/us-obama-jobs-georgia-idUSTRE7880LV20110909
Does the Queen know the truth about her Archimedes screw?
"Doing a Reggie? How very amusing!"
All right, so Windsor Castle probably doesn't use 100 watt lightbulbs…. Read More
CIA Told New York Times About 9/11 Warnings, Command Negligence: NY Times Lied
The Intel Hub
By Susan Lindauer, 9/11 Whistleblower and Former U.S. Asset covering Iraq and Libya
September 9, 2011
9/11 denialists like to swear smugly that the official 9/11 story must be true, because the government could never keep such an important secret without getting caught.
Somebody would spill the beans, right? In fact, a number of us tried. Media watchers should savvy up, as the air waves get blitzed this weekend with 9/11 emorials.
If the corporate media had done its job as a watch dog, the world would have got an earful reliable intelligence sources debunking the official 9/11 story.
Unhappily, the corporate media has been a co-conspirator in the 9/11 Cover Up from day one. They have actively abetted the government with its dirty work. Say a truth teller got arrested on the Patriot Act—like me— and locked in prison on a military base, while the public debate raged over 9/11 and Iraq without access to knowledgeable sources.
The government could rely on corporate media to squash the story, while the Justice Department fought my demands for a trial, playing every dirty trick in the book to stop a New York jury from hearing testimony about 9/11 and Iraq.
My nightmare is described in Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. It was a frightening ordeal with secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony, and threats of indefinite detention on a Texas military base.
However the Patriot Act by itself was not enough to silence facts about the command failure before 9/11 or Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Over and over, friends and colleagues reached out to the corporate media, delivering independent confirmations about my 9/11 warnings, the Iraqi peace framework and my work on the Lockerbie case, which proved my status as an Asset.
Supporters pleaded for the media’s help to expose the government’s manipulations, so I could get my day in court, and bring that truth to the people.
Over and over again, the corporate media in New York itself mounted a wall of silence to buttress America’s leaders.
Most New Yorkers and New Jersey residents would be appalled to discover that the worst media whore in the 9/11 Cover Up turned out to be the New York Times.
By May, 2004, the New York Times received no fewer than four confirmations of our Intelligence team’s 9/11 warnings to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department. Confirmation was made six months before release of the 9/11 Commission report, when public discussion could have impacted the findings.
Most importantly, a discourse of the facts about 9/11 would have educated voters before the November 2004 elections, holding leaders in Washington accountable to the people. For this reason, I offered to waive my Fifth Amendment rights under indictment, so the 9/11 Commission could take my testimony under oath.
Most critically, the New York Times gained two of those all important confirmations about the 9/11 warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Both of my handlers, Dr. Richard Fuisz and Paul Hoven men freely volunteered our 9/11 warnings and the Iraqi Peace option to the New York Times.
They also explained my work as a U.S. intelligence Asset engaged in the Lockerbie negotiations with Libya, and my role spearheading talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraqi Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan. The journalist, David Samuels, called me excitedly, after the interviews.
You read that correctly. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency both gave information about the 9/11 warnings to the New York Times, expecting the newspaper to alert its readers of the command negligence before the attack. The New York Times’ readership was most personally impacted by the tragedy, after all.
They made an effort to inspire discussion while the 9/11 Commission was hearing testimony. The New York Times acquired two more confirmations of our 9/11 warnings from Dr. Parke Godfrey, a highly respected computer science professor of York University in Toronto, and my brother, John Lindauer of Los Angeles.
That took guts for the Intelligence Community. By this time, writing was on the wall that Republican Leaders would punish anyone who spoke against them.
One would expect the New York Times to rush to press with such a hot story. Think about it: a long-time U.S. Intelligence Asset, second cousin to President Bush’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Card warns about 9/11 and has full knowledge of Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 Investigation— then gets arrested on the Patriot Act, after requesting to testify before Congress.
Wasn’t that newsworthy? Not according to the editors of the New York Times. Instead of objectively reporting independent confirmations of the 9/11 warnings and properly identifying me as an Asset, the New York Times engaged in gross public fraud.
They abetted the government in concealing information of critical significance to the paper’s home town. They manipulated the people of New York City into believing the CIA gave no advance warnings of 9/11 at all. While the American public screamed for impeachment, the New York Times blocked information that showed President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez engaged in active public deception.
The people were left believing the government had simply made mistakes before 9/11 and the Iraq War.
In other words, the New York Times acted like an old whore, clinging to GOP leaders like a last client, seeking assurances of her waning attractiveness to the public.
When one of Washington’s most stellar attorneys, Brian Shaughnessy, forced the Court to grant my request for a single, pre-trial hearing—four years after my arrest— Parke Godfrey delivered shocking testimony about my 9/11 warnings less than a thousand feet from where the World Trade Center once graced the New York skyline.
Yet again, New York Times reporter, Alan Feuer, fraudulently and libelously invented a phony lead sentence: “She stuck her tongue out at the prosecutor.” And the New York Times parroted the Justice Department’s line that “half a dozen psychiatrists” had declared me incompetent to stand trial—a blatant deception.
Ignoring a morning’s worth of testimony, Feuer suggested that I was a “religious maniac,” something hysterically funny to everyone who knows me. There’s no reality contact in the one and only psychiatric report that postulated such claims. (That single evaluation was presented by the Justice Department’s psychiatrist and tossed by the Bureau of Prisons in the first hour of my arrival at Carswell).
If the New York Times had scratched the surface in its reporting, journalists would have recognized the Justice Department was running what’s called “a psy-op” designed to hide a major government deceptions from voters.
A quick examination of the record would have revealed that half a dozen psychiatrists had challenged the Justice Department, and declared me fully competent in all areas of life.
Even psychiatrists at Carswell Prison acknowledged I suffered “no evidence of hallucinations,” “no depression.” They said I socialized well, posed “zero behavioral problems.” Weekly reports stated consistently that I was “cooperative, smiling, with good eye contact.”
Notably, psychiatrists at Carswell Prison ruled out delusional disorder, citing first-hand observation, witness interviews, and diagnostic testing.
The slightest attention to witness testimonials would have exposed the whole public fraud. Yet the New York media carefully ignored evidentiary testimony that exposed the 9/11 warnings and denied symptoms of mental instability.
While my attorney, Brian Shaughnessy protested for my right to a trial, the New York media assured the public that the Court finding was “gift wrapped for my defense.”
Casting journalists as “controlled opposition–” might be overly generous given these circumstances, since it implies they have any backbone at all. Alas, most of them don’t. They whine for pity for their low ratings. Then they let government officials write their news scripts in exchange for political access.
Hey, it’s a tough job defending the official story of 9/11. You have to overcome janitorial crews, fire fighters and emergency rescue teams who all reported hearing explosions pop through the towers. They had to ignore damage to the front lobby— windows that exploded before the first plane hit the building.
You have to ignore what your own eyes see—a neat, clean controlled demolition of the Towers, which dropped free-fall into a pile of thermatic dust— and fires that burned under the Towers until December, months after jet fuel would have gasped its last flame.
Airplanes crashed into the Towers that day, sure enough. However I can testify myself the U.S. had significant advance warnings about the airplane hijackings, back to April and May, 2001. The decision to go to War with Iraq, in the aftermath of the terrorist strike, was already made “at the highest levels of government above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”
I know that firsthand, because I was instructed to deliver that message, precisely worded, to Iraqi diplomats, and to demand “any fragment of actionable intelligence that would pinpoint the attack.” And I did so.
Iraq had no intelligence. However, the CIA’s advance knowledge of the conspiracy and advance threats against Iraq created powerful motivation and opportunity for a separate orphan team, domestic or foreign, to wire the Towers with military grade explosives.
The New York media never investigated reports that security cameras in the parking garage had photographed mysterious trucks/vans arriving at the World Trade Center at about 3 a.m and departing at 5 a.m, before Type AAA personalities arrived to start their days on Wall Street.
The vans were different than the janitorial trucks, in make, model and decal. They arrived at the World Trade Center from August 23 to September 3.
Those are important missing pieces of how the 9/11 tragedy unfolded. Myself, I have concluded that airplane hijackings were used as a public cover for a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. From that point, it’s up to explosives experts to determine the sorts materials applied to the detonation.
I won my freedom when the blogs and alternative radio took up my cause. In a practical sense, 9/11 marked the changing of the media guard. And it proved the internet boasts some fine journalists of its own, like Michael Collins and radio host Bob Tuskin at The Intel Hub.
No thanks to the government’s top dogs at the New York Times. But perhaps that’s not fair. A dog would have shown more loyalty to the people of Manhattan and New Jersey.
By Susan Lindauer, 9/11 Whistleblower and Former U.S. Asset covering Iraq and Libya
September 9, 2011
9/11 denialists like to swear smugly that the official 9/11 story must be true, because the government could never keep such an important secret without getting caught.
Somebody would spill the beans, right? In fact, a number of us tried. Media watchers should savvy up, as the air waves get blitzed this weekend with 9/11 emorials.
If the corporate media had done its job as a watch dog, the world would have got an earful reliable intelligence sources debunking the official 9/11 story.
Unhappily, the corporate media has been a co-conspirator in the 9/11 Cover Up from day one. They have actively abetted the government with its dirty work. Say a truth teller got arrested on the Patriot Act—like me— and locked in prison on a military base, while the public debate raged over 9/11 and Iraq without access to knowledgeable sources.
The government could rely on corporate media to squash the story, while the Justice Department fought my demands for a trial, playing every dirty trick in the book to stop a New York jury from hearing testimony about 9/11 and Iraq.
My nightmare is described in Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq. It was a frightening ordeal with secret charges, secret evidence, secret grand jury testimony, and threats of indefinite detention on a Texas military base.
However the Patriot Act by itself was not enough to silence facts about the command failure before 9/11 or Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence. Over and over, friends and colleagues reached out to the corporate media, delivering independent confirmations about my 9/11 warnings, the Iraqi peace framework and my work on the Lockerbie case, which proved my status as an Asset.
Supporters pleaded for the media’s help to expose the government’s manipulations, so I could get my day in court, and bring that truth to the people.
Over and over again, the corporate media in New York itself mounted a wall of silence to buttress America’s leaders.
Most New Yorkers and New Jersey residents would be appalled to discover that the worst media whore in the 9/11 Cover Up turned out to be the New York Times.
By May, 2004, the New York Times received no fewer than four confirmations of our Intelligence team’s 9/11 warnings to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Office of Counter-Terrorism at the Justice Department. Confirmation was made six months before release of the 9/11 Commission report, when public discussion could have impacted the findings.
Most importantly, a discourse of the facts about 9/11 would have educated voters before the November 2004 elections, holding leaders in Washington accountable to the people. For this reason, I offered to waive my Fifth Amendment rights under indictment, so the 9/11 Commission could take my testimony under oath.
Most critically, the New York Times gained two of those all important confirmations about the 9/11 warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Both of my handlers, Dr. Richard Fuisz and Paul Hoven men freely volunteered our 9/11 warnings and the Iraqi Peace option to the New York Times.
They also explained my work as a U.S. intelligence Asset engaged in the Lockerbie negotiations with Libya, and my role spearheading talks to resume weapons inspections with Iraqi Ambassador Dr. Saeed Hasan. The journalist, David Samuels, called me excitedly, after the interviews.
You read that correctly. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency both gave information about the 9/11 warnings to the New York Times, expecting the newspaper to alert its readers of the command negligence before the attack. The New York Times’ readership was most personally impacted by the tragedy, after all.
They made an effort to inspire discussion while the 9/11 Commission was hearing testimony. The New York Times acquired two more confirmations of our 9/11 warnings from Dr. Parke Godfrey, a highly respected computer science professor of York University in Toronto, and my brother, John Lindauer of Los Angeles.
That took guts for the Intelligence Community. By this time, writing was on the wall that Republican Leaders would punish anyone who spoke against them.
One would expect the New York Times to rush to press with such a hot story. Think about it: a long-time U.S. Intelligence Asset, second cousin to President Bush’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Card warns about 9/11 and has full knowledge of Iraq’s cooperation with the 9/11 Investigation— then gets arrested on the Patriot Act, after requesting to testify before Congress.
Wasn’t that newsworthy? Not according to the editors of the New York Times. Instead of objectively reporting independent confirmations of the 9/11 warnings and properly identifying me as an Asset, the New York Times engaged in gross public fraud.
They abetted the government in concealing information of critical significance to the paper’s home town. They manipulated the people of New York City into believing the CIA gave no advance warnings of 9/11 at all. While the American public screamed for impeachment, the New York Times blocked information that showed President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez engaged in active public deception.
The people were left believing the government had simply made mistakes before 9/11 and the Iraq War.
In other words, the New York Times acted like an old whore, clinging to GOP leaders like a last client, seeking assurances of her waning attractiveness to the public.
When one of Washington’s most stellar attorneys, Brian Shaughnessy, forced the Court to grant my request for a single, pre-trial hearing—four years after my arrest— Parke Godfrey delivered shocking testimony about my 9/11 warnings less than a thousand feet from where the World Trade Center once graced the New York skyline.
Yet again, New York Times reporter, Alan Feuer, fraudulently and libelously invented a phony lead sentence: “She stuck her tongue out at the prosecutor.” And the New York Times parroted the Justice Department’s line that “half a dozen psychiatrists” had declared me incompetent to stand trial—a blatant deception.
Ignoring a morning’s worth of testimony, Feuer suggested that I was a “religious maniac,” something hysterically funny to everyone who knows me. There’s no reality contact in the one and only psychiatric report that postulated such claims. (That single evaluation was presented by the Justice Department’s psychiatrist and tossed by the Bureau of Prisons in the first hour of my arrival at Carswell).
If the New York Times had scratched the surface in its reporting, journalists would have recognized the Justice Department was running what’s called “a psy-op” designed to hide a major government deceptions from voters.
A quick examination of the record would have revealed that half a dozen psychiatrists had challenged the Justice Department, and declared me fully competent in all areas of life.
Even psychiatrists at Carswell Prison acknowledged I suffered “no evidence of hallucinations,” “no depression.” They said I socialized well, posed “zero behavioral problems.” Weekly reports stated consistently that I was “cooperative, smiling, with good eye contact.”
Notably, psychiatrists at Carswell Prison ruled out delusional disorder, citing first-hand observation, witness interviews, and diagnostic testing.
The slightest attention to witness testimonials would have exposed the whole public fraud. Yet the New York media carefully ignored evidentiary testimony that exposed the 9/11 warnings and denied symptoms of mental instability.
While my attorney, Brian Shaughnessy protested for my right to a trial, the New York media assured the public that the Court finding was “gift wrapped for my defense.”
Casting journalists as “controlled opposition–” might be overly generous given these circumstances, since it implies they have any backbone at all. Alas, most of them don’t. They whine for pity for their low ratings. Then they let government officials write their news scripts in exchange for political access.
Hey, it’s a tough job defending the official story of 9/11. You have to overcome janitorial crews, fire fighters and emergency rescue teams who all reported hearing explosions pop through the towers. They had to ignore damage to the front lobby— windows that exploded before the first plane hit the building.
You have to ignore what your own eyes see—a neat, clean controlled demolition of the Towers, which dropped free-fall into a pile of thermatic dust— and fires that burned under the Towers until December, months after jet fuel would have gasped its last flame.
Airplanes crashed into the Towers that day, sure enough. However I can testify myself the U.S. had significant advance warnings about the airplane hijackings, back to April and May, 2001. The decision to go to War with Iraq, in the aftermath of the terrorist strike, was already made “at the highest levels of government above the CIA Director and Secretary of State.”
I know that firsthand, because I was instructed to deliver that message, precisely worded, to Iraqi diplomats, and to demand “any fragment of actionable intelligence that would pinpoint the attack.” And I did so.
Iraq had no intelligence. However, the CIA’s advance knowledge of the conspiracy and advance threats against Iraq created powerful motivation and opportunity for a separate orphan team, domestic or foreign, to wire the Towers with military grade explosives.
The New York media never investigated reports that security cameras in the parking garage had photographed mysterious trucks/vans arriving at the World Trade Center at about 3 a.m and departing at 5 a.m, before Type AAA personalities arrived to start their days on Wall Street.
The vans were different than the janitorial trucks, in make, model and decal. They arrived at the World Trade Center from August 23 to September 3.
Those are important missing pieces of how the 9/11 tragedy unfolded. Myself, I have concluded that airplane hijackings were used as a public cover for a controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. From that point, it’s up to explosives experts to determine the sorts materials applied to the detonation.
I won my freedom when the blogs and alternative radio took up my cause. In a practical sense, 9/11 marked the changing of the media guard. And it proved the internet boasts some fine journalists of its own, like Michael Collins and radio host Bob Tuskin at The Intel Hub.
No thanks to the government’s top dogs at the New York Times. But perhaps that’s not fair. A dog would have shown more loyalty to the people of Manhattan and New Jersey.
9/11 Weekend – 7 Reasons To Brace For Impact
Related:
Back by popular demand. Homeland Security is issuing more and more alerts.
Stay on your toes, and KNOW if anything does happen, no matter how convincing it may seem, it will have been engineered by none other than the international cabal of globalist elites who also run the US and its war machine joined by the other NATO thugs.
WE THE PEOPLE are their biggest enemy and their biggest threat. This is all being engineered to get everyone under their oppressive thumb to free them to finish their plan. Stay awake and aware like never before. – Zen
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s not looking good for this 10th anniversary of 9/11. All the indicators are there to tell us they need a massive distraction and excuse to take this idiotic war on terror to horrific new levels and even more Orwellian internal controls and crackdowns.
Why They’ll Do It Now
1. The illusion is wearing thin and ratings show it.
Obama’s ‘house of corporate banking thugs’ administration is tanking in public perception. The matrix-generated veil of lies is disintegrating as economic realities hit home. His and congress’ ratings are at record lows. His political opponents have even announced publicly to watch out for a false flag.
2. They’ve done it before at similar times.
Clinton did Waco then used it to justify Oklahoma City. Now there’s an interesting precedent. Bush 2 was just a neocon nincompoop stooge, but his ratings were in the basement on 9/10 and soared on 9/11…another two-termer like the criminal Clinton shoed in by false flag catastrophe.
3. The demonization of all Americans as potential terrorists.
As we’ve seen with the Norway patsy repeat, the enemy is now arch-anythings. Arch conservatives, activists, Christians, militia, military vets, religious whack jobs, disgruntled taxpayers, people who don’t want to get x-rayed or fondled by the TSA, people with guns, cars with Ron Paul stickers, children selling lemonade without a license…it’s beyond wrong.
4. Martial law is just a click away.
Now, how would a leader (really cabal) in power possibly stay in power with an election he (the staged figurehead) appears bound to lose….WHILE the PTBs have this craving need to abolish the last vestiges of civil liberties in the name of “homeland security”? Got any ideas?
Now don’t give Obummer one iota of credit for anything except being a perfect patsy and mind control subject. He’s a ‘keeper’ in those categories…which is why they’ll wanna “keep” him in.
Nothing’s written in stone, but it sometimes gets close.
I will be shocked if there are elections next year. It’s way too easy to find a way around them in this climate. They’re gonna declare martial law, and..maybe..call for a constitutional convention which is as close to a political oxymoron as you’ll ever get. It’s got to look “democratic” after all. Ha.
Never mind “Homeland Security” antics, FEMA’s activities and the militarization zones appearing around the country are a dead giveaway. This “global unrest” they’re pointing to now as a precedent to prepare American police I’m not sure is organic at all. Yes, people are mad, but they’re being instigated and herded into a form of expression that only spells more fascism worldwide.
5. 9/11 – Build on the emotional impact
Never before events promoting the 9/11 myth are being scheduled around the country. Bad sign. Who would do that? In Dallas for example a big event is scheduled for 9/10. Why this year? Are mainstream people really in the mood to celebrate death and destruction and war and more war while their worlds crumble about them? What are they rallying for? More Islamophobia, support for killing innocent Libyans, and then jack ‘em up to endorse wars with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran?
So wrong on so many levels. But they’re already doing this in the mainstain media. It’s a set up.
All this is fabricated by bastards behind the scenes who see the rest of us a dumb cattle. This is misdirection. Complete social engineering at its worst. But it works. We’ve been asphyxiated from truth, and the effects are setting in.
But see the “opportunity”? What if on that very day, while these limp attempts to arouse fading emotions are on display and heightened by a complicit media, there IS an event?!
Wham!
6. The Demonization of “Truthers” and an alternative media crackdown
OK, we’ve seen this coming for a long time. But just imagine who they’d blame an “event” on–especially in such an emotionally super-charged environment. Don’t have to be a prophet to see the potential.
Norway set the stage. White man goes ape-shit with clear conscience…due to political views. Huh?
They’ve wanted to get a stronger handle on the internet and clamp down on truth-spreading websites and blogs for a long time. They just need an excuse. Wikileaks softened the ground on this in the public mind, as have other alternative media issues, but watch them run the gamut if something big does take place. They’re trigger happy and getting their ducks in a row.
That’s what they do. And the Truthers need to be demonized and silenced..they’re getting too close now. The 9/11 Truth movement has gained monumental momentum….BECAUSE it’s the Truth! And they know it.
7. Not A Reason–Just please be prepared–for anything.
I don’t mean to bring on negative intentions and manifest anything by pointing out these possibilities….BUT…to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And if it’s not now, it’s soon.
Don’t get hung up on the date or any details. I just think people should be prepared…and now….and I mean not only psychologically and spiritually, but practically. Where are you and your family gonna be on that day? Do you have a plan on where to meet loved ones in the case of calamity? Do you have food and water, protection, community?
These should all be in place now, but if you haven’t done these things yet, DO! It gives peace of mind at the least.
“Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”
In Love, Zen
See also Brace for Impact! The Movie
More samples of stuff from Zen to enjoy:
11 Occult Secrets Now In The Open
SUPERSIZED: Faces of Evil That Rule The World
zengardner.com
- Corporate Media And DHS Push Terror Threat On 9/11 Anniversary, False Flag In The Making
- 9/11 Tenth Anniversary Week Special – 30 Experts, Researchers, And Opinion Makers On The 9/11 False Flag Terror Attacks
Back by popular demand. Homeland Security is issuing more and more alerts.
Stay on your toes, and KNOW if anything does happen, no matter how convincing it may seem, it will have been engineered by none other than the international cabal of globalist elites who also run the US and its war machine joined by the other NATO thugs.
WE THE PEOPLE are their biggest enemy and their biggest threat. This is all being engineered to get everyone under their oppressive thumb to free them to finish their plan. Stay awake and aware like never before. – Zen
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s not looking good for this 10th anniversary of 9/11. All the indicators are there to tell us they need a massive distraction and excuse to take this idiotic war on terror to horrific new levels and even more Orwellian internal controls and crackdowns.
Why They’ll Do It Now
1. The illusion is wearing thin and ratings show it.
Obama’s ‘house of corporate banking thugs’ administration is tanking in public perception. The matrix-generated veil of lies is disintegrating as economic realities hit home. His and congress’ ratings are at record lows. His political opponents have even announced publicly to watch out for a false flag.
2. They’ve done it before at similar times.
Clinton did Waco then used it to justify Oklahoma City. Now there’s an interesting precedent. Bush 2 was just a neocon nincompoop stooge, but his ratings were in the basement on 9/10 and soared on 9/11…another two-termer like the criminal Clinton shoed in by false flag catastrophe.
3. The demonization of all Americans as potential terrorists.
As we’ve seen with the Norway patsy repeat, the enemy is now arch-anythings. Arch conservatives, activists, Christians, militia, military vets, religious whack jobs, disgruntled taxpayers, people who don’t want to get x-rayed or fondled by the TSA, people with guns, cars with Ron Paul stickers, children selling lemonade without a license…it’s beyond wrong.
4. Martial law is just a click away.
Now, how would a leader (really cabal) in power possibly stay in power with an election he (the staged figurehead) appears bound to lose….WHILE the PTBs have this craving need to abolish the last vestiges of civil liberties in the name of “homeland security”? Got any ideas?
Now don’t give Obummer one iota of credit for anything except being a perfect patsy and mind control subject. He’s a ‘keeper’ in those categories…which is why they’ll wanna “keep” him in.
Nothing’s written in stone, but it sometimes gets close.
I will be shocked if there are elections next year. It’s way too easy to find a way around them in this climate. They’re gonna declare martial law, and..maybe..call for a constitutional convention which is as close to a political oxymoron as you’ll ever get. It’s got to look “democratic” after all. Ha.
Never mind “Homeland Security” antics, FEMA’s activities and the militarization zones appearing around the country are a dead giveaway. This “global unrest” they’re pointing to now as a precedent to prepare American police I’m not sure is organic at all. Yes, people are mad, but they’re being instigated and herded into a form of expression that only spells more fascism worldwide.
5. 9/11 – Build on the emotional impact
Never before events promoting the 9/11 myth are being scheduled around the country. Bad sign. Who would do that? In Dallas for example a big event is scheduled for 9/10. Why this year? Are mainstream people really in the mood to celebrate death and destruction and war and more war while their worlds crumble about them? What are they rallying for? More Islamophobia, support for killing innocent Libyans, and then jack ‘em up to endorse wars with Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran?
So wrong on so many levels. But they’re already doing this in the mainstain media. It’s a set up.
All this is fabricated by bastards behind the scenes who see the rest of us a dumb cattle. This is misdirection. Complete social engineering at its worst. But it works. We’ve been asphyxiated from truth, and the effects are setting in.
But see the “opportunity”? What if on that very day, while these limp attempts to arouse fading emotions are on display and heightened by a complicit media, there IS an event?!
Wham!
6. The Demonization of “Truthers” and an alternative media crackdown
OK, we’ve seen this coming for a long time. But just imagine who they’d blame an “event” on–especially in such an emotionally super-charged environment. Don’t have to be a prophet to see the potential.
Norway set the stage. White man goes ape-shit with clear conscience…due to political views. Huh?
They’ve wanted to get a stronger handle on the internet and clamp down on truth-spreading websites and blogs for a long time. They just need an excuse. Wikileaks softened the ground on this in the public mind, as have other alternative media issues, but watch them run the gamut if something big does take place. They’re trigger happy and getting their ducks in a row.
That’s what they do. And the Truthers need to be demonized and silenced..they’re getting too close now. The 9/11 Truth movement has gained monumental momentum….BECAUSE it’s the Truth! And they know it.
7. Not A Reason–Just please be prepared–for anything.
I don’t mean to bring on negative intentions and manifest anything by pointing out these possibilities….BUT…to be forewarned is to be forearmed. And if it’s not now, it’s soon.
Don’t get hung up on the date or any details. I just think people should be prepared…and now….and I mean not only psychologically and spiritually, but practically. Where are you and your family gonna be on that day? Do you have a plan on where to meet loved ones in the case of calamity? Do you have food and water, protection, community?
These should all be in place now, but if you haven’t done these things yet, DO! It gives peace of mind at the least.
“Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”
In Love, Zen
See also Brace for Impact! The Movie
More samples of stuff from Zen to enjoy:
11 Occult Secrets Now In The Open
SUPERSIZED: Faces of Evil That Rule The World
zengardner.com
PIX News - NYC Mayor Bloomberg LIVE Press Conference on Terror Threat (9...
The anniversary of 9/11 offers an ideal opportunity to remind Americans, especially New Yorkers, that they live in a police state.
From NBC New York on Thursday:
New Yorkers can expect to see extra subway bag checks, vehicle checkpoints and more police officers throughout the city as U.S. intelligence officials have picked up threat information about possible terror attacks to coincide with the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
The “threat information” is of the usual caliber – uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. “But we live in a world where we must take these threats seriously, and we will,” promised New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.
“We know the terrorists regard the anniversary as an opportunity to strike again.” He was flanked by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Janice K. Fedarcyk, the director of the FBI in New York.
According to “intelligence” allegedly gleaned from Osama bin Laden’s hidey-hole in Pakistan (where he didn’t live), al-Qaeda is fixated on anniversaries. The FBI’s Janice Fedarcyk said: “al- Qaeda has shown an interest in important dates and anniversaries. In this instance it is accurate that there is credible, specific but unconfirmed information.”
Reading from their government script, the corporate media also reports that the new al-Qaeda chief, Ayman al-Zawahiri, pledged to avenge the death of Osama bin Laden earlier this year.
“Intelligence collected from overseas indicates a possible threat involving car bombs, as well threats to bridges and tunnels, according to a security official.
The information indicated that three men would travel from Pakistan to the U.S. to carry out an attack…. New York City and Washington, D.C., are mentioned in the non-specific car bomb threats, according to another source.”
The supposed plot fits the forever war on manufactured terrorism like a glove. According to authorities, the threat emanates from Pakistan’s tribal region – where CIA drones work overtime killing government declared bad guys (and no shortage of innocent civilians) – and may include a U.S. citizen, which plays into the “domestic terror” and “white al-Qaeda” angle pushed by the government over the last few years.
“It’s accurate that there is specific, credible but unconfirmed threat information. As we always do before important dates like the anniversary of 9/11, we will undoubtedly get more reporting in the coming days,” said the Department of Homeland Security. “Sometimes this reporting is credible and warrants intense focus, other times it lacks credibility and is highly unlikely to be reflective of real plots underway,” NBC reports.
Fedarcyk refused to get into the details on the source of the threat and whether it was “operational or aspirational.” It is “specific” and “credible,” she added.
New York will be on display as an in-your-face police state. “The public is likely to see, and maybe somewhat inconvenienced by, vehicle checkpoints at various locations throughout the city,” Kelly said.
The New York Times reports that authorities will reinforce patrols across the city, pay special attention to bridges, tunnels and other transportation hubs, and use even more bomb-sniffing dogs than in the past.
Police officialdom activated 12-hour shifts in response to the unspecific and uncorroborated threat and will continue the extended duty indefinitely. Cops will pass out fliers to city businesses and storefronts, advising the public to alert authorities about abandoned or suspicious vehicles or suspicious people who are loitering.
Ditto in Washington, D.C., where Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the public should expect increased security measures and more stopped vehicles.
Former Bush regime terrorism bureaucrat Frances Townsend admitted that the threat is overstated and probably overblown. Townsend was briefed twice by senior government officials and said the quality of the information suggested that the threat was “plausible” but needed further corroboration.
“There are lots of things that are deemed ‘plausible’ that turn out not to be real,” Townsend said. She said the officials who are briefing policymakers were “leaning forward on their skis. But nobody gets in trouble for being forward-leaning.”
A federal law enforcement official told the Times that the government is erring on the side of caution. “Given the dates that are coming up, nobody wants to underplay anything,’’ said the nameless official. “The government is going to do everything it can to run this to the ground and assess its accuracy.’’
The government will also do everything it can to remind the public that the war on terror is forever, even though al-Qaeda has not attacked since September 11, 2001, and a mountain of information about that event remains classified
3-minute video: US policy causes poverty, terrorism, war to enrich US oligarchs
Renegade Economist has a brilliant 3-minute video (at left) to explain US foreign policy as predatory imperialism. Their upcoming Feature Documentary, Four Horsemen, will build upon public understanding from the 2011 Academy Award Winner, Inside Job, to recognize oligarchic looting in the trillions of dollars every year.
Former Chief Economist, John Perkins, also has a brilliant explanation captured in a 2-minute video.
What we know from the facts:
The good news is that every step "leadership" takes down their path of deceit and destruction, they become easier to recognize for what they are.
My comprehensive paper with my recommendations of how people can reclaim their rights, justice, and trillions of dollars in annual benefits is here.
Former Chief Economist, John Perkins, also has a brilliant explanation captured in a 2-minute video.
What we know from the facts:
- Congressional reports disclose that all “reasons” for war with Afghanistan and Iraq were known to be lies as they were told.
- The wars are Orwellian unlawful, including using depleted uranium weapons to damn victims with continuous misery and death.
- The US allows a million children a month to die of preventable poverty, even though ending poverty reduces population growth rate and the investment is less than 1% of the developed nations' gross national incomes.
- The US crushes dissent through torture, extrajudicial assassinations (including against American citizens) and indefinite detentions.
- These US policies in Orwellian contradiction to the US Constitution forms a government closest to fascism and nowhere near a constitutional republic.
The good news is that every step "leadership" takes down their path of deceit and destruction, they become easier to recognize for what they are.
My comprehensive paper with my recommendations of how people can reclaim their rights, justice, and trillions of dollars in annual benefits is here.
DOW Plunges More Than 350 Points
With about 25 minutes left in today's trading the DOW is testing the lows set earlier this morning. There is no single reason for the selloff, though analysts are widely quoting the begrudging acceptance of a global slowdown, and continue disarray in Europe with the Euro trading at 2011 lows against the dollar.
- Follow the trading LIVE
- Bloomberg Markets Summary
- ECB’s Stark steps down, markets plummet
- Treasury Yields Fall To 60-Year LOWS
- EURO Falls to 6-Month Low
- Ghost of Lehman Haunts G-7 Amid Debt Crisis - Bloomberg
- Germany Said to Ready Plan to Help Banks If Greece Defaults
- Corporate Bond Risk Rises in Europe, Credit-Default Swaps Show
- China Inflation Eases From Three-Year High
- Greece Committed to ‘Full Implementation’ of Pact Amid Default Speculation
- NY Police Search Trucks After Terror Threat
- Geithner BS: ‘Substantial’ Impact From Jobs Plan
No Government, No Problem - Belgium Celebrates 450 Days Without Government But With Growth
Belgium has not had a government in over 15 months, a record for modern economies. Yet their economy somehow managed to outperform those of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Finland, and Switzerland in the most recent quarter.
--
It has been 15 months since Belgium last had a government. More than 450 days later, Belgian politics remain stuck in a gridlock after election results meant that no single party received more than 17.4 percent of seats in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives and 19.61 percent in the Belgian Senate.
"Technically this can last until the next federal election has to be called in 2014," said political scientist Dave Sinardet to the BBC.
"Let's say we have elections in 2014 and we have some problem forming a coalition, this caretaker government could still go on after that. As long as it commands a majority in parliament, the only obstacle to it continuing would be the fear of absurdity.”
Belgian officials however appear to care less. Since the elections, 10 politicians have tried to negotiate a new government and none have succeeded. Francophone socialist Elio Di Rupo is the latest to give it a go, though the negotiations have reached another standstill.
Continue reading...
---
- DEBT CEILING - Senate Approves $500 Billion Increase In Borrowing Authority
- Rick Perry's Official College Transcript - Mostly Cs and Ds, Barely Passed Principles Of Economics
- John Thain, TARP Taxpayer Rapist With Maria Bartiromo
- Marc Faber's Warning Shocks CNBC Anchors: 'Don’t Store Your Gold In The United States!' (VIDEO)
- 1981 Film Rollover - Global Financial Armageddon: "Sell Everything You've Got And Pray"
- CLASSIC CNBC EXCHANGE - Rick Santelli Battles NYT's Tom Friedman Over Social Security: "You're An Idiot"
- Anonymous Announces Wall Street Occupation - Sep. 17
- Open Mic Catches John Boehner Bragging To Biden About Golf Game Before Obama’s Jobs Speech
- Presidential Shankapotomos (Watch Obama's Golf Swing)
- Watch Obama’s Jobs Speech In 35 Seconds
- DOW Plunges More Than 350 Points
- Ponzi Nation: Colbert On Rick Perry & Social Security
- PHOTOS - Rick Perry Threatens Ron Paul
- GOP Debate Highlight - Ron Paul Reminds Sheeple That 'One Gallon Of Gas Only Costs A 1965 Silver Dime'
- VIDEO - Ron Paul Campaign Ad Attacks Rick Perry's Support Of Al Gore
The Decline of the United States of America: The Moral, Political and Economic Causes
“The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded.” Montesquieu, (Charles Louis de Secondat) (1689-1755)
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.” Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German politician and future German Chancellor, Mein Kampf, chap. 2, 1925
"I believe that God wants me to be president."George W. Bush, American 43rd president, speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004
"This economy of ours is on a solid foundation." George W. Bush, American 43rd president, January 4, 2008 (N.B.: the U.S. economy was about to enter into recession.)
"I believe that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." Sen. John McCain, March 20, 2003
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" Sarah Palin, American politician and former governor of Alaska, (admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010)
“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Michele Bachmann, Rep. of Minnesota and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, (on the question of submitting to the authority of her husband, 2006). Rep. Bachmann is also a graduate of Oral Roberts University.
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
The Bible (New Testament), 1 Timothy 2:11-12
"Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most." Lawrence Katz, Harvard University economist, 2010
The American economy is in the Doldrums, the American Political System is Dysfunctional and Paralyzed
Around the world, many are baffled by what's happening to the United States. It seems that all at once the wheels are going off the cart. The American economy is in the doldrums, the American political system is dysfunctional and paralyzed, and a series of elective, far away foreign wars is ruining the country.
The U.S. economy used to be an engine of economic growth and the American political system used to be a well-oiled checks-and-balances machine that was geared toward progress and that could accommodate both leadership and compromise. Moreover, Americans can be proud that their constitution, at least on paper, is one of the best in the world, having been crafted by enlightened founders who believed in individual and democratic freedom.
In this short article, I will identify what I think to be the two major causes of America's current decline. (I welcome comments.)
-The first cause is a moral one: it is related to the widespread corruption that permeates many institutions and sectors of the U.S. society, the most corrupt of them all being the political system and the corporate system. It is no accident that the epicenter where these two corrupt systems meet is at the Pentagon, an agency that reports upon reports picture as a cesspool of corruption.
The result of that widespread corruption is that the United States is now generating a sub-standard class of politicians to administer its affairs who are not the servants of the common good, but who rather serve happily the narrow money interests that finance them. The U.S. corporate elite, for the most part, has abandoned all loyalty to its country while it roams the world in order to make short-term profits at all costs and avoid paying taxes in its country of origin.
The result: wacky politicians and greedy business people are in charge.
The same can be said about the biased corporate media who have also abandoned all pretenses of neutrality and objectivity in informing the people and who have rather donned the mantle of unadulterated propaganda in order to cynically manipulate information and public opinion, to the delight of their money masters.
Things were never perfect in the past, but I would argue that the current level and scope of corruption in the U.S. society is unprecedented and is a root cause of the decline of the United States.
The second cause of American decline is more structural and more economic in nature. It is related to a widespread ignorance of the practical consequences of economic and financial globalization that began under the Nixon Republican administration (1969-1973) and which accelerated under the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and of George H. Bush (1989-1993).
I shall tackle each of these causes separately.
I- The U. S. has abandoned its Democratic Ideals and the Quality of its Politicians is Sub-Standard
Let's talk first about the moral and political causes of American decline.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once quipped that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”! Indeed, democracy is a very fragile political system that can sometimes fail the very people it is designed to serve. American president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined it as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
But democracy is at its worst when an oligarchy takes control of a country's institutions and imposes its agenda. Such is the case with today's United States. Money interests, not the sovereign people, control the political system today; they control the corporate media system, they control the U.S. Supreme Court and much of the judicial system and, I would argue, they control a large chunk of the academic system.
The results are everywhere to be seen. The United States has reached levels of inequality in wealth and income that used to be seen only in some backyard third-world countries.
Another form of political corruption and of intellectual decay is the widespread refusal nowadays to abide by article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, article VI expressly stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This would seem to me to be clear enough.
Some fifty years ago, in 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy was elected president of the United States, stating that his religious beliefs were his own personal affair and that, as an elected official for all the people, he was going to use his best judgment in his public decisions, and not be obligated to follow the diktats of any established religion, not even of his own, the Roman Catholic Church, nor its foreign Pope.
As an indication of how much the United States has regressed on the question of separation of Church and State, consider that a presidential candidate of the quality of Sen. John F. Kennedy would most likely not be elected to office today with such a stand of intellectual independence. Mind you, most of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution could not be elected either, a clear indication that the United States has strayed away from its founding principles.
Consider what President James Madison (1751-1836) had to say about religion in politics: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” Do you really believe that President Madison could be elected today? Nowadays, in fact, religious zealots dominate the Republican party while some half of democrats think that a presidential candidate must have "strong religious beliefs" to be considered for public office. The only problem is that such a view is in direct conflict to what the U.S. Constitution says!
Mixing personal and official religion with democratic politics is a form of intellectual corruption. —It's dynamite. If the United States continues in the same destructive direction that many theocratic Muslim countries have followed for centuries, with disastrous results, I would not hesitate to predict that the U. S. will self-destruct.
II- The Widespread Confusion Between What Works in an Open Economy as Compared with a Closed Economy
Let's talk economics.
The U. S. economy, like most industrial economies, is an open economy. This means that goods and services can be exported and imported while facing a minimum of border taxes and other barriers to international trade. For a quarter of a century now, it has also meant that the U. S. economy is part of the economic globalization model. The latter goes much further than free trade: it means that corporations and banks can move their capital, technology and production plants around the world in search of the greatest profit and the best investment environment. I happen to believe that this globalization model has been pushed too far and has become a major cause of economic stagnation in the industrial economies.
When it comes to economic policies, what can work in a closed economy does not necessarily work in an open economy. Consider macroeconomic policies to stimulate a stagnant economy. In an open economy, keynesian-type stimulus policies of deficit government spending or of tax reduction do not work properly, essentially because stimulus policies of this type are the equivalent of heating a house in winter with the windows and doors wide open. The new deficit spending may help the world economy, since much of the new spending ends up abroad, but the domestic multiplier effect of such spending can be very low. This means that such an economic stimulus in an open economy may not be as effective in stimulating economic activity as hoped and, in some circumstances, it can do more harm than good.
Nevertheless, many politicians (and some economists!) cling to the old idea that lowering taxes for the rich when the government is in deficit or new non-infrastructure government deficit spending can stimulate the economy. This obviously does not work, at least not if the new deficit spending is not focused domestically. Spending deficit money in Afghanistan or in Iraq doesn't much stimulate the U.S. economy!
What works in an open economy are policies geared toward changing relative prices in order to encourage domestic production and employment. First of all, a lowering of the real exchange rate can encourage net exports and stimulate domestic production and employment, provided the government does not sustain excessive domestic absorption through unproductive large deficits.
Another approach to skew relative prices in favor of domestic production and employment is to use the tax system accordingly. Presently, many American corporations are hardly taxed at all on their profits when they operate abroad. Some appropriate taxation of these profits can encourage repatriation of capital and support additional domestic investments. It may be argued that the American political system is not flexible enough to allow for the use of tax policies to encourage domestic production and employment. If so, this would be another indication that the current state of the political system in the U. S. is inimical to economic progress.
These are only a few examples of public policies that can have a positive impact on the functioning of the economy.
In general, and that will be my conclusion, I would say that it is in the interest of any country to avoid giving power to idiots, ignoramuses, incompetents, devious and delusional characters or to demagogues. If not, watch out. —More countries are destroyed by their own politicians than by foreign armies.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.
Please visit the book site at:
www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work.” Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), German politician and future German Chancellor, Mein Kampf, chap. 2, 1925
"I believe that God wants me to be president."George W. Bush, American 43rd president, speech in Washington D.C., June 1, 2004
"This economy of ours is on a solid foundation." George W. Bush, American 43rd president, January 4, 2008 (N.B.: the U.S. economy was about to enter into recession.)
"I believe that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." Sen. John McCain, March 20, 2003
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn't that ironic?" Sarah Palin, American politician and former governor of Alaska, (admitting that her family used to get treatment in Canada's single-payer health care system, despite having demonized such government-run programs as socialized medicine that will lead to death-panel-like rationing, March 6, 2010)
“The Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.” Michele Bachmann, Rep. of Minnesota and 2012 Republican presidential candidate, (on the question of submitting to the authority of her husband, 2006). Rep. Bachmann is also a graduate of Oral Roberts University.
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
The Bible (New Testament), 1 Timothy 2:11-12
"Think of the American economy as a large apartment block. A century ago—even 30 years ago—it was the object of envy. But in the last generation its character has changed. The penthouses at the top keep getting larger and larger. The apartments in the middle are feeling more and more squeezed and the basement has flooded. To round it off, the elevator is no longer working. That broken elevator is what gets people down the most." Lawrence Katz, Harvard University economist, 2010
The American economy is in the Doldrums, the American Political System is Dysfunctional and Paralyzed
Around the world, many are baffled by what's happening to the United States. It seems that all at once the wheels are going off the cart. The American economy is in the doldrums, the American political system is dysfunctional and paralyzed, and a series of elective, far away foreign wars is ruining the country.
The U.S. economy used to be an engine of economic growth and the American political system used to be a well-oiled checks-and-balances machine that was geared toward progress and that could accommodate both leadership and compromise. Moreover, Americans can be proud that their constitution, at least on paper, is one of the best in the world, having been crafted by enlightened founders who believed in individual and democratic freedom.
In this short article, I will identify what I think to be the two major causes of America's current decline. (I welcome comments.)
-The first cause is a moral one: it is related to the widespread corruption that permeates many institutions and sectors of the U.S. society, the most corrupt of them all being the political system and the corporate system. It is no accident that the epicenter where these two corrupt systems meet is at the Pentagon, an agency that reports upon reports picture as a cesspool of corruption.
The result of that widespread corruption is that the United States is now generating a sub-standard class of politicians to administer its affairs who are not the servants of the common good, but who rather serve happily the narrow money interests that finance them. The U.S. corporate elite, for the most part, has abandoned all loyalty to its country while it roams the world in order to make short-term profits at all costs and avoid paying taxes in its country of origin.
The result: wacky politicians and greedy business people are in charge.
The same can be said about the biased corporate media who have also abandoned all pretenses of neutrality and objectivity in informing the people and who have rather donned the mantle of unadulterated propaganda in order to cynically manipulate information and public opinion, to the delight of their money masters.
Things were never perfect in the past, but I would argue that the current level and scope of corruption in the U.S. society is unprecedented and is a root cause of the decline of the United States.
The second cause of American decline is more structural and more economic in nature. It is related to a widespread ignorance of the practical consequences of economic and financial globalization that began under the Nixon Republican administration (1969-1973) and which accelerated under the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and of George H. Bush (1989-1993).
I shall tackle each of these causes separately.
I- The U. S. has abandoned its Democratic Ideals and the Quality of its Politicians is Sub-Standard
Let's talk first about the moral and political causes of American decline.
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) once quipped that “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”! Indeed, democracy is a very fragile political system that can sometimes fail the very people it is designed to serve. American president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined it as “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
But democracy is at its worst when an oligarchy takes control of a country's institutions and imposes its agenda. Such is the case with today's United States. Money interests, not the sovereign people, control the political system today; they control the corporate media system, they control the U.S. Supreme Court and much of the judicial system and, I would argue, they control a large chunk of the academic system.
The results are everywhere to be seen. The United States has reached levels of inequality in wealth and income that used to be seen only in some backyard third-world countries.
Another form of political corruption and of intellectual decay is the widespread refusal nowadays to abide by article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, article VI expressly stipulates that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This would seem to me to be clear enough.
Some fifty years ago, in 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy was elected president of the United States, stating that his religious beliefs were his own personal affair and that, as an elected official for all the people, he was going to use his best judgment in his public decisions, and not be obligated to follow the diktats of any established religion, not even of his own, the Roman Catholic Church, nor its foreign Pope.
As an indication of how much the United States has regressed on the question of separation of Church and State, consider that a presidential candidate of the quality of Sen. John F. Kennedy would most likely not be elected to office today with such a stand of intellectual independence. Mind you, most of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution could not be elected either, a clear indication that the United States has strayed away from its founding principles.
Consider what President James Madison (1751-1836) had to say about religion in politics: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” Do you really believe that President Madison could be elected today? Nowadays, in fact, religious zealots dominate the Republican party while some half of democrats think that a presidential candidate must have "strong religious beliefs" to be considered for public office. The only problem is that such a view is in direct conflict to what the U.S. Constitution says!
Mixing personal and official religion with democratic politics is a form of intellectual corruption. —It's dynamite. If the United States continues in the same destructive direction that many theocratic Muslim countries have followed for centuries, with disastrous results, I would not hesitate to predict that the U. S. will self-destruct.
II- The Widespread Confusion Between What Works in an Open Economy as Compared with a Closed Economy
Let's talk economics.
The U. S. economy, like most industrial economies, is an open economy. This means that goods and services can be exported and imported while facing a minimum of border taxes and other barriers to international trade. For a quarter of a century now, it has also meant that the U. S. economy is part of the economic globalization model. The latter goes much further than free trade: it means that corporations and banks can move their capital, technology and production plants around the world in search of the greatest profit and the best investment environment. I happen to believe that this globalization model has been pushed too far and has become a major cause of economic stagnation in the industrial economies.
When it comes to economic policies, what can work in a closed economy does not necessarily work in an open economy. Consider macroeconomic policies to stimulate a stagnant economy. In an open economy, keynesian-type stimulus policies of deficit government spending or of tax reduction do not work properly, essentially because stimulus policies of this type are the equivalent of heating a house in winter with the windows and doors wide open. The new deficit spending may help the world economy, since much of the new spending ends up abroad, but the domestic multiplier effect of such spending can be very low. This means that such an economic stimulus in an open economy may not be as effective in stimulating economic activity as hoped and, in some circumstances, it can do more harm than good.
Nevertheless, many politicians (and some economists!) cling to the old idea that lowering taxes for the rich when the government is in deficit or new non-infrastructure government deficit spending can stimulate the economy. This obviously does not work, at least not if the new deficit spending is not focused domestically. Spending deficit money in Afghanistan or in Iraq doesn't much stimulate the U.S. economy!
What works in an open economy are policies geared toward changing relative prices in order to encourage domestic production and employment. First of all, a lowering of the real exchange rate can encourage net exports and stimulate domestic production and employment, provided the government does not sustain excessive domestic absorption through unproductive large deficits.
Another approach to skew relative prices in favor of domestic production and employment is to use the tax system accordingly. Presently, many American corporations are hardly taxed at all on their profits when they operate abroad. Some appropriate taxation of these profits can encourage repatriation of capital and support additional domestic investments. It may be argued that the American political system is not flexible enough to allow for the use of tax policies to encourage domestic production and employment. If so, this would be another indication that the current state of the political system in the U. S. is inimical to economic progress.
These are only a few examples of public policies that can have a positive impact on the functioning of the economy.
In general, and that will be my conclusion, I would say that it is in the interest of any country to avoid giving power to idiots, ignoramuses, incompetents, devious and delusional characters or to demagogues. If not, watch out. —More countries are destroyed by their own politicians than by foreign armies.
Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com. He is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
The book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles”, by Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay, prefaced by Dr. Paul Kurtz, has just been released by Prometheus Books.
Please visit the book site at:
www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/
Fear about Europe, US drags Dow down 300
Dow falls more than 300 as fear about Europe, possible US recession hammers market again
NEW YORK (AP) -- The problems that have weighed on investors all summer -- European debt and fear of a new recession in the United States -- hammered the stock market Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 300 points.The plunge erased the week's gains for stocks and sent the Dow below 11,000. It had not closed below that level since Aug. 22, after several weeks of extraordinary volatility.
The European Central Bank said a top official, Juergen Stark, was resigning almost three years before the end of his term in 2014, revealing deep disagreement over how to solve economic problems in Europe.
Traders fear that one of the continent's heavily indebted economies could default, an event that would ripple through the global banking system and make it difficult for other European countries to borrow money.
Such an outcome could tip the world economy back into recession. In the U.S., economic growth is already slowing, and unemployment is stuck above 9 percent.
Friday was also the first chance for the markets to react after President Barack Obama presented Congress and the nation a $447 billion jobs program. It is not clear to traders that the plan will get through a bitterly divided Congress.
The Dow finished down 304 points, or 2.7 percent, its steepest drop in more than three weeks. It closed at 10,992. The average approached a 400-point drop at some points in the afternoon.
"Markets always vacillate between fear and greed, and today we're coming down pretty much all on the fear side," said Kim Caughey Forrest, equity research analyst at Fort Pitt Capital Group.
The Standard & Poor's 500 closed down 32, or 2.7 percent, at 1,154. The Nasdaq composite is down 61, or 2.4 percent, at 2,468. All three indexes finished down for the week.
Investors drove the yield on the 10-year Treasury note to 1.92 percent, its lowest since the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis began keeping daily records in 1962. The yield was 1.99 percent a day earlier.
Wall Street traders have poured money into U.S. government debt all summer, driving the price up and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction, down.
Even after Congress narrowly met a deadline for raising the limit on how much the government can borrow, barely avoiding a default for the country, investors think U.S. government can be counted on to pay its bills.
Word of the resignation of Stark, the top economist at the ECB, came shortly after U.S. markets opened. He was an advocate for higher interest rates, and published reports said he left because he opposed the bank's extensive purchases of debt issued by European countries.
Stark's departure rattled traders because the U.S. economy is "teetering on the verge of recession," and the outcome in Europe might determine which way it goes, said Andrew Goldberg, market strategist with J.P. Morgan Funds.
He said traders are latching onto any piece of news that might signal a positive or negative outcome in Europe.
Banks in Europe hold bonds issued by nations deep in debt, including Greece, Ireland and Portugal, but investors don't know exactly how much each bank holds from each country.
The value of the bonds would quickly diminish if one of those nations defaults. Banks might stop lending to each other because of fears that some would fail.
Stark's departure was seen as "a bit of news that contributes to a worse outcome, so if you're thinking of being a seller, today that's what you are," Goldberg said.
The central bank's troubles raise the stakes for a meeting this weekend in of financial leaders from the world's most developed economies.
High volatility returned to the market Friday. One measure known as the VIX, which measures investors' fears, increased 18 percent.
Friday's plunge extends a tough quarter for the stock market. The S&P 500 is down 13 percent since the third quarter started in July. However, it has recovered almost 4 percent since its lowest close this year Aug. 8.
Analysts say stocks are likely to fall further as the crisis in Europe goes on. A shrinking European economy would hurt the U.S. because roughly a quarter of American companies' revenue comes from Europe, said Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist for S&P in New York.
"Maybe the market has already priced in a very, very soft spot, but it has not priced in quicksand -- it has not priced in a recession," he said.
Forrest, of Fort Pitt Capital, said the sell-off had brought some stock prices "within buying range." She said traders have few other places to invest, with Treasury yields near record lows and currency markets gyrating because of fears about the euro.
Markets in Europe also fell sharply. France's CAC 40 and Germany's Dax fell about 4 percent. London's FTSE lost more than 2 percent.
In the U.S., McDonald's Corp. stock fell 4 percent because of disappointing revenue. McDonald's said that revenue at restaurants open at least 13 months rose 3.5 percent in August. Analysts expected 4.9 percent.
Bank of America Corp. fell 3 percent after The Wall Street Journal reported that it might cut up to 14 percent of its work force as part of a massive restructuring. Bank of America already has cut at least 6,000 jobs this year. CEO Brian Moynihan announced a management shake-up this week.
VeriSign Inc., which manages Internet domain names, fell 15 percent after its chief financial officer resigned. Specialty glass maker Corning Inc. fell 6 percent a day after it said it expected to sell less glass for LCD TVs than originally forecast.
Alan Hart — 9/11 : Open letter & challenge to ADL’s Abe Foxman
Abraham Foxman has been the director of the Anti-Defamation league since 1987
Mr. Foxman, your assertion that criticism of Israel is by definition a manifestation of anti-Semitism, is Zionist propaganda nonsense for a blackmail purpose, the purpose being to silence criticism and prevent informed and honest debate about Israel’s policies and actions.
by Alan Hart / My Catbird Seat
Dear Abe Foxman,In your lengthy article Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later, you label a number of named writers and commentators including me who say that Israel’s Mossad was or even might have been involved in the 9/11 terror attack as anti-Semitic, and you assert that they are demonizing “the Jews”. You also say: “Anticipating criticism, a number of these anti-Semitic conspiracists now try to immunize themselves against charges of anti-Semitism by making disclaimers up front about not being anti-Semitic. Their own works and record, however, blatantly contradict their innocuous self-characterizations.”
I have to assume that I am one of the “number” in the above quotation because when you introduce at the end of your piece a few sentences of what I have said on the subject of 9/11, you do so with these words: “After pre-emptively trying to dismiss charges of anti-Semitism, Hart asserts…”
I also have to assume that you have not read (surprise! surprise!) my epic book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, three volumes in its American edition (www.claritypress.com). Except those who are brainwashed by Zionist propaganda and deluded to the point of clinical madness, nobody could read this book and conclude that I was anti-Semitic. The first picture in it is of Golda Meir when she was prime minister, inscribed it in her own hand “To a good friend, Alan Hart.” Do you believe, Mr. Foxman, that old lady was so stupid that she couldn’t have seen through me if I was anti-Jew?As I say in the book and on every public platform on which I speak, THE key to understanding is knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Here is how I am going to summarise this difference in a speech in Germany on this September 11.
JUDAISM is the religion of Jews, not “the” Jews because not all Jews are religious. Like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.
ZIONISM is a sectarian, colonial-like nationalism which created a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, and by doing so demonstrated contempt for, and made a mockery of, Judaism’s moral values and ethical principles. In reality mainstream Judaism and Zionism are total opposites.
I’m also going to wonder aloud how many in my German audience are aware of two particular background facts. One is of that the return of Jews to the land of biblical Israel by the efforts of man – one possible but wholly inadequate definition of Zionism – was proscribed by Judaism. The other is that prior to the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, the vast majority of Jews everywhere, and especially many eminent American Jews including the then owner of The New York Times, were totally opposed to Zionism’s Palestine project. Why? They believed it to be morally wrong. They feared it would lead to unending conflict with the Arabs and the wider Muslim world. But most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the big powers to have its way, it would one day provoke violent anti-Semitism on a grand scale.
I am then going to give the two main reasons why knowledge of the difference between Judaism and Zionism is the key to understanding.
The first is that when you know the difference, you can understand why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist (anti Zionism’s colonial enterprise) without being in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic in the sense of loathing and even hating all Jews everywhere just because they are Jews.The second is that when you know the difference between Judaism and Zionism, you can understand why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the hard core Zionists in Israel.
Defenders of Israel right or wrong assert that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same in order to make the charge, as you do Mr. Foxman, that criticism of Israel is by definition a manifestation of anti-Semitism. That, I will tell my German audience, is Zionist propaganda nonsense for a blackmail purpose, the purpose being to silence criticism and prevent informed and honest debate about Israel’s policies and actions. And I will add this: “When you know the difference between Judaism and Zionism, you don’t have to be frightened about being falsely accused of anti-Semitism for speaking and writing the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. You can say to your Zionist accuser, ‘Go to hell!’.Mr. Foxman, I’m not going to tell you to go to hell. I have a constructive suggestion to make. If you truly believe that I am anti-Semitic, why don’t you say so explicitly in writing (on ADL’s web site will be fine) and then I can sue you. And that will give us the Mother and Father of a test case to determine what anti-Semitism is and is not. (For some of my in-depth thinking on this matter you may care to visit Kanan 48 . There you’ll find an article of mine with the headline Anti-Semitism – Zionist myth vs truth and reality.)
While you are thinking about how to respond to my suggestion, you might like to consider two particular statements I make in my book and on most public platforms.
The first is this. I do not blame the Zionist lobby for acting in the way it does. It is only playing the game according to the rules. I blame a corrupt, pork-barrel system of American politics which puts what passes for democracy sale up to the highest bidders.
The second is this. The Jews, generally speaking are the intellectual elite of the Western civilization and the Palestinians are by far the intellectual elite of the Arab world. What these two peoples could do together in peace and partnership is the stuff that dreams are made of. They could change the region for the better and by doing so give new hope and inspiration to the whole world.
And I’ll add this. I have two driving motivations.
One is to contribute to the understanding needed if there is ever to be an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians. Without it the future is predictable – catastrophe for all, possibly in the shape of a Clash of Civilizations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic.
The other is to contribute to the understanding needed to stop Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against the Jews. My Gentile views on this aspect of the matter are in tune with the warning words of Yehoshafat Harkabi, Israel’s longest serving Director of Military Intelligence. In his book Israel’s Fateful Hour, published in 1986, he wrote this:
Israel is the criterion according to which all Jews will tend to be judged. Israel as a Jewish state is an example of the Jewish character, which finds free and concentrated expression within it. Anti-Semitism has deep and historical roots. Nevertheless, any flaw in Israeli conduct, which initially is cited as anti-Israelism, is likely to be transformed into empirical proof of the validity of anti-Semitism. It would be a tragic irony if the Jewish state, which was intended to solve the problem of anti-Semitism, was to become a factor in the rise of anti-Semitism. Israelis must be aware that the price of their misconduct is paid not only by them but also Jews throughout the world.In the world today we are witnessing a rising tide of anti-Israelism provoked by Israel’s arrogance of power, its contempt for international law and its appalling self-righteousness. (In Harkabi’s view self-righteousness is the biggest threat to Israel’s existence). If Israel stays on its present course, the danger is, as Harkabi warned, that anti-Israelism will be transformed into anti-Semitism, leading to another great turning against Jews everywhere and quite possibly starting in America. In my view the real danger of that happening will be greatly reduced if those (mainly Westerners) among whom most of the Jews of the world live are made aware of the difference between Judaism and Zionism.
Also to be said is that the Jews of the world (those in North America and Europe especially) could and should act to best protect their own interests by distancing themselves from the Zionist state and its crimes. In the Prologue to Volume One of my book which is titled Waiting for the Apocalypse, I quote Dr. David Goldberg, a prominent liberal London rabbi, as saying the following in 2001: “It may be time for Judaism and Zionism to go their separate ways.” Today I would say to him, it’s not “may be” time, it is time.
Awaiting your response.
Sincerely,
Alan Hart
Extended Footnote for the record: Text of my overview of 9/11.The starting point for any serious and honest discussion of 9/11 has to be this question: Did the impact of the planes and the heat of their burning fuel bring the Twin Towers down? If the answer is “Yes”, there’s no need for conspiracy theories. If the answer is “No”, the speculative question has to be – Who did it and how and why?
My own answer is “No”. In my analysis there’s enough evidence – visual, technical and scientific, and from eye-witnesses including fire fighters – to invite the conclusion that the Twin Towers, like Building Seven, were pre-wired for controlled demolition.For context, the first observation I’d like to offer is that the mainstream media’s complicity in suppressing even questions and debate about what really happened on 9/11 is consistent. What I mean is that for the past 63 years – from the creation of the Zionist (not Jewish!) state of Israel mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing to the present – the mainstream media has been complicit in Zionism’s suppression the truth about the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel. Put another way, the mainstream media has been content to peddle Zionism’s propaganda lies. The two biggest lies can be summed up in a very few words:
The first is that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, the “driving into the sea” of its Jews. The truth, as I document in detail through the three volumes of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, is that Israel’s existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Zionism’s assertion to the contrary was the cover that allowed Israel to get away where it mattered most – in the Western world and America especially – with presenting its aggression as self defense and itself as the victim when it was and is the oppressor.
The second is that Israel “never had Arab partners for peace” That is complete nonsense. Just two of many examples to make the point… From almost the moment he came to power in 1951, Eygpt’s President Nasser wanted an accommodation with Israel. He had secret exchanges with Israel’s foreign minister, Moshe Sharret, who was in my view the only completely rational Israeli leader of his time. For wanting to make peace with Nasser and the Arabs, Sharett was destroyed by Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion… Example number two: By the end of 1979, the pragmatic Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, had prepared the ground on his side for peace with Israel on the basis of a genuine and viable two-state solution – peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief. But then, as is still the case today, Israel’s leaders and most of its Jewish citizens were not rational.
Prior to 9/11, the best single example of the mainstream media’s complicity in the suppression of the truth as it relates to conflict in the Middle East is Israel’s attack on the American spy ship, the USS Liberty, on 8th June 1967, the 4th day of the 6-Day war. (I was the first Western correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis, so I was in the Sinai desert at the time). That attack killed 37 Americans and seriously wounded more than 90 others. If things had gone according to the plan of the man who ordered that attack, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, the Liberty would have been sunk with all hands on board, leaving nobody to tell the story of what really happened… If it had been an Arab/Muslim attack on an American vessel, it’s reasonable to speculate that America would have resorted to a military strike, if not war, on the country or countries it held responsible. What did President Johnson do? Out of fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress, he ordered a cover-up which remains in force to this day. And the mainstream media went along with it. As it still does.
The following are my summary thoughts on the possible/probable involvement of Israel’s Mossad in 9/11. Two scenarios – A or B.
In Scenario A it’s not impossible that 9/11 started out as an Arab/Muslim idea. But even if this was the case, Mossad would have had an inside track very quickly. From almost the moment of the Zionist state’s birth, Mossad put great effort into placing agents inside every Arab regime, every Arab military and security establishment and every Arab/Muslim liberation movement and terrorist group. Many of Mossad’s best and most effective agents were Moroccan and other North African Jews because they could pose most perfectly as Arabs. (In a moment I’ll tell you the short story of Mossad’s penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group).
In Scenario A the question is: Did Mossad tell anybody? My speculation is that it told some in the CIA and a few of Zionism’s neo-con associates, Jews and non-Jews, including Vice President Cheney (I call him the real Doctor Strangelove) and the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In this scenario Mossad could have asked, “What do we do about this?” And the answer could have been something like, “We’ll use it for the Pearl Harbour-like pretext we need.”
In this scenario, 9/11, even if it started out as an Arab/Muslim idea, was a joint Israeli/Mossad and American/neo-con conspiracy.
For background a very short story about Mossad’s penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group. Abu Nidal was a member of Arafat’s Fatah but he broke with it when Arafat had come to terms with the reality of Israel’s existence and was preparing the ground on his side for compromise with Israel. The Abu Nidal group, based mainly in Iraq, was responsible for the assassinations, mainly in Europe, of more than 20 of Arafat’s emissaries who were telling Western governments behind closed doors that the Fatah-dominated PLO was serious about compromise with Israel. An investigation by Arafat and Abu Iyad, Fatah’s counter intelligence chief, subsequently revealed that Abu Nidal was an alcoholic - he consumed between one and two bottles of whisky a day, and for much of most days he was drunk, not sober. His number two was running the show and targeting those to be assassinated and directing the killing. Abu Nidal’s number two was a Mossad agent.
It was, in fact, two Palestinian students in London who were activated by the Abu Nidal group to assassinate Israeli ambassador Argov. It was that assassination attempt in 1982 that gave Israeli Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon the pretext they needed to launch their invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut, for the purpose of exterminating the entire leadership of the PLO and destroying its infrastructure… Ambassador Argov survived and quite some time after the event, he indicated that he suspected Israel’s involvement (he could only have meant targeting) in the attempt to kill him.
Scenario B has to be considered because it’s a fact that some of the Arab/Muslim plotters, actual or alleged, were under surveillance by various Western intelligence agencies for years before 9/11. The agencies who were tracking them as possible/probable terrorists included the those of America, Germany and Israel.
In this scenario it’s not impossible that the idea for 9/11 was put into the heads of possible/probable Arab/Muslim terrorists by Mossad agents.
In this scenario, Mossad was actually running the show with key American neo-cons fixing things in America to make sure the attack was successful. From all that happened on the day, I’m not convinced that President Bush was in the pre-9/11 fixing loop. I think Cheney was most probably in control of the American executive oversight of what was essentially a Mossad false flag operation.
Question: How did 9/11 serve the interests of the lunatic right in Israel and its neo-con associates in America?
In their view Saddam Hussein represented the only foreseeable potential Arab challenge to Greater Israel’s continued military domination of the whole Arab world. He had to be removed. By falsely claiming that Iraq was implicated in the 9/11 attack, Zionism and its neo-con associates in America set the stage for President Bush to be conned into going to war.
As we know, Zionism’s intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein was not a secret. In 1996, under the chairmanship of Richard Perle, widely known in informed circles as the “Prince of Darkness”, American Zionism presented a policy document with the title A CLEAN BREAK: A NEW STRATEGY FOR SECURING THE REALM.
It urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to have no second thoughts about making a clean break with the Rabin policy of negotiating with the PLO and trading land for peace. Israel’s claim to all the land it occupied was “legitimate and noble”, the policy paper said. “Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights is a solid basis for the future.” After the clean break Israel would be free to shape its “strategic environment”. What would that involve? Among other things, “re-establishing the principle of pre-emption (pre-emptive strikes)… focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq… weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria, Hizbollah and Iran.”
In fact the commitment of Zionism’s in-America fixers and their neo-con associates to getting rid of Saddam Hussein goes back further than 1996. They were angry when President Bush the First refused to complete the job when he assembled a coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait. After that Zionism’s in-America fixers and their neo-con associates needed two things – a president who was dumb enough to buy their ideas – they got that with George “Dubya” Bush; and a “Pearl Harbour” like event to trigger the action. They got that with 9/11.
But there was much more to it. 9/11 was a win-win for Zionism in a number of ways.
Predictably it provoked a rising tide of Islamophobia throughout the Western world and across America especially. In the minds of uninformed and ignorant Americans (i.e. most Americans), that in turn gave added credibility to the Zionist state’s claim to be America’s only true and reliable ally in the whole of the Arab and wider Muslim world.
As I say in the Dear America introduction to the American edition of Volume 1 of my book, when Americans asked “Why do they hate us?”, they were more or less all Arabs and Muslims everywhere. And I ask this question: What would Americans have learned if, instead of rushing to declare his war on global terrorism, President Bush had caused the Why-do-they-hate-us question to be addressed seriously?
The short answer I give in my Dear America Introduction – the long answer is in the three volumes of my book – begins with the statement that the overwhelming majority of all Arabs and Muslims everywhere do NOT hate America or Americans. What almost all Arabs and Muslims everywhere DO hate is American foreign policy – its double standards in general and, in particular, its unconditional support for an Israel which ignores UN resolutions, demonstrates its contempt for international law and human rights conventions and resorts to state terrorism… A truth is that for decades very many Arabs and other Muslims would, if they could, have migrated to America to enjoy a better life there. Today, however, the number of Arabs and other Muslims who would opt for American residence and citizenship if they could is greatly reduced because of the fact, sad but true, that the monster of Islamophobia is on the prowl across the Land of the Free and licking its lips.
Unlike most Americans, most Arabs and other Muslims know that America’s unconditional support for Israel is not in America’s own best interests. In fact it’s not in anybody’s best interests including those of the Jews of the world and Israel itself.
Alan Hart is a veteran reporter and former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who has covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Hart is the author of several books including a 1984 biography of Yasser Arafat, Terrorism or Freedom Fighters: Yasser Arafat and the PLO. More recently he has completed the trilogy Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. In an article discussing his book, Hart stated that “until enough Americans are made aware of the truth of history, no American president will have the space to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress. He blogs on AlanHart.com.
The second is that Israel “never had Arab partners for peace” That is complete nonsense. Just two of many examples to make the point… From almost the moment he came to power in 1951, Eygpt’s President Nasser wanted an accommodation with Israel. He had secret exchanges with Israel’s foreign minister, Moshe Sharret, who was in my view the only completely rational Israeli leader of his time. For wanting to make peace with Nasser and the Arabs, Sharett was destroyed by Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion… Example number two: By the end of 1979, the pragmatic Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, had prepared the ground on his side for peace with Israel on the basis of a genuine and viable two-state solution – peace on terms which any rational government and people in Israel would have accepted with relief. But then, as is still the case today, Israel’s leaders and most of its Jewish citizens were not rational.
Prior to 9/11, the best single example of the mainstream media’s complicity in the suppression of the truth as it relates to conflict in the Middle East is Israel’s attack on the American spy ship, the USS Liberty, on 8th June 1967, the 4th day of the 6-Day war. (I was the first Western correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis, so I was in the Sinai desert at the time). That attack killed 37 Americans and seriously wounded more than 90 others. If things had gone according to the plan of the man who ordered that attack, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, the Liberty would have been sunk with all hands on board, leaving nobody to tell the story of what really happened… If it had been an Arab/Muslim attack on an American vessel, it’s reasonable to speculate that America would have resorted to a military strike, if not war, on the country or countries it held responsible. What did President Johnson do? Out of fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress, he ordered a cover-up which remains in force to this day. And the mainstream media went along with it. As it still does.
The following are my summary thoughts on the possible/probable involvement of Israel’s Mossad in 9/11. Two scenarios – A or B.
In Scenario A it’s not impossible that 9/11 started out as an Arab/Muslim idea. But even if this was the case, Mossad would have had an inside track very quickly. From almost the moment of the Zionist state’s birth, Mossad put great effort into placing agents inside every Arab regime, every Arab military and security establishment and every Arab/Muslim liberation movement and terrorist group. Many of Mossad’s best and most effective agents were Moroccan and other North African Jews because they could pose most perfectly as Arabs. (In a moment I’ll tell you the short story of Mossad’s penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group).
In Scenario A the question is: Did Mossad tell anybody? My speculation is that it told some in the CIA and a few of Zionism’s neo-con associates, Jews and non-Jews, including Vice President Cheney (I call him the real Doctor Strangelove) and the likes of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In this scenario Mossad could have asked, “What do we do about this?” And the answer could have been something like, “We’ll use it for the Pearl Harbour-like pretext we need.”
In this scenario, 9/11, even if it started out as an Arab/Muslim idea, was a joint Israeli/Mossad and American/neo-con conspiracy.
For background a very short story about Mossad’s penetration of the Abu Nidal terrorist group. Abu Nidal was a member of Arafat’s Fatah but he broke with it when Arafat had come to terms with the reality of Israel’s existence and was preparing the ground on his side for compromise with Israel. The Abu Nidal group, based mainly in Iraq, was responsible for the assassinations, mainly in Europe, of more than 20 of Arafat’s emissaries who were telling Western governments behind closed doors that the Fatah-dominated PLO was serious about compromise with Israel. An investigation by Arafat and Abu Iyad, Fatah’s counter intelligence chief, subsequently revealed that Abu Nidal was an alcoholic - he consumed between one and two bottles of whisky a day, and for much of most days he was drunk, not sober. His number two was running the show and targeting those to be assassinated and directing the killing. Abu Nidal’s number two was a Mossad agent.
It was, in fact, two Palestinian students in London who were activated by the Abu Nidal group to assassinate Israeli ambassador Argov. It was that assassination attempt in 1982 that gave Israeli Prime Minister Begin and Defense Minister Sharon the pretext they needed to launch their invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut, for the purpose of exterminating the entire leadership of the PLO and destroying its infrastructure… Ambassador Argov survived and quite some time after the event, he indicated that he suspected Israel’s involvement (he could only have meant targeting) in the attempt to kill him.
Scenario B has to be considered because it’s a fact that some of the Arab/Muslim plotters, actual or alleged, were under surveillance by various Western intelligence agencies for years before 9/11. The agencies who were tracking them as possible/probable terrorists included the those of America, Germany and Israel.
In this scenario it’s not impossible that the idea for 9/11 was put into the heads of possible/probable Arab/Muslim terrorists by Mossad agents.
In this scenario, Mossad was actually running the show with key American neo-cons fixing things in America to make sure the attack was successful. From all that happened on the day, I’m not convinced that President Bush was in the pre-9/11 fixing loop. I think Cheney was most probably in control of the American executive oversight of what was essentially a Mossad false flag operation.
Question: How did 9/11 serve the interests of the lunatic right in Israel and its neo-con associates in America?
In their view Saddam Hussein represented the only foreseeable potential Arab challenge to Greater Israel’s continued military domination of the whole Arab world. He had to be removed. By falsely claiming that Iraq was implicated in the 9/11 attack, Zionism and its neo-con associates in America set the stage for President Bush to be conned into going to war.
As we know, Zionism’s intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein was not a secret. In 1996, under the chairmanship of Richard Perle, widely known in informed circles as the “Prince of Darkness”, American Zionism presented a policy document with the title A CLEAN BREAK: A NEW STRATEGY FOR SECURING THE REALM.
It urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to have no second thoughts about making a clean break with the Rabin policy of negotiating with the PLO and trading land for peace. Israel’s claim to all the land it occupied was “legitimate and noble”, the policy paper said. “Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights is a solid basis for the future.” After the clean break Israel would be free to shape its “strategic environment”. What would that involve? Among other things, “re-establishing the principle of pre-emption (pre-emptive strikes)… focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq… weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria, Hizbollah and Iran.”
In fact the commitment of Zionism’s in-America fixers and their neo-con associates to getting rid of Saddam Hussein goes back further than 1996. They were angry when President Bush the First refused to complete the job when he assembled a coalition to eject Iraq from Kuwait. After that Zionism’s in-America fixers and their neo-con associates needed two things – a president who was dumb enough to buy their ideas – they got that with George “Dubya” Bush; and a “Pearl Harbour” like event to trigger the action. They got that with 9/11.
But there was much more to it. 9/11 was a win-win for Zionism in a number of ways.
Predictably it provoked a rising tide of Islamophobia throughout the Western world and across America especially. In the minds of uninformed and ignorant Americans (i.e. most Americans), that in turn gave added credibility to the Zionist state’s claim to be America’s only true and reliable ally in the whole of the Arab and wider Muslim world.
As I say in the Dear America introduction to the American edition of Volume 1 of my book, when Americans asked “Why do they hate us?”, they were more or less all Arabs and Muslims everywhere. And I ask this question: What would Americans have learned if, instead of rushing to declare his war on global terrorism, President Bush had caused the Why-do-they-hate-us question to be addressed seriously?
The short answer I give in my Dear America Introduction – the long answer is in the three volumes of my book – begins with the statement that the overwhelming majority of all Arabs and Muslims everywhere do NOT hate America or Americans. What almost all Arabs and Muslims everywhere DO hate is American foreign policy – its double standards in general and, in particular, its unconditional support for an Israel which ignores UN resolutions, demonstrates its contempt for international law and human rights conventions and resorts to state terrorism… A truth is that for decades very many Arabs and other Muslims would, if they could, have migrated to America to enjoy a better life there. Today, however, the number of Arabs and other Muslims who would opt for American residence and citizenship if they could is greatly reduced because of the fact, sad but true, that the monster of Islamophobia is on the prowl across the Land of the Free and licking its lips.
Unlike most Americans, most Arabs and other Muslims know that America’s unconditional support for Israel is not in America’s own best interests. In fact it’s not in anybody’s best interests including those of the Jews of the world and Israel itself.
Journalist Alan Hart Breaks Silence About 9/11
Alan Hart is a veteran reporter and former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who has covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Hart is the author of several books including a 1984 biography of Yasser Arafat, Terrorism or Freedom Fighters: Yasser Arafat and the PLO. More recently he has completed the trilogy Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. In an article discussing his book, Hart stated that “until enough Americans are made aware of the truth of history, no American president will have the space to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress. He blogs on AlanHart.com.Baha Mousa: Kicked and punched to death by cowards
After an eight-year campaign for justice led by this paper, a public inquiry into the killing of Iraqi civilian Baha Mousa while in British Army custody delivers its damning verdict
By Nina Lakhani"Serious and gratuitous" violence by British soldiers caused the death of an Iraqi hotel worker and injuries to nine other innocent civilians, a landmark public inquiry ruled yesterday.
Click HERE to view graphic (76k jpg)
Baha Mousa, 26, a widower and father of two young children, died after enduring 93 separate injuries as a result of being kicked, punched and restrained by soldiers in Basra in September 2003.
He was one of 10 innocent men rounded up as suspected insurgents after weapons were found in the hotel at which seven of them worked. In addition to the assaults and humiliation, which began almost immediately upon arrest, soldiers from the 1st Battalion Queen's Lancashire Regiment subjected the men to painful and inhumane interrogation techniques that had been banned for more than 30 years.
The three-year public inquiry concluded that suspected insurgents were subjected routinely by the 1QLR to "unjustified and wholly unacceptable" hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme noise and withholding of food and water – which contributed to Mr Mousa's death. The Ministry of Defence was found culpable of corporate and systemic failings because information about the banned techniques had been "lost", which meant it was left out from all Army guidelines and training. The MoD was also criticised for making inaccurate and misleading statements about the use of hooding and other interrogation techniques.
Sir William Gage, the inquiry chairman, said Mr Mousa had been subjected to "violent and cowardly abuse" and singled out four soldiers as those who "bear a heavy responsibility" for the "shameful events" that took place between 14 and 16 September 2003. They include Corporal Donald Payne, who orchestrated the assaults and is the only soldier to have been punished for his actions after admitting to inhumane treatment of Mr Mousa in the 2006 court martial.
The inquiry also lambasts Colonel Jorge Mendonca, the commanding officer, who "ought to have known what was going on in that building long before Baha Mousa died". He and six others were acquitted by the same court martial of all charges.
The findings will add to pressure on the Government to order a much wider independent inquiry into allegations of torture and abuse. The Government is currently facing several legal challenges on behalf of hundreds of alleged Iraqi victims which could force it to hold public inquiries into the actions of British armed forces between 2003 and 2009.
Lawyers representing the nine surviving victims and Mr Mousa's father yesterday said the 2006 court martial represented a "profound injustice", and called for civil and military prosecutors to study the report, which runs to 1,400 pages, and ensure justice is now done.
A total of 19 soldiers are named as responsible for assaults and other acts of violence against the men. Three out of the 19 individuals were senior non-commissioned officers. The soldiers were guaranteed immunity from their own evidence but could be charged using the evidence of others.
General Sir Peter Wall, head of the British Army, said yesterday that the death of Mr Mousa "cast a dark shadow" over the Army's reputation. Sir Peter has been asked by the Defence Secretary Liam Fox to consider what action could be taken against those still serving. Mr Fox, who accepted 72 of the report's 73 recommendations, described the events leading to Mr Mousa's death as "deplorable, shocking and shameful". He referred to the harrowing examples of abuse suffered by the innocent victims. Kifah Matair was kicked repeatedly to his kidney area, abdomen, ribs and genitals whenever his arms dropped from the stress position, and had his eyes gouged. The youngest, unnamed victim, 18 at the time, was forced to squat with his face directly over a toilet.
Sir William goes on to criticise the "lack of moral courage" shown by a far larger number of people who turned a blind eye to the visible abuses and injuries inflicted on the 10 men.
In a statement to Parliament, Mr Fox said: "It is clear there were serious failings in command and discipline in the First Battalion, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment ... There was a lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibility for prisoner handling process and sadly too there was a lack of moral courage to report abuse." But he rejected advice to ban "harshing" – which involves screaming at detainees during interrogation.
Next month the Court of Appeal will rule on a case involving 142 Iraqis, which is led by Ali Zaki Mousa, who was detained by British forces.
The key recommendations
* MoD should retain absolute prohibition on using hoods on captured personnel.
* Guidelines should make clear that prisoners must not be kept awake.
* When there is a death in custody, particularly if sudden or unexplained, other captives must be checked promptly.
* Where practicable, captured personnel subjected to sight deprivation or hearing deprivation should be told why.
* Guidelines should incorporate the requirement that on entry to and exit from a theatre-level detention facility, captives are asked whether or not they have any complaints about treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)