04/18/2010

The article below recognizes that Obama is delusional with a messianic self love . . . and not too smart, at that. This should be no surprise to those who know that he is a communist-created and trained Manchurian candidate (as revealed by a bragging communist agent years before he was put into the White House) who obviously sees that he, not even an American citizen but an illegal alien, can play president of the United States. And that anyone who questions his legitimacy is crushed by the equally outlaw federal police state. Why wouldn't he develop a God complex?

On the same subject, both "liberals" and "conservatives" (to use those false divisions for convenience only) love to call Obama "our first African-American president." One side to rub it in the noses of those who dislike blacks in positions of power and the other to imply that blacks can't handle positions of power with competence or honesty.

But Obama/Soetoro is nothing of the kind. First of all, he is not, nor ever has been, an American, even though his mother was. He IS an African, being born in Kenya of which there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER for those not victims of cognitive dissonance.

Still, the dual term is used to denote race, not national origin. This, too, is not true. He is a mulatto, half white, half black. Such people have, from the beginning, usually suffered the hatred of both races from which they spring. Only "political correctness" loves such "diversity."
In which case it should be noted that any qualifier of the word "correct" automatically makes it not correct at all but incorrect to fit someone's agenda.

Tony B.

 

Obama going off the deep end

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Commentary

April 9, 2010 - 11:09AM

A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.

A recent case in point was Obama's bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama's wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, "I don't know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle."

This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience.
Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.

On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A's fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name.
Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.

In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft.
Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.

Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his health care package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.

A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once health care was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine.
(He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see."

Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.

Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.

 

The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Floyd is also president of the Western Center for Journalism. They can be reached at browns@caglecartoons.com.

---

10-17-2007 - 2 Articles - (1)Free enterprise vs: capitalism   (2) No Middle Class Left

No matter what you may think of Ed Steele's writings, this may be the most powerful email I have ever received for the truths it tells. The introduction is Ed's, the attached two powerful articles he is just passing along as his way to make his most important point of our times.

Ed, tending to libertarianism, may not have realized it, but these articles are huge nails in the coffin of the foolhardy belief in monopoly capitalism, Ayn Rand's, and other such gurus, "big dog eat little dog" philosophy of no-holds-barred greed. What these articles describe is the natural and inevitable result of capitalistic manipulation of national economies - especially into a "world economy" which benefits no one except those already rich beyond belief.

Free enterprise is what most think they are promoting when they say "capitalism," but that is not true. Free enterprise is 180 degrees opposite of capitalism. The very word "capitalism" implies, as older dictionaries defined it, as the concentration of capital into the hands of the few. This is exactly what these articles graphically expose. Free enterprise has to do with local people taking care of local needs. A giant, comfortable middle class with few super rich. And money and/or credit consequently staying within communities where it can continually be turned over to the benefit of all there living, instead of being constantly siphoned off into the centers of criminal "high finance." Of course, the money must be honest; paid or given into circulation, NEVER, under any circumstance, LOANED INTO EXISTENCE or PRIVATELY OWNED (such as our current system) as this creates a conveyor belt of all wealth to those who own the money.

Rev. Denis Fahey did a better job than anyone else I've read in describing economies. In the first place, (I paraphrase) "economy" truly defines all of life, not just the monetary end. Economies, world wide have been turned on their heads. In a true economy, as pictured from the sanity of an honestly Christian viewpoint, finance exists to SERVE industry while industry exists to SERVE the family, as the family exists to SERVE God. Does not that have a superlative ring compared to the present degrading, moral less rat race in an attempt to survive for most of the people while a few at the top live in Oriental splendor?

The below writings will open you eyes wide to truths you may have only suspected and, perhaps, not wished to investigate too closely.

Tony B.

 

6 Million ... and counting

Do you really want to understand what is taking place in America today? Seriously? If so, carefully read the two articles reproduced below and think long and hard on what I am about to tell you.

Though I've already seen both these articles and thought precisely what I do today, Israeli Jew Israel Shamir now has coupled them and sent them to his list. That adds a bit of credibility, as does the fact that the first is written by a Jew far more pro-Jewish than is Israel. For all I know, however, the second article's author could be Jewish, too. After all, as vividly highlighted by this pair of articles, one must be Jewish or, at least, Jewish-approved in order to have a platform in America. Witness the fact that you never have seen a single thing I have written, other than furtively passed around or posted on the Internet.

Though concerning the same people - exactly the same people - the first article uses the J-word extensively, while the second never once mentions it. But, then, the first appeared only in a publication written for and almost exclusively read by - Jews. The second is a much more mainstream article.

Imagine if all mainstream articles so unabashedly attributed the growing American dichotomy in all things to being Jewish vs. Gentile (a Jewish term that is said to mean "non-Jew," but which is spoken in a manner to connote cattle).

And things are about to become even more polarized as the coming economic apocalypse swallows up the average American. If you have my book, look in the chapter entitled World War III and review the quotes I give from pre-WWII authors, describing how an eerily-similar Jew/Gentile economic divide in Germany led to the overwhelming uprising and mass reprisal generally ascribed to a single man. In reality, the Third Reich was a reaction - to an equally avaricious and oblivious Jewish overclass.

We have a saying here in America: pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.

Did you know that there are about 6 million Jews in America today? Coincidentally, there now happen to be just about 6 million Jews in Israel, as well.

6 million ... 6 million ... hmmmm, where have I heard that figure before?

-ed

www.ConspiracyPenPal.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: shamireaders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:shamireaders@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Israel Shamir
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:30 AM
To: readers
Subject: [shamireaders] Rise of Jews and Social Gap

Some news items should be read in conjunction: otherwise, they make little sense. Recently we were informed by Vanity Fair, that Jewish element with the US elites crossed 50%. Five years ago, it was assessed at 30%, now we are up to more than half. In the artcle below, a Jewish editor feels happy about this achievement. But how non-Jewish Americans should view it? Why should they care? And here we offer you a second news item, saying that social disparity gap in the US reached new heights. This is the answer: more Jews at the top, more social disparity at the bottom. In short, when it is good for Jews, it is rarely good for anybody else. Read these two articles in conjunction:

(1)
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/joe/aaron101007.php3
Feel the power
By Joseph Aaron

 

 

I just can't help it.

This kind of thing gives me a big thrill. And a big chill.

It's not that often that you find the entire state of Jewish life today encapsulated in one place. So when you do, it's worth taking note of and learning from.

The place of which I speak is the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Vanity Fair is one of the most fascinating magazines around, one that every issue features an amazingly eclectic collection of articles, from the very serious to the completely frivolous.

Indeed, while the October issue features such stories as "How $9 billion in cash vanished in Iraq;" "Inside Bush's bunker;" "How the Media Gored Al Gore in 2000;" and more, the cover features Nicole Kidman wearing a sailor cap and opening her shirt to reveal her nautical necklace and her brassiere.

Vanity Fair is nothing if not on the cutting edge of where society is and is going. Vanity Fair is definitely not a Jewish publication.

And yet, in this one issue, it tells us more about the Jewish world as it is today than any lecture or book or class out there.

It does that in two ways.

The first is its annual list of what it calls The New Establishment, the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.

What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population so there should be two or three Jews on the list.

Guess again, bubeleh.

The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.

Minimum.

I say 51 because that's how many I'm sure are Jewish. There may be others on the list who are Jewish but who I don't know are Jewish and whose names are not obviously Jewish.

But let's say I got them all. That means that more than half the names on the list of the 100 people who are the most vital to this society are Jewish. And this is a list that includes Apple's Steve Jobs and Oprah and Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett, to name a few of the few non-Jews on the list.

That is absolutely nothing short of astounding.

Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having power in this society, talk about anti-Semitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and influential.

And it doesn't stop there.

The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Next Establishment, younger people it believes destined to make the big list some year soon.

Of the 26 names on that list, 15 are Jews. That I'm sure of. 15 of 26. More than half.

And it doesn't stop there.

The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Pit-Stop Club, those who have made The New Establishment list in the past but who didn't make it this year but are fairly certain to make a comeback in a future year.

Of the nine names on this list, eight are Jews. Eight out of nine. Don Imus is the only non-Jew on the list.

I mean, it's just unbelievable.

This is a big country with lots and lots of very talented, highly educated, tremendously motivated people. And no one has its finger on the pulse of the people who make this country what it is more than Vanity Fair.

And when it came time to pick the 100 who most move and shake things in America, more than half-more than half-are Jews. And on the list of those who will one day be on that list, more than half-more than half-are Jews. Not to mention that almost 100 percent of those who were on the list and are poised to make a comeback are Jews.

Tells you so much about the place of Jews in this country, about the amazing people Jews are.

That's something we should never take for granted, something we should always be blown away by, feel very, very good about.

Instead, however, the Jewish world is so much about kvetching and worrying.

When will we learn to fight fights that matter. When will we learn not everything needs to be made a big deal of. Not everything we don't like is a threat, indeed some of the things we don't like only become a nuisance because we make a big deal out of it.

We are powerful, very powerful. We play a major, pivotal role in the life of this country. And yet we are always acting like scared little mice on the verge of annihilation.

And if you think how we are doesn't have consequences, please look at something else in this Vanity Fair issue, something that also tells us much about Jewish life today.

There is an article in the magazine called "Talk of the Town." It tells the story of the intense rivalry between two of the most powerful men on Wall Street, Henry Kravis and Stephen Schwarzman.

Both, as you may have guessed, are Jews. Both are at the very top of the private equity world, which is where the financial action is these days. Both control tens of billions of dollars worth of assets.

The first thing that struck me about the story is what jerks both are, each trying to top the other, destroy the other, outdo the other. Not to mention the abominable way that each treats their employees. Each acts in ways that are not very much in keeping with the teachings and values of Judaism.

That's sad, but that's not what got to me. What got to me is how much these two do, how much these two give, to all kinds of good causes-libraries and museums and hospitals and universities and on and on, all mentioned by name in the article. You read and see how much energy each puts into his charitable work, how much money each donates to charitable causes. Doing so, it is very clear, for the social status and clout it brings.

What is also clear is that it seems neither is involved in or gives to Jewish causes, at least not in any significant way.

That too tells you a lot about Jewish life today.

For they are not alone. The fact is that, as survey after survey has shown, most very wealthy Jews in this country do not give to Jewish causes. Certainly not the tens of million dollars they so eagerly give to a university or a museum.

The question is why they feel so little allegiance to their own community, their own people, why they so much look elsewhere to devote their resources and their energies.

I think it's because we have made Judaism such an unpleasant place.

Judaism has so many powerful people among us, as the Vanity Fair 100 list shows. We are such a part of this society, have such impact on this society and yet we're always unhappy, always feel victimized, always kvetch about this and that. It's always another Holocaust around the corner, there's always the next Hitler on the scene, Israel is always embattled, we're always worried, always scared, always sure the end is near.

Well, who the hell wants to join that little party?

Because we so squander all the good that has come our way, too many of us are simply opting to go their own way, to be part of things that don't involve guilt and neuroticism.

More than half those on the Vanity Fair 100 are Jews. And yet we don't feel powerful, indeed, the very fact of the list makes us even more nervous than we were before. Instead of being pleased and taking pride, we fret that it's not so good to be so visible, bad that the gentiles see how much influence we have. And so we take even an occasion for joys and make it one for oys.

Is it any wonder then that if we always make out that Jewish life, despite all evidence to the contrary, is a scary and dreary place, that those who have made it, want nothing to do with it?

 

(2)

---

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/oct2007/usa-o16.shtml
Social inequality in US hits new record
By Bill Van Auken
16 October 2007

The Internal Revenue Service issued a report last week documenting record levels of social inequality in the United States. According to the data released by the IRS, America’s wealthiest 1 percent accounted for 21 percent of all income in 2005, while the bottom 50 percent earned just 12.8 percent of the total national income.

While the share of income taken in by the wealthiest 1 percent rose steeply—up three points from 19 percent in 2004—the share for the half of the population at the bottom of the economic ladder fell during the same period by 0.6 percent.

The IRS data, published in the Wall Street Journal last Friday, are based on “adjusted gross income” reflected in tax returns for 2005. This measure provides a starker and more accurate picture than other indices of the staggering polarization between wealth and poverty in America.

It records individual income after deductions for such expenses as alimony or individual retirement accounts, and includes capital gains, a major source of income for the very rich. It also breaks down the figures relating to the wealthiest social layers, spelling out the obscene levels of income raked in by the top 1 percent and top 0.1 percent, as opposed to other reports that lump this relative handful of multimillionaires and billionaires together with average figures for the top 10 percent.

The share claimed by this wealthiest layer has now surpassed the previous record recorded during the stock market boom of the 1990s. And, while the IRS has kept such data only since 1986, it is believed that the present percentage of the national income going to this layer is higher than at any time since the period that preceded the Wall Street crash of 1929 and the Great Depression.

Even George W. Bush is compelled to acknowledge the prevalence of social inequality in America. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, the president said, “First of all, our society has had income inequality for a long time.” By way of explanation, Bush, the offspring of a family worth many millions, declared, “Skills gaps yield income gaps.”

The Wall Street Journal was more candid than the president, acknowledging that while the IRS did not spell out the source of rising income for the wealthy, the “boom on Wall Street has likely played a part.”

The newspaper went on to point out the enormous accumulation of wealth on Wall Street itself, citing a recent study from the University of Chicago showing that twice as many Wall Street executives count themselves in the top 0.5 percent income bracket as their counterparts in other sectors of the economy. One of the authors of the study, Joshua Rauh, told the Journal, “It’s hard to escape the notion” that the increasing monopolization of wealth at the top is a “Wall Street, financial industry-based story.”

Summarizing the study, the Journal reported that “the highest-earning hedge-fund manager earned double in 2005 what the top earner made in 2003, and the top 25 hedge-fund managers earned more in 2004 than the chief executives of all the companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index combined.” The study also found “profits per equity partner at the top 100 law firms doubling between 1994 and 2004, to over $1 million in 2004 dollars.”

The data released by the IRS indicated that the minimum annual income needed to make it into the top 1 percent rose 3 percent between 2000 and 2005 to $364,647.

On the opposite end of the social scale, the median income of tax filers had fallen 2 percent between 2000 and 2005 to just $30,881, with fully half of the population struggling to get by on less than that.

Earlier data released by the US Census Bureau established that every section of the population outside of the top 5 percent saw their real income fall between 2000 and 2005.

According to one recent study, while real income for the bottom 90 percent of the population fell by 11 percent between 1973 and 2005, those in the top .01 percent bracket, comprising some 14,000 households with annual incomes averaging nearly $13 million, saw their take increase by 250 percent over the same period.

What emerges from the data are the effects of a long-standing social policy involving a massive transfer of wealth from working people, the great majority of the population, to a handful of the super-wealthy, who have enriched themselves at the expense of the rest of society.

This is not merely an American, but rather a global policy that has been carried out on the backs of the working class of every country. A study released last week by the Boston Consulting Group found that the world’s 9.6 million millionaires—comprising just 0.7 percent of the earth’s population—now control $33.2 trillion in wealth—roughly a third of all the wealth in the world. According to the study, the world’s wealthiest 0.1 percent—those with $5 million or more in financial assets—now owns 17.5 percent of global wealth.

Meanwhile, half of the world’s population—some 3 billion people—live on less than $2 a day.

The social cost of this vast accumulation of wealth by the financial elite grows daily. A report issued last week by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Center for Social Policy at the University of Massachusetts in Boston found that 41 million working families in America—one in five—are unable to cover the costs of basic necessities with the money they earn working for low pay and no benefits.

The study found that many of these workers are ineligible for federal support in the form of child care assistance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Eligibility for such assistance has been steadily tightened by federal and state governments.

The demagogy of the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates about defending the “middle class” notwithstanding, these policies have been enacted by Democratic and Republican administrations alike. The growth of income inequality in America has continued unbroken since 1973, spurred by the high-interest-rate, recessionary policies enacted by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker—Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s appointee—with the deliberate aim of driving up unemployment, slashing wages and unleashing a big business offensive against the working class.

It was under the Clinton administration that the top 1 percent set their previous record share of the national income—20.8 percent in 2000, Clinton’s last year in the White House. This was up from about 14 percent when he first took office.

The increased concentration of wealth was fueled by the Democratic administration’s deregulation of the financial markets, which spurred the financial bubble of the ‘90s that gave rise to much of today’s financial elite. At the other end of the social ladder, the Clinton White House carried out a ruthless war against the working class and poor, carrying through its pledge to “end welfare as we know it” and slashing other areas of social spending.

From the beginning of the Bush administration, the Democrats have helped pass round after round of tax cuts for the rich, running into the trillions of dollars. Even a limited proposal to close a tax loophole that has allowed hedge and equity fund managers earning hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay a lower tax rate than a bus driver or an office worker was shelved earlier this month by the Democratic Senate leadership, in deference to the party’s well-heeled contributors on Wall Street.

The inequality that pervades every facet of American society inevitably finds its expression within the Democratic Party, which, while posturing as the party of the people, remains a political instrument of the ruling financial elite. Among the Democratic candidates, the three front-runners—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards—are all millionaires.

Roughly half of the US Senate is made up millionaires, many of them Democrats. The House, meanwhile, is led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in her latest financial disclosure forms reported that she and her investor husband conducted some 30 stock sales and purchases last year, many of them involving sums up to $1 million each. She also reported owning a California vineyard, valued between $5 million and $25 million.

The Democrats will do no more to reverse the growth of social inequality than they will to end the war in Iraq. In the final analysis, the explosion of militarism abroad and the destruction of working class living standards at home are two sides of a common political agenda aimed at funneling the wealth of the US and the world into the coffers of a financial oligarchy.

---

10-15-2007 - Nukes

No nation on earth screams louder than Israel that "Iran must not be allowed to obtain any kind of nuclear abilities because it is certain (in Israel's eyes) to use the knowledge to make weapons. Second loudest is the government of the United States. Two pots calling the kettle black.

Israel was created - at the expense of Palestine - in 1948, and that is when it began its drive to create nuclear weapons. According to a U.S. Army paper, "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons," (which can be googled) it had "reportedly assembled several nuclear devices" - that is weapons - by 1967. By 1973 it had weapons deployed "and considered using them" in the so-called Yom Kippur war.

Some of the components of Israel's early nukes were stolen from United States stockpiles.

Israel has never stopped production of nukes. Ten years ago it was estimated to have 400 of them, in all sizes and usages from the really big, long range stuff to "suitcase" nukes and low yield shells that kill but do not damage infrastructure. Today, it is variously rated the third or fourth greatest nuclear power in the world. It may even be number two.

Israel has been blackmailing the U.S. government at the top tier over its possible use of nukes for decades. Why American "leaders" put up with that from this artificial little government would seem a mystery to most but it is probable that the assassination of John F. Kennedy, who flatly told the Israelis he would not stand by and let them make nuclear bombs, may have something to do with that.

Tellingly, it must be noted that in the half century that Israel, lover of technology in all things, which has madly manufactured enough nukes to blow up the world, has yet to made a single attempt to build nuclear power plants which are much easier to make than bombs. Only lately has there even been talk of nuclear power plants by Israelis. And it is only talk. No decision has been even attempted to build such power plants.

These facts reveal a power mad mindset that the world should carefully consider. It is Israel that should be the target of those in fear of a nuclear holocaust, not Iran, not North Korea, nor China nor Pakistan; not any other nation in the world.

The second most frightening nation in the world with nukes is the United States of America, which present (and past for probably at least a century) government heads lie to the American people as policy. The recent "accidental" transport of a fully nuked up B52 to the take off base for the Middle East being a case in point. It is still to be determined what happened to the sixth nuke which was attached to the plane when it left Minot yet only five were reported to have arrived in Louisiana. Where is the media on this point? Is there going to be a nuclear 9/11 in some midsize American city so that Bush can fake a reason to nuke Iran? He is no less insane than Israel's leadership. His and Cheney's group proved that when they accomplished 9/11 (with Israeli military and Mossad assisting). And Bush is always anxious to please his neocon controllers.

Media hype is just media hype. People should fear what is really worthy of fearing - based on fact, not some neocon media and government concocted phony bogy man which amounts to 100% emotional hype with no substance whatsoever.

Tony B.

 

10-14-2007 - The Coming Depression

There's a lot of hype about the mortgage market collapse throwing the whole world into a depression - and that just may happen.

But it's all a manufactured situation. The world's financial crooks have been shuffling mortgage and much other debt paper around among themselves for a long time, making even more money than they make off the debt created by the bankers of issue as nations' mediums of exchange.

All this defaulted debt is nothing but bank credit figures - a banking fraud on mankind - with no real reason to consider it value to begin with. Yet these fakers have been fleecing the world with this charade of worth for decades, adding the figures to their "worth" while charging the "suckers" real wealth to make the bankers' phony debt good.. Now, to save their phony figures, they will throw the world into a depression by the usual criminal means of making it impossible to get loans while making sure there is no real medium of exchange around which is not dependent on loans for its existence.

Typical "establishment" (prostitute) statement:

"We are coming off the greatest lending bubble ... in U.S. history. We will feel its impact for a very long time," said Robert Arnott, Chairman of Research Affiliates LLC in Pasadena, California, earlier this month.

All that has to be done is for the financiers to write down these phony figures to a more realistic figure within the financial houses. Take their highly earned "losses" of nothing. These financiers are already richer than anyone could possibly need to be by dint of their criminal "bank credit" nothing used as national mediums of exchange at usury and then shuttling this debt paper around among themselves as "worth" to be kited over and over, each time to make more money by treating this bogus debt as a value to be extracted from the "suckers" who must borrow to live.

To hell with them and their phony "bubble." Let them come down closer to reality as the consequence of their greed instead of allowing them to create even more misery in the world so they can claim ever greater "riches."

Tony B.

 

So it's finally hit the main stream media! Liberty Lobby and its publication, The Spotlight - now both defunct by use of a crooked bankruptcy court tied to CIA assets - hammered this story over and over for more than 20 years. What isn't mentioned here is that the attack was ordered by Israeli "war hero" Moshe Dyan - the one you used to see in the media with the eye patch who was played up to high heaven before the American public. May the bastard rot in hell forever, where he undoubtedly is. Too many of the "wounded" sailors would more accurately be described as "maimed." I did get awfully tired of people telling me they didn't believe me, which was calling me a liar. Who are the liars now?
Tony B.

October 6, 2007 So Who's Afraid of the Israel Lobby?
by Ray McGovern

Who's afraid of the Israel Lobby? Virtually everyone: Republican, Democrat – Conservative, Liberal. The fear factor is non-partisan, you might say, and palpable. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brags that it is the most influential foreign policy lobbying organization on Capitol Hill, and has demonstrated that time and again – and not only on Capitol Hill.

Seldom has the Lobby's power been as clearly demonstrated as in its ability to suppress the awful truth that on June 8, 1967, during the Six Day War:

* Israel deliberately attacked the intelligence collection ship USS Liberty, in full awareness it was a U.S. Navy ship, and did its best to sink it and leave no survivors;

* The Israelis would have succeeded had they not broken off the attack upon learning, from an intercepted message, that the commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet had launched carrier fighters to the scene; and

* By that time 34 of the Liberty's crew had been killed and over 170 wounded.

Scores of intelligence analysts and senior officials have known this for years. That virtually all of them have kept a forty-year frightened silence is testament to the widespread fear of touching this live wire. Even more telling is the fact that the National Security Agency apparently has destroyed voice tapes and transcripts heard and seen by many intelligence analysts, material that shows beyond doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.

The Ugly Truth

But the truth will come out – eventually. All it took in this case was for a courageous journalist (an endangered species) to listen to the surviving crew and do a little basic research, not shrinking from naming war crimes and not letting senior U.S. officials, from the president on down, off the hook for suppressing – even destroying – damning evidence from intercepted Israeli communications.

The mainstream media have now published an exposé based largely on interviews with those most intimately involved. A lengthy article by Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter John Crewdson appeared in the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun on Oct. 2 titled "New revelations in attack on American spy ship." To the subtitle goes the prize for understatement of the year: "Veterans, documents suggest U.S., Israel didn't tell full story of deadly 1967 incident."

Better 40 years late than never, I suppose. Many of us have known of the incident and cover-up for a very long time and have tried to expose and discuss it for the lessons it holds for today. It has proved far easier, though, to get a very pedestrian Dog-Bites-Man article published than an article with the importance and explosiveness of this sensitive story.

A Marine Stands Up

On the evening of Sept. 26, 2006, I gave a talk on Iraq to an overflow crowd of 400 at National Avenue Church in Springfield, Missouri. A questioner asked what I thought of the study by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The study had originally been commissioned by The Atlantic Monthly. When the draft arrived, however, shouts of "Leper!" were heard at the Atlantic. The monthly wasted no time in saying thanks-but-no-thanks, and the leper-study then wandered in search of a home, finding none among American publishers. Eventually the London Review of Books published it in March 2006.

I had read that piece carefully and found it an unusual act of courage as well as scholarship. That's what I told the questioner, adding that I did have two problems with the study:

First, it seemed to me the authors erred in attributing virtually all the motivation for the U.S. attack on Iraq to the Israel Lobby and the so-called "neoconservatives" running our policy and armed forces. Was Israel an important factor? Indeed. But of equal importance, in my view, was the oil factor and what the Pentagon now calls the "enduring" military bases in Iraq, which the White House and Pentagon decided were needed for the U.S. to dominate that part of the Middle East.

Second, I was intrigued by the fact that Mearsheimer and Walt made no mention of what I believe to be, if not the most telling, then perhaps the most sensational proof of the power the Lobby knows it can exert over our government and Congress. In sum, in June 1967, after deliberately using fighter-bombers and torpedo boats to attack the USS Liberty for over two hours in an attempt to sink it and kill its entire crew, and then getting the U.S. government, the Navy, and the Congress to cover up what happened, the Israeli government learned that it could – literally – get away with murder.

I found myself looking out at 400 blank stares. The USS Liberty? And so I asked how many in the audience had heard of the attack on the Liberty on June 8, 1967. Three hands went up; I called on the gentleman nearest me.

Ramrod straight he stood:

"Sir, Sergeant Bryce Lockwood, United States Marine Corps, retired. I am a member of the USS Liberty crew, Sir."

Catching my breath, I asked him if he would be willing to tell us what happened.

"Sir, I have not been able to do that. It is hard. But it has been almost 40 years, and I would like to try this evening, Sir."

You could hear a pin drop for the next 15 minutes, as Lockwood gave us his personal account of what happened to him, his colleagues, and his ship on the afternoon of June 8, 1967. He was a linguist assigned to collect communications intelligence from the USS Liberty, which was among the ugliest – and most easily identifiable – ships in the fleet with antennae springing out in all directions.

Lockwood told of the events of that fateful day, beginning with the six-hour naval and air surveillance of the Liberty by the Israeli navy and air force on the morning of June 8. After the air attacks including thousand-pound bombs and napalm, three sixty-ton torpedo boats lined up like a firing squad, pointing their torpedo tubes at the Liberty's starboard hull. Lockwood had been ordered to throw the extremely sensitive cryptological equipment overboard and had just walked beyond the bulwark separating the NSA intelligence unit from the rest of the ship when, he recalled, he sensed a large black object, a tremendous explosion, and sheet of flame. The torpedo had struck dead center in the NSA space.

The cold, oily water brought Lockwood back to consciousness. Around him were 25 dead colleagues; but he heard moaning. Three were still alive; one of Lockwood's shipmates dragged one survivor up the hatch. Lockwood was able to lift the two others, one-by-one, onto his shoulder and carry them up through the hatch. This meant alternatively banging on the hatch for someone to open it and swimming back to fish his shipmate out of the water lest he float out to sea through the 39-foot hole made by the torpedo.

At that Lockwood stopped speaking. It was enough. Hard, very hard – even after almost 40 years.

What Else We Know

John Crewdson's meticulously documented article, together with the 57 pages that James Bamford devotes to the incident in his book Body of Secrets and recent confessions by those who played a role in the cover-up, paint a picture that the surviving crew of the USS Liberty can only find infuriating. The evidence, from intercepted communications as well as testimony, of Israeli deliberate intent is unimpeachable, even though the Israelis continue to portray the incident as merely a terrible mistake.

Crewdson refers to U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, who was the Navy lawyer appointed as senior counsel to Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, named by Admiral John S. McCain (Sen. John McCain's father) to "inquire into all the facts and circumstances." The fact that they were given only one week to gather evidence and were forbidden to contact the Israelis screams out "cover-up."

Captain Boston, now 84, signed a formal declaration on Jan. 8, 2004 in which he described himself as "outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of ‘mistaken identity.'" Boston continued:

"The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew...Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded – a war crime...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity' despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

Why the Israelis decided to take the draconian measure of sinking a ship of the U.S. Navy is open to speculation. One view is that the Israelis did not want the U.S. to find out they were massing troops to seize the Golan Heights from Syria, and wanted to deprive the U.S. of the opportunity to argue against such a move. Another theory: James Bamford, in Body of Secrets," adduces evidence, including reporting from an Israeli journalist eyewitness and an Israeli military historian, of wholesale killing of Egyptian prisoners of war at the coastal town of El Arish in the Sinai. The Liberty was patrolling directly opposite El Arish in international waters but within easy range to pick up intelligence on what was going on there. And the Israelis were well aware.

As for the why, well, someone could at least approach the Israelis involved and ask, no? The important thing here is not to confuse what is known (the deliberate nature of the Israeli attack) with the purpose behind it, which remains a matter of speculation.

Other Indignities

Bowing to intense pressure from the Navy, the White House agreed to award the Liberty's skipper, Captain William McGonagle, the Medal of Honor....but not at the White House, and not by the president (as is the custom). Rather, the Secretary of the Navy gave the award at the Washington Navy Yard on the banks of the acrid Anacostia River. A naval officer involved in the awards ceremony told one of the Liberty crew, "The government is pretty jumpy about Israel...the State Department even asked the Israeli ambassador if his government had any objections to McGonagle getting the medal."

Adding insult to injury, those of the Liberty crew who survived well enough to call for an independent investigation have been hit with charges of, you guessed it, anti-Semitism.

Now that some of the truth is emerging more and more, others are showing more courage in speaking out. In a recent email, an associate of mine who has followed Middle East affairs for almost 60 years, shared the following:

"The chief of the intelligence analysts studying the Arab/Israeli region at the time told me about the intercepted messages and said very flatly and firmly that the pilots reported seeing the American flag and repeated their requests for confirmation of the attack order. Whole platoons of Americans saw those intercepts. If NSA now says they do not exist, then someone ordered them destroyed."

Leaving the destruction of evidence without investigation is an open invitation to repetition in the future.

As for the larger picture, visiting Israel this past summer I was constantly told that Egypt forced Israel into war in June 1967. This does not square with the unguarded words of Menachem Begin in 1982, when he was Israel's prime minister. Rather he admitted publicly:

"In June 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that [Egyptian President] Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him."

Israel had, in fact, prepared well militarily and mounted provocations against its neighbors, in order to provoke a response that could be used to justify an expansion of its borders. Israel's illegal 40-year control over and confiscation of land in the occupied territories and U.S. enabling support (particularly the one-sided support by the current U.S. administration) go a long way toward explaining why it is that 1.3 billion Muslims "hate us."

 

08 / 13 / 2007

Blue collar writing...

While researching, writing and editing for Liberty Lobby and its The Spotlight and successor American Free Press, I was constantly arguing for a different kind of presentation that younger people would be interested in reading.

Basically, my argument was that Americans have been dumbed down to the point where facts don't really register with them. They are trained to react to emotional buzz words, not to think. So trying to imitate the writing style of the NY Times, Wash. Post., et al, is simply re enforcing the enemy's agenda, more or less. I never got through with this concept where it mattered, even though many readers praised my style of "blue collar" writing. Moreover, my "punch lines" were routinely edited out of my articles.

Now, I'm finally actually reading Charlotte Iserbyt's "the deliberate dumbing down of america" and I find the words I was always looking for early on in her monumental tome, as follows:

She quotes from the book "Conditioned Reflex Therapy" by one Andrew Salte:
"We are meat in which habits have taken up residence. We are a result of the way other people have acted to us. We are the reactions. Having conditioned reflexes means carrying about pieces of past realities . . . We think with our habits, and our emotional training determines our thinking. Where there is a conditioned reflex, there is no will. Our "will power" is dependent on our previously learned reflexes."

To understand these statements, Mrs. Iserbyt writes, one must know a bit about cybernetics. For that explanation she quotes from a speech by Herbert Philbrick, the ex communist who wrote "I Led Three Lives."

Part of that quote is: "[t]he Reds have been working around the clock in this study of the scientific manipulation and control of information. It is based on the findings of Pavlov which say that a man, like an animal, conditioned to respond to certain impulses, can be conditioned to respond to words, phrases and symbols. [Rock music and "rap "- the rage of the current young - immediately come to mind.] Therefore you pour in the words, phrases and symbols to which he will respond without thinking. And then you withhold other certain words which will cause him to respond in a way which you may not desire. It is the scientific control of human beings by means of control information."

Fits right in with the techniques of Skinnerism, the method most used to turn public school children into unthinking emotional reactors - which they absolutely are - each new generation moreso than the last.

If writers truly want to turn the juggernaut of ruination of civilization around they MUST learn to write their own buzz words, their own emotional tugging agendas, using facts sparingly as backup to the emotional stimulation. That is the only way to reach those at the ages of action. Catering to old geezers for a few bucks to continue droning on will not do any damage whatsoever to the agendas of those who intend to rule the world of "putty men" they have created.

Tony B.