Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s Left Testicle

Hillary Clinton and the Amelia Earhart Cover-up

Hillary Clinton and the Amelia Earhart Cover-up

Review of Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last by Mike Campbell

Chilling Awakening

Few things are more unsettling,

From experience I know,

Than to feel a building shaken

By quaking ground below.

But I’ve felt one discomfiture

Of almost comparable size,

Discovering that our “free” press

Purveys official lies.

Seventy-five years ago this summer America’s “First Lady of Flight,” Amelia Earhart, along with her navigator, Fred Noonan, disappeared—at least from public view—in their two-engine Lockheed Electra, NR 16020, somewhere in the South Pacific.  They were on an ambitious round-the-world flight from an east to west direction, and they had already completed a good part of it.   The voyage had begun in Burbank, California, on May 21, 1937.  The most dangerous leg of the journey was the 2,556-mile stretch from Lae, New Guinea, to tiny Howland Island, 1,900 miles southwest of Honolulu.  They were to arrive on July 2, but they never made it.  A massive search was launched involving seven ships and sixty-three aircraft of the U.S. military.  They searched 262,281 square miles of ocean for sixteen days and found nothing, not even an oil slick or a particle of debris.  The Japanese, who controlled the Marshall Islands to the north of Howland claimed that their seaplane tender, the Kamoi, was also involved in the search.  We learn from Campbell, though, that the claim, like so much we have been told about the Earhart disappearance, is not true.

The official conclusion is that the Electra, experiencing inexplicably poor radio communications with the Coast Guard vessel Itasca, which was supposed to guide her into Howland, ran out of fuel, crashed, and sank into the depths of the Pacific.  If the testimony of a veritable host of witnesses has any credibility at all, that claim is not true, either.  That is to say that it falls into the large and growing category of “official lie.”  It may not be the most important one, but it would be hard to find one that is more blatant or brazen.  Now, it would it appear that the latest variation of that lie has been bought into by no less an illustrious government personage than Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The first thing that one discovers when looking into the contrary eyewitness evidence related to the Earhart disappearance is that Campbell sits at the peak of a rather impressive pyramid of citizen evidence gatherers on the subject.  Beneath him on the pyramid, among others, are a number of veterans of the U.S. military.  Preeminent among them was the late Thomas E. Devine, author of the 1987 book, Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident.  Devine, a twenty-eight-year-old Army sergeant at the time, was among the troops who captured Saipan from the Japanese in July of 1944.  While on Saipan he had a life-changing experience.  He saw what he is certain was Amelia Earhart’s Lockheed Electra.  He wrote down the “NR 16020” written on the plane and remembers wondering what the “NR” meant.  He also witnessed the burning of the airplane upon the orders of American government officials in civilian clothes.  Devine died in 2003, but not before granting a short interview that can be seen on Rich Martini’s YouTube video at

  That is a clip from Martini’s film, “Eyewitness Accounts of What Happened to Amelia Earhart’s Plane.”

Mike Campbell worked as a writer while on active duty in the Navy and for the Department of Defense in a public affairs capacity until his retirement in 2008.  He collaborated with Devine on the 2002 book, With Our Own Eyes: Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart, and with his latest work shows himself to be more than capable of carrying Devine’s torch for truth.

An absolutely key character in verifying Devine’s claim that he saw Amelia Earhart’s airplane on Saipan, and he saw it burned, is Earskin J. Nabers (who went by his middle name of “Julious” as we see in the same video, filmed in May 2003, in which Devine appears). Nabers, who died in 2006, was ferreted out by Devine through a notice he placed in the spring 1992 issue of Follow Me, the official publication of the 2^nd Marine Division Association, seeking “any of the Marines, who, during the invasion of Saipan, were placed on guard duty at Aslito Field, to guard a padlocked hangar containing Amelia Earhart’s airplane.”

Charles W. Voyles, a veteran from Memphis, Tennessee, saw the notice and wrote Devine about Nabers of Baldwyn, Mississippi, the new secretary of the Mississippi chapter of 2^nd Division veterans.  Voyles had heard through the grapevine that Nabers had been “around the hangar at Aslito Field, which contained Amelia Earhart’s plane,” Voyles wrote to Devine.  Nabers, too, had seen the notice, but it took the letter from Devine and months of prodding by family and friends before he opened up and responded to Devine.

For anyone who might try to dismiss the numerous veterans and residents of Saipan and the Marshall Islands who have now come forward with first hand or very good second hand knowledge of Earhart’s capture by the Japanese, reading the various accounts we find in Campbell’s book shows the reticence of Nabers to be more the rule than the exception.  Jerrell H. Chatham of Avinger, Texas, is fairly typical, “All these years since my time in the Marines,” he wrote to Devine, “I have been afraid to say very much about this Amelia Earhart thing.”  Chatham and other military witnesses on Saipan had their “chilling awakening” long before this writer did.

What Nabers had to say, though, stands out in its importance.  He was the clerk who decoded the orders first to fly the plane and then to destroy it, and he heard it repeatedly explicitly identified as Amelia Earhart’s airplane.  He also witnessed the carrying out of the orders.

Crashed-and-sank proponents, who dismiss eyewitness accounts out of hand for the most specious of reasons, are invariably stopped in their tracks when confronted with Nabers’ report…

Nabers offered them nothing to reinterpret or deconstruct, because a Marine code clerk working in a high-security message center on Saipan could not possibly misread, misunderstand, or imagine a series of messages he received announcing the discovery of Earhart’s plane, followed by the plan to fly it, and finally, the order to destroy it.  Faced with the implacable nature of Nabers’ story, cynics have only two choices: to flatly accuse Nabers of lying, or to remain silent.  Realizing the former option would reveal their inherent dishonesty—or worse, their stupidity—they reluctantly choose to withdraw or to change the subject. (Campbell, pp. 237-238)

Before he had flushed out Nabers and the aforementioned Chatham, who reported seeing Earhart’s plane in the air on Saipan and being ordered to transport two crates that he was told contained the remains of Earhart and Noonan, Devine had concluded his 1987 Eyewitness book with a call for others to come forward with information.  That plea had attracted the attention of number of Saipan veterans, among whom was the other Marine who appears in the Martini video, Robert E. Wallack of Woodbridge, Connecticut.  Wallack, who died in 2008 at age 83, is very clear here in his recollection of the discovery of Amelia Earhart’s briefcase in a safe that he and some other Marines had blown open:

The contents were official-looking papers all concerning Amelia Earhart:  maps, permits and reports apparently pertaining to her around-the-world flight.  I wanted to retain this as a souvenir, but my Marine buddies insisted that it may be important and should be turned in.  I went down to the beach where I encountered a naval officer and told him of my discovery.  He gave me a receipt for the material, and stated that it would be returned to me if it were not important.  I have never seen the material since.

I wish to make a point here concerning the attaché case and the contents.  The case did not appear as if it had ever been immersed in water and the contents were not blurred at all.  Therefore these items could not have been obtained from a plane that had been reported down at sea some seven years prior to this event. (Campbell pp. 204-205)

Earlier Accounts of Earhart on Saipan

From 1944 when Saipan was captured to 1987 when Devine published his first book is quite a long time.  If Earhart, Noonan, and their airplane had all been on Saipan one would expect that some word of it would have come out even if the U.S. and Japanese governments wanted to suppress it.  Indeed it had, and very early, in 1944:

SAIPAN, July 8 (Delayed) (INS) – The mystery of what happened to Amelia Earhart, famous American aviatrix, popped up again today—this time on Saipan.  The discovery of an album filled with Amelia Earhart pictures here on this battle-torn island revived the search for an answer to the seven-year mystery of the fate of America’s number one woman flier.  Some marines reported finding the album filled with pictures of Amelia Earhart clothed in sport togs.  There were no other pictures in the album. (Campbell, p. 201)

That little item appeared in newspapers across the country, but it bore no byline and there was never a follow-up.

The next mention in the United States of Earhart in Saipan came was by an assistant English professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Captain Paul Briand, Jr., in his 1960 book, Daughter of the Sky: The Story of Amelia Earhart.  Josephine Blanco Akiyama, a Saipan native, had worked for a U.S. Navy dentist in Saipan and had told him of seeing, as an 11-year-old, Earhart and Noonan’s arrival in Tanapag Harbor in what she described as a crash landing.  The dentist had passed the story along to Briand, who interviewed Ms. Akiyama.

She saw the American woman standing next to a tall man wearing a short-sleeved sports shirt, and was surprised because the woman was not dressed as a woman usually dressed.  Instead of a dress, the American woman wore a man’s shirt and trousers; and instead of long hair, she wore her hair cut short, like a man.  The faces of the man and woman were white and drawn, as if they were sick.

The book received almost no attention, but in the meantime Ms. Akiyama had immigrated to San Mateo, California, and told her story to San Mateo Times reporter Linwood Day.  The article that Day wrote came to the attention of a newsman at KCBS radio in nearby San Francisco, Fred Goerner.  Goerner became a lifelong researcher of the case and his work in uncovering witnesses, highlighted in his 1966 book, The Search for Amelia Earhart, rivals that of Devine.  Goerner traveled to Saipan and found a number of witnesses who essentially corroborated Ms. Akiyama’s account of Earhart and Noonan being held captives there.  Well before Devine, Goerner with his book also caused a number of Saipan veterans to come forward and contact him concerning evidence of Earhart’s captivity that they had encountered there.  Campbell’s book is replete with many detailed accounts from both island natives and U.S. military veterans.

Crash in the Marshall Islands

Goerner’s greatest contribution, though, one gathers from Campbell, is his pursuit of evidence that the original crash site of Earhart’s Electra was not in Saipan but in the Marshall Islands some 800 miles to the north of Howland.  Saipan, after all, is almost due north of Earhart’s departure point and Howland Island is some 2,500 miles to the east northeast.  The Marshalls were also under control of the Japanese and it is more readily believable that Earhart could have ended up there, groping northward while thinking she had missed Howland to the south.

A key witness that Goerner discovered in the Marshalls was a Japanese medical corpsman who was sixteen years old at the time named Bilimon Amaron.  Though born in Japan, he spent most of his life in the Marshalls, where he became a prosperous businessman.  He said that in the summer of 1937 he was summoned to a Japanese tender ship to treat the minor injuries of an American man with dark hair and blue eyes, and a large silver plane with a broken-off wing was being pulled in a sling behind the ship.  Amaron can be heard after the 2 minute 50 second mark in the Rich Martini video at

.

A number of researchers have examined the Marshall Islands evidence through the years, perhaps the most important of whom was former Air Force C-47 pilot Vincent V. Loomis.  His 1985 book, Amelia Earhart: The Final Story was heavily praised in a review by Jeffrey Hart in the October 18, 1985, National Review.  Hart concluded flatly, “The mystery is a mystery no longer.”

Loomis and others have reached the conclusion that the vessel upon which Amaron treated the two American fliers was the “surveying” ship, the Koshu.  These researchers have also found many people who either corroborate Amaron’s story or saw the two Americans independently.  The following account refers to a 1997 trip to the Marshalls by researcher Bill Prymak.

During the Majuro-to-Honolulu leg of his flight back to the United States, Prymak met the most powerful man in the Marshalls, Robert Reimers, founder of a small empire of hotels, shopping centers, and commercial outlets in the islands.  Reimers, healthy and alert at eighty-eight, was forthcoming in answering Prymak’s questions about events before World War II, especially those about Earhart’s alleged presence in the islands.  Reimers said he knew Bilimon Amaron well, and vouched for his honesty.

“It was widely known throughout the islands by both Japanese and Marshallese that a Japanese fishing boat first found them and their airplane near Mili [Atoll],” Reimers told Prymak.  They then transferred them to a bigger boat.  They were brought to Jabor, where Bilimon treated them.  Oscar deBrum and the Carl Heine family…were living there and knew of this.  They were then taken to Kwajalein and from there to Truk and then Saipan.  There was no mystery…everybody knew it.”  Asked why the Japanese vehemently denied seeing Earhart and Noonan, Reimers replied, “Even in 1937, an intrusion into these islands was a very serious offense.  And in the case of Earhart, a woman pilot, great cover and secrecy was placed…by the Japanese.  But, of course, these are our islands.  And my people—even in their fear—proved very resourceful in knowing such things.” (Campbell, pp. 174-175)

The Reimers version of events, it would appear, is every bit as much the established truth in the Marshall Islands as the crashed-and-sank theory is the official truth in the United States.  So much is that the case that in 1987 the Marshallese government issued a set of four postage stamps commemorating Amelia Earhart’s unfortunate brush with the island.  One of the stamps is titled, “Crash Landing at Mili Atoll July 2, 1937” and another depicts the “Recovery of Electra by the Koshu.” (The stamps are available for purchase at cyberstamps.com.)

Forrestal Not on Saipan

Although they put out their 2002 book as a joint effort, Campbell parts company with Thomas Devine on another Devine article of faith besides the initial crash site of the Earhart airplane.  Devine went to his grave maintaining that he had seen Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal on Saipan directing the handling and final destruction of Earhart’s airplane.  Campbell has meticulously examined the record of Forrestal’s official movements and has concluded that there was no time for Forrestal to have traveled to Saipan and returned to Washington.  Rather, Campbell believes that the man Devine saw was alleged intelligence agent James H. Nichols, who faintly resembled Forrestal and who was identified by Nabers from photographs as the man he saw directing the Electra destruction operation on Saipan.

Devine’s belief that he saw Forrestal on Saipan is part and parcel with his theory as to why the Electra was destroyed and why Earhart’s captivity and death at the hands of the Japanese has been covered up.  Campbell, one gathers, believes that Devine has given his government too much credit.  From Devine’s perspective, the discovery of the airplane and other Earhart artifacts on Saipan was as much a surprise to his superiors as it was to him.  Devine correctly recognized Forrestal as an unusually farsighted and selfless statesman.  Forrestal, Devine thought, must have been looking ahead to the need for harmony with Japan after the war’s end, and he must have felt that news of what the Japanese had done to the popular Earhart would have jeopardized that goal.

Why the Cover-up?

With Forrestal not even on Saipan, that seriously strained theory is out the window.  Campbell is certain that from Forrestal’s position in the chain of command he knew about the cover-up, and like Devine, Campbell believes that Forrestal’s knowledge of what actually happened to Amelia Earhart was a factor in Forrestal’s almost certain murder.  But according to Campbell, the Earhart cover-up could only have been orchestrated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was a horse of an entirely different color from Forrestal.  Roosevelt, according to long-time New York Times Washington correspondent Turner Catledge, “was a consummate manipulator, a man who misled, deceived, lied outright when it was necessary to gain his ends.”  One of those ends, according to Hamilton Fish in FDR, The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II (1976) was “provoking and forcing Japan into war…by ruse, trickery, and deception—by hiding the truth as expertly as Lenin ever did.” (Fish, p. 10; the Catledge quote is from p. 11)

Drawing heavily upon the findings and theories of Goerner, who was granted unusual access to documents and government officials during the brief John Kennedy administration, Campbell suggests that the Earhart expedition was heavily tied up with Roosevelt’s preparation for war with Japan.  What remains in question is only the extent to which she knew that she was being used for that purpose.  She might have known quite a lot and the Japanese might well have been justified in regarding Earhart and Noonan as spies.

Goerner interviewed Margot DeCarie, Earhart’s former secretary, by phone at her home in North Hollywood, California, in the early 1960s.  Despite claiming that she had “promised secrecy” to an unknown party, DeCarrie gave Goerner plenty to consider.  “Do you really think Purdue University bought that plane for Amelia,” she asked, “and do you think that it was intended for some kind of vague experimentation?  Second, if the whole thing was a publicity stunt…why did the government assign some of its top experts to the flight…and why did President Roosevelt have an airfield built for her?” (Campbell, p. 331)

In the Goerner scenario, the highest echelons of the U.S. government knew all along that Earhart and Noonan had been captured by the Japanese.  Though his charge has never been substantiated, Goerner told reporters in 1967 “that ‘a most reliable source’ informed him recently the Navy intercepted Japanese messages at the time the fliers were lost which indicated they were in Japanese hands.”  It was a political bombshell that suggests we had already broken the Japanese codes in 1937 and that on account of that, we would have had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack.  It came 33 years before Robert Stinnett made the broken-code claim in his 2000 book, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, but Goerner was generally ignored.  This writer is of the opinion that if we were in the process of breaking the Japanese codes, listening in on how they dealt with Earhart would have provided an excellent opportunity to nail down the process more completely.

As an establishment newsman, Goerner at his most influential was able to gain some high level audiences for his discoveries and theories, including a number of Congressmen.  He made the following remarks before the National, State, and Relations Subcommittee of the Republican Platform Committee in Miami, Florida, on July 29, 1968:

It was well known within high ranking intelligence sources that Miss Earhart, at the time of her disappearance, was under government instructions to fly over and observe suspected Japanese military developments in the islands of the Pacific.  There were some serious blunders made by the Navy in their attempt to provide Miss Earhart with proper guidance following the completion of her observations and the Navy was determined to conceal their participation and failure of this part of the operation.  The concealment of errors is congenital with the armed services and particularly so in connection with any covert type of operation such as this was.  The mission was not specifically for the United States Navy, but rather was ordered at the request of the highest echelons of the government.  (Campbell, p. 331)

Goerner was later to back off his claim that Earhart had explicit orders to fly over Japanese territory and report her findings, but there is no better explanation for the obvious cover-up that has taken place than that the government had more to do with Earhart’s flight and knew more about her disappearance from the beginning than what they have told us.  Under the larger Goerner scenario from which he did not back off, the massive 16-day search operation for the missing plane would have been nothing but a gigantic sham, aimed primarily at deceiving the Japanese, because we knew all along that they had Earhart and Noonan in custody, but to let the world know would be to tip off the Japanese as to how we knew.  One can imagine FDR laughing up his sleeve at his cleverness.  Then with the sham threatened with exposure when Saipan was taken, Roosevelt’s only option, as he must have seen it, was to attempt to erase the evidence as fast as it appeared.

Continued Media Misdirection

According to Campbell, the contest between evidence revelation by independent, truth-seeking American citizens on the one hand and establishment erasure and misdirection on the other has continued—even intensified—with respect to the Earhart disappearance right up to the present day.  Through the years some of the eyewitness testimony has even made it into the national mainstream.  The very genuine Robert Wallack with his briefcase experience has been heard in 1990 on Unsolved Mysteries(along with Thomas Devine), in 1994 on CBS’s Eye to Eye with Connie Chung, and as late as 2006 in a special on Amelia Earhart on The National Geographic Channel’s Undercover History.  But the latter had the opportunity to use footage from the code clerk, Nabers, which would have really nailed down the story of the Electra destruction on Saipan, and they passed it up.

Now, in the summer seventy-five years after Earhart’s disappearance, the national media have devoted their entire attention to an expedition by one Ric Gillespie of an organization called TIGHAR (The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery) to the vicinity of Gardner Island (also known as Nikumaroro) in search of possible evidence of Earhart’s fate.  We learn from Campbell that his May 14 to June 14, 2010, expedition was his ninth such trip.

“Gillespie offers nothing but the assorted refuse he continuously and unsuccessfully tries to connect to the fliers or the Electra,” says Campbell, “but with a compliant, supportive media and a strong establishment wind at his back, he continues to receive untold hundreds of thousands of dollars from various donors, disclosed and undisclosed, for his serial expeditions to Nikumaroro.” (p. 382)

This time, much of the establishment wind has come from Hillary Clinton:

Why the US support for this effort? Well, for one thing, Clinton herself is something of an Earhart aficionado. She said that when she was growing up in Illinois her mother was an Earhart fan and filled her ears with stories of the aviatrix’s derring-do. This led Clinton to dream of herself becoming an astronaut – so she wrote NASA when she was 13 to ask whether she could qualify.

“NASA wrote me back and said there would not be any women astronauts. And I was just crestfallen,” she said in her speech.

A second reason for today’s government involvement is that the US government was heavily involved with Earhart’s effort in the first place, in part due to its demonstration of American skill and technology during the Great Depression. State Department personnel arranged for visas and safe conduct for Earhart and Noonan and helped shepherd them along the way. On the day she disappeared, a US Coast Guard cutter, the Itasca, was in position off Howland to aid in radio direction finding and resupply.  (The Christian Science Monitor, March 20, 2012.)

Hillary and Gillespie can be seen here being much ballyhooed on CNN.

If the 1937 search was a sham, in light of the massive eyewitness testimony brought forward in Campbell’s book, how much more obvious a sham is this repeated searching for Earhart’s plane by Gillespie under the glare of the U.S. news media!  And what an affront it is to those members of Tom Brokaw’s “greatest generation” who have had the courage to come forward and to tell us frankly what they saw with their own eyes!  When our leaders have no further use for them, it would appear, they really have no use for them.

As we survey what has been told to the public by the American press this year about the Earhart mystery, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, The Washington Post, andHuffington Post, the only hint we get that the latest Gillespie venture might be undermined by eyewitness testimony is found in the left-liberal online Daily Beast.  In The Daily Beast’s article, Earhart biographer Susan Butler praises Gillespie and disparages Goerner, echoing what she had to say in her 1997 book, East to the Dawn.  This is the same Susan Butler to whom Campbell devotes pages 392-411 and gives the section the title, “An Earhart Biographer’s Serial Misstatements.”

One gets the impression that Butler would have hardly written anything different had she been a paid propagandist for the Japanese military government.  “Would Butler have been so cavalier in advancing her unfounded allegations against Goerner, who passed away five years before East to the Dawn was published,” concludes Campbell, “had he been alive to defend himself?”

Don’t expect any of our mainstream press to be directing you to Campbell’s book, though.  If he is to be ignored, it will not be because the case he makes for the capture of Earhart and Noonan by the Japanese is too weak.  It will be because it is too strong.

Oh yes, we find in this little July 17 item in The New York Times that the latest big Pacific search that Hillary gave the big send-off to has come up empty handed.  What a surprise!

David Martin

August 7, 2012

h/t DCDave

Are You Scared Yet?

I hadn’t planned on writing about a guy that was killed around 8 to 10 years ago, but now I can’t help myself. Everywhere that I have been in the past several days that has a TV on has been showing little more than the Fear Narrative driven by OBL’s 9th death. It is EVERYWHERE.

What does that tell me? Not that I have to worry about the constructed Bogeyman Reprisal, but that something big is being planned and the rhetoric is shifting to warp-speed. They want you scared, people. And there are very few people who have not taken the tainted Koolaid. Watch the following I saw at The Intel Hub (the entire piece is good):

Listen to those mindless assholes.

“Better safe than sorry” the Brutha tells us. Then the next person interviewed tells us that we need to use our millions of eyes and ears to keep a vigilant watch out (as IF people don’t, already).

Let me tell you something, I trust very few people already, not because of terrorism, but because people are already getting hungry where I am from. Crime is skyrocketing around here. Break-ins, shoplifting, home invasions on elderly, murder…

People are already losing it, but it has NOTHING to do with any terrorism, it has EVERYTHING to do with survival in a country where decent jobs have disappeared and the ones left don’t pay enough even for the basics. I know several people personally that are facing charges as I write this. These are good people at their heart, but have become desperate enough to do anything because they can’t get a job or have been screwed over by the Law.

But beyond this, listen to the security apparatus’ new digs being setup at malls, train stations, and other “soft” targets. In other words, EVERYWHERE else that people mingle.

Please watch each other. Be suspicious of everyone as a terrorist.

BE LIKE ISRAEL: with a search of every person at every “soft” target area in their country. God, doesn’t that make you wonder just how much of a real outside terrorist problem they have? Does it make you consider that maybe there are many mini false flag events that happened there, which is now expanding here? Hell, it’s all the same people running the show, or their paid and manipulated puppets that run things here (think Chertoff, as a single example).

I just gotta say that being like Israel is NOT what is best for me or my country. However, I cannot deny that it is happening right before our eyes.

Isn’t it amazing how much intel we have gleamed from the documents, pc’s, thumb drives, etc found at OBL’s $1M Estate, er, $250K house? Is it just me, but how much more intel could have been gotten from OBL himself, seeing how now that he could have easily been taken since the lies have been demolished about his armed confrontation and using his wife as a human shield. Do you think that a kidney failed, diabetes infested towel head could have kept from spilling ALL the beans by their favorite torture device, the Water Board?

More insane is the fact that Obama claims that releasing any photos could cause reprisals, yet EVERYTHING insists that we are going to get reprisals without releasing them. But does that stop them from releasing OTHER gruesome photos from that “firefight”? Or did it stop the Saddam Hussein or his sons images from being splattered everywhere?

Seriously, on the face of this, it is evident that all of this is a lie. But even if it isn’t, why do things the way they were done? Check BrassCheckTV for their hypothesis.

I, on the other hand, believe there are a variety of motives behind this. It’s like a massive attempt to go for all the marbles, as it were. Read SteveLendmanBlog post on the subject and catch this:

Issues and Answers

After years of using bin Laden simultaneously as a CIA asset and “Enemy Number One,” why the shift now? Aside from eliminating the alleged top terror threat, major events like this are always strategically timed for political reasons.

At least several stand out now, including:

(1) Boosting Obama’s sagging image. It worked according to a New York Times poll showing an approval bump from 46% in April to an early May 57%, even though the euphoria will soon fade in hard times.

(2) Diverting attention from eroding domestic needs, notably growing angst over a deepening Main Street depression.

(3) Hyping fear for intensified, not less, imperial war, and perhaps preparing the ground for a major false flag attack to advance America’s grand scheme for unchallengeable global dominance.

I pointed out many of the same issues on FB and elsewhere, including the fact that the media whores have stopped talking about Fukushima, where they are nowhere near fixing the spewing radiation that is now found here and elsewhere in the world. Notice how we barely hear that Feds Abandon Extra Radiation Monitoring of Milk, Water. We also have forgotten about Libya, in many ways, especially the fact that our magnificent bombing raids have killed many innocent children and that we are now in cahoots with the very same Al Qaeda in that endeavor (shit, didn’t we just hear that they were our enemy????).

This whole thing is comical in its attempt to form a narrative and when facts are shown to be lies (like the fact that the staged photo-op with Hillary and the boys aghast watching the killings happen live actually could not be true since they lost the video feed for over 20 minutes as it was happening). I told a friend on Facebook that the picture of Clinton looking so freaked out might have just as easily been them watching a bunch of dead babies, except for the fact that I doubt that even THAT would illicit such an image and response from that evil bitch.

Have we simply hired a bunch of actors who play parts on behalf of the Zionists? Just look at how the narrative was setup by Obama not allowing pictures taken of his announcement, then going to set up a photo-op right afterwards so the pictures of his concern could be printed.

Let me ask you a couple of things about this farce and how it makes little sense, even from the players in the play. How can POTUS Obama and Sec Clinton come out and tell us that “justice has been served”, that “the world is a safer place”, and that the “world is better off”, but at the same time that we need to “redouble our efforts”. Redouble? As in spending another $TRILLION on bogus Imperialism of the Middle East? It will never end and the contradictions seemingly escape the mass of Americans.

Look. It is evident that Obama is the lead role in this production, but he didn’t write it, nor direct any of it. This comes from elsewhere up the production food chain. It’s all a production to scare the shit out of you. And the other long-dead actor was paid, not only by our CIA early on, but by British Intelligence AND Mossad.

I saw this at the aangirfan blog (and subsequently watched the rest of the interview at DProgram). If you don’t have time for the entire interview, at least watch this one:

(I would suggest that this man hide, for I see an untimely death for him if they get their hands on him.)

Here is what we need to remember: these people are not incompetent. Of course there are some that are stupid as rocks, but by and large there are very bright people doing this. But it is very difficult to construct such a production when the main actor has been dead for a very long time. Yet the majority of American people are too brainwashed, scared and full of American Exceptionalism to understand that we are watching a play/movie unfold before our eyes.

But what could possibly be their rationale for this production? Especially if he was unarmed.

No, it’s a lie to do something else. And there are surely several goals to be attained due to the lie.

You think its simply to raise Obama’s poll numbers? In the scheme of things, those who control this all don’t give a shit about that (even tho Obama might). There is more to it.

How about the latest news from those thumb drives that tell us of the plot of Al Qaeda to attack rail lines in the USA? Think that might be an excuse to implement scanners and dick touching at railway terminals and other “soft” targets? Isn’t that amazing? Or maybe the fact that the Dollar is crashing and several countries like China, Japan and S Korea are now considering dumping the use of the US Dollar? Or that the Eurozone is quickly falling apart and that Greece wants out?

Or simply think about this post here that I shared a couple of days ago that is getting so much attention lately. Think that any of this, not to mention that almost every source has since shut down any viewing or tracking of Elenin, might be keeping truly IMPORTANT things from being understood?

What else do you think are the motives, besides Obama’s lagging poll numbers that really doesn’t mean shit?

If you like what you see here at The Revolt, please subscribe via Email subscription or by the RSS Feed button found on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Broccoli, Oil or Saving Humanity?

Broccoli

While President Obama didn’t touch on it in his speech tonight, the U.S. is really militarily involved in Libya to protect our strategic interests in broccoli.

Specifically, Gaddafi has been threatening to nationalize Libya’s broccoli resources for years, as Reuters and the Financial Times have previously documented.

(I like Washington Blog’s take on this)

But what is the truth?

Oil

The Coalition of Globalists are not interested in sheltering the Libyan people from Muammar al- Gaddafi. The no-fly zone and attacks on the Libyan military by NATO and U.S. have nothing to do with democracy and free elections.

It’s about oil – and who owns it.

In case you are unaware Libya has the largest oil and natural gas reserves in Africa

Saving Humanity

What a laugh: Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia prove that this is a damned lie, not to mention all the other places in the world that have tyrants killing them left and right, but have nothing of perceived value to the US hegemony.

Does it matter that the “resistance fighters” are Al Qaeda

“We are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders of these opposition forces,” Admiral James Stavridis, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe and also commander of U.S. European Command, said during testimony at the U.S. Senate.

Gaddafi’s troops on Tuesday reversed the westward charge of rebel forces as world powers met in London more than a week after the United States and other nations launched a military campaign aimed at protecting Libyan civilians.

While Stavridis said the opposition’s leadership appeared to be “responsible men and women” fighting Gaddafi, he said that “we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah. We’ve seen different things.”

“But at this point I don’t have detail sufficient to say there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence,” he said.

Some claim that there are over 1,000 jihadists in the “resistance”.

But hell, they will cut a deal…

West willing to strike immunity deal with Gaddafi to end conflict (willing to write off cited war crimes if he surrenders Libya to the Globalists)

Besides, the west sold Libya all the weapons we are now funding the resistance to fight against:

George Galloway interviewed on Sky News with journalist Nabila Ramdani on the Libya, Gaddafi, UN resolution, the bombing, arms, oil and gas.

RawDawg points out that we have no interest, as Americans and that what we are doing is the height of hypocrisy:

First, the US has no strategic or security interest neither in Libya nor in seeing Quaddifi removed from power. Although the premise of protecting civilians is promulgated as being of utmost importance, they do not say if rebels start to kill ruthlessly once they reach the immediate areas around Tripoli, that the US will protect pro government supports equally as vehement. This throws a wrench in what is apparently illogic US logic.

Second, the hypocrisy displayed by the current administration causes additional consternation. Looking at Yemen for example, where in theory we have a strategic interest, we are taking no action. Yemen is a country in which we have evidence that al Qaida is holding training for terrorist attacks against the US. There is also a division between the military between defectors from the monarchy and those loyal to the US confederate President Ali Abdullah Saleh. We are not involved at all yet a split in the military is likely the US worse fear seeing that it may lead to isolation for us not openly and aggressively supporting the youth revolt. They already are more anti-US than most other Arab nations and this may push them closer to Al Qaeda.

And whatever happened to the BFF’s?

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.”

Gaddafi stressed that Obama’s presidency is “a major historical gain” and said, “He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace.”

h/t Zero Hedge

Barry sets the friendship record straight here (I won’t bother putting the video up here and as DS explains:)

Propaganda Alert!

Warning: please don’t eat or drink anything while watching this video, wouldn’t want to hear of anyone choking.  Thank you.  ~ DS

But there are those that will explain the difference in truth and what emanates from Hopester’s mouth (and the fact that he lied to get elected and does totally different once the Sheople voted for him and the Empire):

Of course there is nothing new about shifting positions coming from the mouths of government officials. Take into consideration the March 7 press release by PJ Crowley:

QUESTION: P.J., before getting to a call with Juppé and the implications of that, I just wanted you to get a chance – Mark said on the conference call earlier that the – this story that appeared in the British newspaper over the weekend about the U.S. asking the Saudis to give arms to the Libyan rebels, he said that that was inaccurate and said that you might have something more to say about that.

MR. CROWLEY: I will just reiterate what he said.

QUESTION: Well, the reason I’m even asking this, first, is because at the White House, the spokesman there, when he was asked, gave the response, “I have nothing for you on that,” which, to my mind, was either the refuge of the – is the refuge of the inept or scoundrel. Is there anything to this? It’s less than a non-denial denial.

MR. CROWLEY: No, no. Well –

QUESTION: Can you put a stake through the heart of this story or –

MR. CROWLEY: Yes. Well, it’s very simple. In the UN Security Council resolution passed on Libya, there is an arms embargo that affects Libya, which means it’s a violation for any country to provide arms to anyone in Libya. So it’s not true.

QUESTION: Okay, all right.

QUESTION: And you’re not – so then you’re not going to ever consider arming the rebels?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I can repeat if you want.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. CROWLEY: It would be illegal for the United States to do that.

QUESTION: So that you’re eliminating that as an option?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s not a legal option.

QUESTION: Well, but the –

QUESTION: So you’re not going to do it?

QUESTION: Your counterpart at the White House said that arming the rebels – he said all options are on the table.

MR. CROWLEY: Yes.

QUESTION: And that that is one of them.

MR. CROWLEY: Okay. I haven’t seen a transcript.

Oops! Not on the same page, but Crowley knows the law (supposedly). So, who will override the man’s understanding of the law?

Sec Clinton has other ideas.

Let me finish by quoting some of Paul Craig Roberts latest piece found at Information Clearing House, where you will get a taste of the exact position I take: Obama is a lying hypocrite and I cannot understand how anyone could take him serious again:

In his war against Libya, Obama has taken America one step further into Caesarism. Obama did Bush one step better and did not even bother to get congressional authorization for his attack on Libya. Obama claimed that his moral authority trumped the US Constitution. The hypocrisy reeks. How the public stands it, I do not know:
“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and–more profoundly–our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”

Doesn’t seem to make any difference to the man when it comes to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and every other place we control by killing or money or or torture threats.

If you like what you see here at The Revolt, please subscribe via Email subscription or by the RSS Feed button found on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Will China Own Us?

I have been making this claim for a long time: China will end up owning us. (I have written several posts to that effect here over the years, btw) Impossible, you ask, because we are “America” and we simply won’t let that happen? Don’t be so American Exceptionalist. That is foolish when our very own leaders are implementing a new global governance scheme (and it is talked about openly now. See this):

They make no bones about it and that SHOULD frighten you that they are now touting it. And even tho our monetary situation may cause one to think that it is impossible (“We’re too broke to take over the world”), they still have a Imperialist plan to implement their scheme.

The first time I heard something like this point to give China Eminent Domain was generated by Hal Turner, but I knew he was a shill for the government and doubted anything he had to say and never mentioned that particular aspect here. But now we have someone who I frequently read suggesting it: Bob Chapman.

Now many people may think that Bob is some sort of disinformation specialist like Turner was, but if you do, share with me why you think that (give a link, if possible). So far, Bob has been pretty much straight on in his evaluations and predictions.

I have found only one source other that this video I just happened to watch on Intel Hub’s site, so it is difficult to verify. As a matter of fact, when I did try to retrieve the Feb 23 edition of Chapman’s International Forecaster to show you here, it apparently is only found on the part of the publication that is paid for and not the excerpt that is published. I did read it at AboveTopSecret Blog. Click that link to read for yourself.

After trying to retrieve the source that AboveTopSecret links to, I found that the page doesn’t exist any longer, which causes me to question its veracity. But before you totally discount it take time to watch the following two videos (the first makes the claim that the final dollar collapse could be by Christmas of this year and especially the second one where Woody O’Brien and SGT discuss the claim that Hillary Clinton promised some of the US to China). BTW, I have no idea who SGT is:

So, it is impossible for me to verify the claim that these two suggest Bob makes, but I have been suggesting this possibility long before I ever heard of any of these people or sites. In many ways it makes sense to me and we should be prepared for the worse, should it happen.

And before you shrug it off, look into the purchase of a shopping mall in Milwaukee, WI by Beijing’s Toward Group called Amesia Plaza that will house Chinese-only retail companies. I’m sure there are many other examples, if one takes the time to look.

Any thoughts or can someone else verify the claims?

If you like what you see here, please subscribe to the RSS Feed found under the Meta Box on the upper right hand corner of this page and/or hit the Share Button at the bottom of the post to share via various means.

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Bernanke Says: It Doesn’t Hurt Cause I Have Them

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

What Is Truth?

What is truth?

h/t Organizing Notes

This is the lie with truth subtitles:

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Who’s Up Next For The Empire’s Affections?

I have been a long time reader of Steve Lendman’s blog. He does some really thorough work that details aspects of government shenanigans and is a daily read for me (highly recommended). In today’s article, Steve delves into the hypocrisy that is America’s foreign policy. He points out the lies and distractions, the American instigated coup attempts, the name calling and innuendo used to marginalize Chavez.

I talk to people every day that can do nothing except regurgitate the propaganda against Chavez and his socialistic agenda. All the while, they have no clue that in comparison to America, Venezuela is an angel, whereas America is Satan, himself. Allow Steve to lay it out as well as anything I have read:

Venezuela in Washington’s Crosshairs

Venezuela in Washington’s Crosshairs – by Stephen Lendman

Washington fears Hugo Chavez for good reason. His “good example” threat raises concerns that other regional leaders may follow. As a result, throughout his tenure, he’s been targeted and vilified – to discredit, weaken and undermine his government to destroy Bolivarian benefits millions of Venezuelans now enjoy, won’t easily give up, nor should they.

Several failed coup attempts included:

– April 2002 for two days, an effort aborted by mass street protests and support from many in Venezuela’s military, especially from the middle-ranking officer corp;

– the 2002 – 2003 general strike and oil management lockout, causing severe economic disruption and billions of dollars in losses; and

– the August 2004 national recall referendum that Chavez won overwhelmingly with a 59% majority.

Thereafter, disruptions regularly followed to help domestic and US oligarchs regain what they lost, so far without success, but they persist, with supportive editorial, op-ed, and on-the-ground reporting. Also from an Organization of American States (OAS) report, the Vision of Humanity’s annual Global Peace Index (GPI), US State Department, and Pentagon.

On March 19, Reuters reported that, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, General Douglas Fraser, USSOUTHCOM (US Southern Command) head, claimed Chavez backs Colombian leftists, saying:

His government “continue(s) to have a very anti-US stance and look(s) to try and restrict US activity wherever they have the opportunity to do that. (It’s) continuing to engage with the region….and continuing to pursue (its) socialism agenda. (It) remain(s) a destabilizing force in the region.”

He said Venezuela continues to support FARC-EP rebels, providing “financial logistical support” and a safe haven based on evidence found on a laptop seized in a 2008 Ecuadorean guerrilla camp raid – information later proved bogus.

Yet a week earlier, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Fraser testified otherwise, saying:

“We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection” between Chavez and either the FARC-EP or the Basque separatist group ETA. “We have continued to watch very closely for any connections between illicit and terrorist organization activity within the region. We are concerned about it. I’m skeptical. I continue to watch for it,” but as yet haven’t found it.

During her March 1 – 5 Latin American tour, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gratuitously insulted Chavez. So did Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, in Senate testimony, accusing him of FARC-EP ties – suggesting much more to come to boost opposition candidates in September parliamentary elections.

US State Department 2009 Human Rights Report: Venezuela

Released on March 11, it followed earlier ones, bogusly accusing Chavez of:

– harassing and intimidating political opponents;

– targeting the media; and

– numerous human rights violations, including:

– “unlawful killings;

– summary executions of criminal suspects;

– widespread criminal kidnappings for ransom;

– prison uprisings resulting from harsh prison conditions;

– arbitrary arrests and detentions;

– corruption and impunity in police forces;

– a corrupt, inefficient, and politicized judicial system characterized by trial delays and violations of due process;

– (targeting) political opponents and selective prosecution(s) for political purposes;

– infringement of citizens’ privacy rights by security forces;

– government closure of radio and television stations and threats to close others;

– government attacks on public demonstrations;

– systematic discrimination based on political grounds;

– considerable corruption at all levels of government;

– threats and attacks against domestic NGOs;

– violence against women;

– inadequate juvenile detention centers;

– trafficking in persons; and

– restrictions on workers’ right of association.”

Other charges have included drugs trafficking and ties to bogusly designated “foreign terror organizations” like the FARC-EP and ETA.

These sham charges and similar ones repeat regularly to discredit and undermine Chavez. Ironically, they’re more descriptive of American domestic and foreign policies – ones that defy US and international laws with regard to human and civil rights, equal justice, war, occupation, domestic tranquility, and the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 for the Congress to “provide (for) the general welfare of the United States,” the so-called welfare clause applying also to the Executive and judiciary.

In contrast, Chavez promotes world solidarity, democratic freedoms, human and civil rights, judicial fairness, fair and open elections, and a free and open media. He doesn’t invade other countries, has no secret prisons, doesn’t practice torture, or conduct fraudulent elections. As a result, he inspires millions worldwide, and has widespread domestic majority support. Yet bogus State Department charges persist.

Ones as well from a recent OAS report titled, “Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela,” produced under the mandate of the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

Among others, its bogus accusations include:

– restricting human rights “enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights;”

– no independent separation among government branches;

– state punitive power to “intimidate or punish people on account of their political opinions;”

– denying journalists the right to report freely;

– “a pattern of impunity in cases of violence,” especially against “media workers, human rights defenders, trade unionists, participants in public demonstrations, people held in custody, campesinos (small-scale and subsistence farmers), indigenous peoples, and women;”

– restricted opportunities for opposing political candidates to secure “access to power;”

– disempowering opposition politicians through legal and other means;

– intimidating and punishing dissent against official policy through harassment, violence, and criminal proceedings;

– targeting peaceful opposition demonstrations;

– the absence of an independent, impartial judiciary; and

– numerous other charges like the US State Department’s, more descriptive of America, suggesting a hidden motive behind the report’s issuance; perhaps also its timing, two weeks before the State Department’s similar accusations.

Chavez called it “pure excrement….ineffable (and) ignominious” in denouncing the IACHR as “menacing….a true mafia and is part of the OAS, which is why one of these days this organization must disappear….It is the same Commission which backed (the de facto government of Pedro) Carmona” after the April 2002 coup. “But this is part of the attacks, of continued threats against the Bolivarian Revolution, (a) continued campaign (supported by Venezuelan and American oligarchs to) isolat(e) Venezuela.”

OAS history is long and shameful in deference to US interests.

Writing in Granma Internacional in June 2009, Editor Oscar Sanchez Serra said:

Throughout its history, the OAS “made democracies ungovernable, turned them into dictatorships, and when they were no longer useful, reconverted them into even more diminished and servile democracies, because in the new, neoliberal era, with transnationalized oligarch(ic) capital, they were part of a much more sophisticated power structure, whose bases were not necessarily located in the presidential palaces or parliaments, but in continental corporations.”

OAS nations had decades of “involvement with death, genocide and lies for (it) to survive these times. It is a political corpse and should be buried as soon as possible….The reality is, without the OAS, the United States would lose one of its principle political/legal instruments of hegemonic control over the Western Hemisphere.”

In February 2004, Washington got its backing to justify ousting Haiti’s President Jean-Betrand Aristide. Then in 2009, it abstained from strong actions after Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was deposed, opting instead for symbolic toothless measures. It’s new report reveals transparent support for bogus US charges, not Venezuela’s participatory democracy, largely absent in the region and unimaginable in America where Washington is corporate controlled territory, and popular interests go unaddressed.

The Global Peace Index (GPI)

Launched by Australian entrepreneur, Steve Killelea, in May 2007, it claims to be the first study of its kind ranking nations according to peacefulness, identifying key peace drivers. Its initial report included 121 countries, increased to 140 in 2008 and 144 in its latest 2009 report, released in June last year.

Its problematic endorsers include:

– the Dalia Lama, a known CIA asset from the late 1950s to mid- 1970s, and may still be one now;

– John Malcolm Fraser, former Australian Prime Minister;

– Kofi Annan, infamous as UN Secretary-General for backing US imperial wars while ignoring the plight of oppressed Africans and others globally;

– Ban Ki-moon, current UN Secretary-General, performing the same services as Annan;

– corporate figures including Ted Turner (CNN founder) and Richard Branson (chairman, Virgin Group);

– an array of prominent current and past political and diplomatic figures;

– two members of Jordanian royalty;

– numerous academics; and others.

Organizations preparing GPI’s report and/or responsible for its data include:

– the Economist Intelligence Unit (founded by a former UK director of intelligence), calling itself “the world’s foremost provider of country, industry and management analysis” since 1946;

– the Uppsala Conflict Data Program at Sweden’s Uppsala University, producing annual “States in Armed Conflict” reports;

– the Oslo, Norway International Peace Research Institute, a private/publicly funded organization, producing “Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding Annual Reports;” and

– the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), calling itself “the world’s leading authority on political-military conflict” with 450 corporate and institutional members.

The world was less peaceful in 2008, according to GPI, reflecting intensified conflicts and the effects of rising food and fuel prices at a time of global economic crisis, impacting employment, incomes, savings, and for many shelter, enough to eat, and the ability to survive.

GPI used 23 indicators to measure the level or absence of peace, divided into three broad categories, including:

– ongoing domestic and international conflict;

– safety and security in society; and

– militarization.

Scores were then “banded, either on a scale of 1 – 5 (for qualitative indicators) or 1 – 10 (for quantitative data, such as military expenditure or the jailed population, which have then been converted to a 1- 5 scale for comparability when compiling the final index).”

Indicators include:

– number of external and internal conflicts from 2002 – 07;

– estimated number of deaths from external conflicts;

– estimated number from internal ones;

– level of internal conflicts;

– relations with neighboring countries;

– perceptions of criminality in society;

– number of displaced people as a percentage of population;

– political instability;

– level of disrespect for human rights;

– potential for terrorist acts;

– number of homicides per 100,000 people;

– level of violent crime;

– likelihood of violent demonstrations;

– number of jailed population per 100,000 people;

– number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 population;

– military expenditures as a percent of GDP;

– number of military personnel per 100,000 population;

– volume of major weapon imports per 100,000 people;

– volume of major weapon exports per 100,000 people;

– funding for UN peacekeeping missions;

– total number of heavy weapons per 100,000 people;

– ease of access to small arms and light weapons; and

– the level of military capability.

Conspicuously absent is any measure of outside influence causing internal violence, instability, and/or disruption. Top rankings went to New Zealand, Denmark and Norway. Ranked worst were Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Israel.

Venezuela ranked an implausible 120th behind Yemen, Haiti, Iran, Honduras, Uzbekistan, Uganda, Rwanda, and dozens of other unlikely choices. America was 83rd, despite hands down being the world’s most violent lawless state, directly or through global proxy wars for unchallengeable world dominance.

It’s also a domestic armed camp, using police state laws to quash human rights and civil liberties, criminalize dissent, illegally spy, control information, persecute political opponents, steal elections, and transfer public wealth to elitist private hands.

In contrast, Venezuela is democratic and peaceful, except during periods of Washington-instigated disruptions. America alone endangers global stability and world peace, waging permanent wars, targeting peaceful nations, and claiming the unilateral right to use first strike nuclear weapons preemptively. It also maintains over 1,000 bases and many secret ones in over 130 countries. Its annual military budget tops all other nations combined – way over $1 trillion plus tens of additional billions for intelligence and black operations, mostly for covert destabilization.

It overthrows democratically elected governments, assassinates foreign leaders and key officials, props up friendly dictators, practices torture as official policy, operates the world’s largest domestic and offshore gulag, destabilizes world regions, and is hated and feared globally as a result.

In contrast, Chavez seeks regional and global alliances; engages foreign leaders cooperatively; assassinates no one internally or abroad; has no nuclear weapons or seeks them; spends less than one-half of one percent of the Pentagon’s official budget; doesn’t export weapons to neighbors; is socially responsible at home; has no secret prisons; respects the rule of law; is a model participatory democracy; governs peacefully; supports civil and human rights and social justice; affirms free expression; bans discrimination; and uses Venezuela’s resources responsibly – for people needs, yet is friendly to business at home and abroad.

Nonetheless, GPI ranks it below America in human and civil rights, level of organized internal conflict, relations with neighboring countries, potential for terrorist acts, level of violent crime, political instability, perceptions of criminality in society, ease of access to small weapons, freedom of the press, political democracy, adult literacy (way above the US Department of Education’s assessment), and willingness to fight.

Transparency International (TI) also rates Venezuela low in its 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), indicating the perceived level of public sector corruption by country, claiming a 90% confidence of accuracy. It ranks America implausibly high at 19th and Venezuela outrageously low at 162nd out of 180 countries, behind notoriously corrupt states, including corporate occupied Washington, siphoning trillions of public dollars to private hands as part of the greatest ever wealth transfer.

In ranking America v. Venezuela, TI, GPI, and OAS measures look suspiciously manipulated to place a global hegemon above a peaceful democratic state that coincidentally is Washington’s top regional target.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://prognewshour.progressiveradionetwork.org/

http://lendmennews.progressiveradionetwork.org/

Sec Clinton Threatens China With “Back in Asia” Initiative

Well, here ya go, boys and girls. If you are still thinking that we are just the magnanimous country trying to take care of the world and aren’t an evil-assed empire whose goal is hegemony and total rule of this planet, then I cannot tell you how dumb a sum bitch you are.

It is no secret any longer. We are making the final power grab in the world. But I want to explain how bad it really is: we are now threatening China, subversively, with military intervention because they are using their economic might to secure positions of power in Asia. It seems that it is unacceptable to American policy that they compete economically. It appears that we will use military force against them because they can compete and we cannot.

This is the sign of a declining Empire. Taken from “Clinton speech underlines US-China tensions” by John Chan on 15 January 2010:

In a statement, Clinton seized on Google’s current threat to pull out of China over Beijing’s tight control over the Internet. She expressed her “serious concerns” over the issue, saying: “We look to the Chinese government for an explanation.” Her statement indicates that Washington intends to ratchet up its rhetoric on human rights in China, including over Internet censorship—issues that it had played down.

In this context, Clinton’s speech to the East-West Centre in Hawaii highlighted the Obama administration’s determination to counter China’s growing influence in Asia. She declared: “I don’t think there is any doubt, if there was when this administration began, that the United States is back in Asia, but I want to underscore, we are back to stay.” She underlined earlier comments by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates that the US is “not a visiting power in Asia, but a resident power”.

Wow. Imagine how our Founding Fathers must consider such a thing. We are embroiling ourselves in a place where it is not our business, unless we do business. We cannot expect the world to stand idly by as we wane in power without a fight. It is clear that the Chinese own us and that our government has made it possible that we sell more debt than we can ever pay back. They don’t raise these bogus debt ceilings for nothing.

But, it isn’t us that I am worried about as far as raising ceilings. It is the fact that at some point, the world is going to give us the middle finger and tell us where to get off. When they do that (and it is coming sooner than one might think), the dollar will fall to nothingness within days, if not hours.

I can think of it as we are in a small dingy, going down river and all seems so nice and wonderful. Even as we near the water fall, everything seems smooth and happy. Nothing to worry about… that is, until you hear the roar and realize you are but seconds away from death and carnage and there is nothing you can do about it as a passenger in the dingy. Methinks that Mr Obama/Mrs Clinton hears the roar:

In her speech, Clinton signalled the Obama administration’s intention to make more aggressive diplomatic moves. She declared that the US would seek to “actively participate” in all key regional forums, including ASEAN+3 and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. ASEAN+3 is an exclusively Asian body involving the ASEAN countries plus China, Japan and South Korea. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation was formed by Russia and China in 2001 to counter growing US involvement in Central Asia.

The secretary of state emphasised that the “future of this region depends on America”. It was in the interests of Asian countries to have the US as “a dynamic economic partner and a stabilising military influence”. She highlighted Washington’s formal defence treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines as the cornerstone of US policy in Asia.

These remarks sought to send a message that the US would not allow Beijing to use its economic power to exclude the US from the region, and would contain China militarily. Clinton was more explicit in comments to reporters on Monday, declaring: “Everyone’s aware that China is a rising power of the 21st century. But people want to see the United States fully engaged in Asia, so that as China rises the United States is there as a force of peace.”

Force of Peace? Jesus Christ in a handbag. China is strengthening themselves in finance and we are telling them that we are going to consider that an aggressive posture (even tho we are guilty of the same) and that we are going to counter that financial aggression with military might. THAT is exactly what happened to the Roman Empire. Spread too thin and incapable of carrying forward financially. So, they threatened everyone with military might (which only works for a short period of time).

These countries are going to tell us to get screwed. When they do, our military will NOT be able to do a damned thing financially to help us. We are a dying Empire that will NOT stop the killing because we can’t now. It is too far gone.

h/t wsws.org

That’s The Way It Ain’t

Quoting Pete at Drug WarRant:

I grew up watching Walter, whether he was reporting the news or helping us be a part of the great and terrible moments in history, from the Apollo missions to the tragedies of the day. But he did more than report. He was a classic journalist — he wanted to really know, so he could do his part to pass on the truth — not a he-said, he-said political beltway mouthpiece (that dominate network and cable news today), but real journalism. It’s no surprise that he was considered the most trusted man in television.

Pete speaks for me in my sentiment of Mr Cronkite. Please visit the site to see the entire series, but I must post the last part of the program and highlight that he is calling, fully over a decade ago, for what STILL needs to be done at this very moment. We have made ZERO strides towards his opinion and it is time that we make things right.

Our Drug Policy is a nightmarish and dismal failure.

Walter Cronkite: On America’s “Disastrous” War on Drugs

Mr Cronkite seemed like a voice of wisdom, especially when it came to America’s profit driven drug policy and his stance on war and peace. Dennis Kucinich holds him in esteem and did a lengthy interview with him about his “Department of Peace” initiative.

My generation came of age at a time when Walter Cronkite was the name in American culture, synonymous with credibility and respect.  His role in our society transcended his TV news anchor position.  His pronouncements on the events of our time were like a slow rolling thunder delivered from an electronic Mount Olympus.  When he said ‘and that’s the way it is,’ we believed his every word because his compassion, dignity and respect merited our trust.
In his later years, Walter Cronkite became a powerful spokesperson for world peace. I was humbled to share a platform with him at an event sponsored by the Peace Alliance.

Please continue to rally support for our legislation to create a cabinet level Department of Peace, HR808, which now has 70 cosponsors in the House
of Representatives.

Thank you.

However, there was a side that many may not know. His affinity (after retiring from Broadcasting) for a “Democratic New World Order” in which we must give up some of our sovereignty as Americans to achieve it. In spite of what our Founding Fathers had in mind:

snippet:

It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen. The circumstances were vastly different, obviously. Yet just because the task appears forbiddingly hard, we should not shirk it. We cannot defer this responsibility to posterity. Democracy, civilization itself, is at stake. Within the next few years we must change the basic structure of our global community from the present anarchic system of war and ever more destructive weaponry to a new system governed by a democratic U.N. federation…

…Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. We need a system of enforceable world law –a democratic federal world government– to deal with world problems. What Alexander Hamilton wrote about the need for law among the 13 states applies today to the approximately 200 sovereignties in our global village: “To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.” Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law.

I can understand a person wanting world peace, that’s what I want. But I sure do not believe that giving up America’s sovereignty is the way to go forth. Why would we ever want to be a World Federation? Cultures are vastly different. Ways of life are vastly different. And it leads precisely to the situation we find ourselves in today… a central government that begins to limit and police the individual states of the federation, as the citizenry gets dumbed down. The last thing we need is a New World federation. We need to properly use the one we have first.

As much of a hold the guy had on America during his On-Air days, afterwards, even though he wanted peace, he was either misguided or, as quite a few people have pointed out since his death, he was a New World Order Wienie.

New World Order

Hillary Clinton Caught Mouthing Along To Presidential Oath (Just In Case)

Hillary Clinton Mouthing Along To Presidential Oath

WASHINGTON—Network news cameras covering Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony Tuesday captured Hillary Clinton silently moving her lips along with each word of the minute-long presidential oath of office. As she stood watching several yards from Chief Justice John Roberts, the former Democratic presidential candidate could be observed placing her left hand on a leather appointment book and raising her right hand slightly from her hip. Clinton, who carefully followed the swearing-in procedure with her eyes shut tightly, only varied from the president’s words once, when she soundlessly mouthed her name instead of Barack Obama’s. Clinton was later seen at an inaugural ball pretending she was dancing with first lady Michelle Obama.

via The Onion

Extract a NeoConservative – Insert a NeoLiberal (The Play Book Of Big Money)

B’Man: Surely, by now, you have realized that Obama is no liberal or real progressive. It is obvious that his bread is buttered by Big Money and he now has surrounded himself with a host of zionists, CFR Members and Bilderberg associates (all The Elite’s hand maiden’s). If you read here, you have heard me bitch about this (long before the man was elected by you rednecks) and I believe that we need to change the way we think about elections and stop letting them ride roughshod over us due to our gullible stupidity.

To break down the members that Obama has chosen, it doesn’t take rocket scientists to understand where they will take us (they are taking us precisely where Bush’s Admin was taking us… world hegemony and Imperialism). They may use a slightly different tact, but not much different. Hell, they are all basically the same, but the rednecks of America keep “hoping” that this will “change”. It won’t unless you wise up.

I will quote from two different articles at World Prout Assembly: Change? Obama Inner Circle Filled With Bilderbergers by Victor Thorn (in black) and Obama’s National Security Team: Minions of the New World Order by The Editor (in blue):

FOR TWO YEARS, Americans have heard an unrelenting mantra of change emanating from the campaign trail. But now that President-elect Barack Obama has begun forming his cabinet, we’re seeing a cadre of more deeply entrenched insiders than any administration that has preceded it.

In regard to key foreign policy advisors, all three of Obama’s selections either initially supported the Iraq war, or still do. On the economic front, each appointee maintains a close relationship with the Jewish triad of Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan–as well as bailout engineer Henry Paulson. Barack Obama himself is a Council on Foreign Relations member, has strong ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski, and participated in a clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton at Bilderberg member Diane Feinstein’s house at the time when 2008 Bilderberg members were congregating only a few miles away.

Below is an overview of Obama’s top 14 selections to date. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change under Obama, the more they stay the same.

1. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin.

2. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family.

3. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF

Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, senator, Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton’s finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group.

4. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, prot�g� of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin.

5. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR

Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals.

6. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/ cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths.

Hillary Clinton: As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton will continue the Bush-Clinton legacy of mass murder and “humanitarian” interventions in “failed states,” that is to say states not toting the New World Order party line.

Clinton wrote for the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs that ending “the war in Iraq is the first step toward restoring the United States’ global leadership,” never mind her 2002 Senate vote allowing Bush and the neocons to invade Iraq and subsequently slaughter over a million Iraqis.

Clinton, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has stated she wants to send more troops into the Afghan meat grinder and have them chase the CIA-created Taliban and al-Qaeda around. Afghanistan needs to get “as much, if not more attention” than Iraq, said Clinton earlier this year on a campaign stop in Cape Fear, North Carolina, an appropriately named venue.

“The next president will be the first to inherit two wars, a long-term campaign against global terrorist networks, and growing tension with Iran as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons. The United States will face a resurgent Russia whose future orientation is uncertain and a rapidly growing China that must be integrated into the international system,” Clinton wrote for the CFR. In other words, the wars will continue, Iran will be “confronted” (bombed into submission), and Russia and China forced into the “international system,” in other words the bankster system that thrives on looting and imposed debt misery.

Clinton, as Secretary of State, will continue the phony GWOT indefinitely. “It is essential that we win this war against these borderless terrorists, but it is, I believe, critical that we once again recommit ourselves to that American internationalism that I mentioned in the beginning,” Clinton told Richard Haass and the Council on Foreign Relations in 2003. Internationalism, of course, is inseparable from neoliberal globalism of the sort the CFR has pushed for decades.

7. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

8. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan.

9. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair.

Robert Gates: More than anything, keeping Robert Gates on at the Pentagon is a signal to the plebs that the neocon policies of the Bush administration will stay in effect, albeit with a few minor changes and a lot of window dressing.

Gates is a loyal Bush senior stooge. During Bush 41′s presidency, Gates served as deputy national security adviser and then as CIA director. He was dean of the Bush School and then president of Texas A&M, which is where the Bush presidential library is located. “In other words, Bob Gates is a Bush 41 kinda guy,” writes Ivo Daalder.

Robert Gates is a consummate insider. “Gates indeed worked under every U.S. president from Richard M. Nixon to George Herbert Walker Bush,” notes the National Security Archive. He is closely connected to former Secretary of State James Baker III, a prominent CFR member and Bush crime family functionary and consigliere.

“The Iran Contra affair in which Robert Gates was implicated was part of the architecture of the ‘war on terrorism’. What is rarely acknowledged is that part of the proceeds of the illegal weapons sales to Iran were also used to finance the CIA sponsored Islamic brigades (i.e. Al Qaeda) involved in the Soviet-Afghan war. These covert operations in support of Al Qaeda paved the way for the ‘war on terrorism’ which constitutes the cornerstone of US National Security doctrine,” writes Michel Chossudovsky.

As Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates will oversee the military aspects of this doctrine with an invasion of Pakistan and further involvement in Afghanistan.

10. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY

Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin.

11. ERIC HOLDER – ATTORNEY GENERAL

Key person in the pardon of racketeer Marc Rich, deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, facilitated the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists under Bill Clinton.

Eric Holder: Former Clintonite and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder will be Obama’s attorney general. Holder is probably best and infamously remembered for his role in the controversial pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, the FBI Most Wanted criminal who colluded with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages.

In private practice as an attorney, Holder represents Merck and helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department for Chiquita Brands International in a case that involved Chiquita’s payment of “protection money” to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a group on the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations.

Most disturbing, however, is the role Holder played in the D.C. v. Heller ruling on handguns. Holder joined the Reno-led amicus brief, which urged the Supreme Court to uphold Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and said the Department of Justice from Franklin Roosevelt through Bill Clinton had always believed that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of individuals to own guns for personal use. In short, Holder is a gun grabber who is opposed to the Second Amendment. As attorney general, we can bet he will work tirelessly to outlaw all firearms in the United States.

Finally, Holder has advocated government censorship of the internet. “It is gonna be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at,” Holder told NPR after the Columbine massacre in 1999.

12. JANET NAPOLITANO – HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR

Council on Foreign Relations, Arizona governor, attorney for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, instrumental in the OKC cover-up, where she declared, “We’ll pursue every bit of evidence and every lead,” described as another Janet Reno, soft on illegal immigration (i.e. pro-amnesty and drivers licenses to illegals).

Janet Napolitano: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will be Obama’s Homeland Security secretary. She will continue the do-nothing approach to illegal immigration. “Far from being a border hawk, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano frequently blocked efforts to curb illegal immigration, say enforcement advocates concerned about her expected nomination to be the Homeland Security secretary under President Barack Obama,” reports Fred Lucas for CNS News. She opposes a border fence and favors a controversial technology visa program and favors a “stringent pathway to citizenship,” in other words allowing millions of illegal aliens to become citizens.

As a CFR member, Napolitano is onboard with the globalist agenda to impoverish the American worker. She has proposed endless H-1B visas in order to displace skilled workers. “I’m going to direct the Secretary of Labor to tell us what our labor market needs are, and we’re going to adjust the visas accordingly, and we’re going to put in place a process to do that, protecting jobs for American workers but realizing that we will have a national labor shortage moving forward. I’m going to pay specific attention to certain areas such as H-1B visas [for skilled workers], where there is such a demonstrated need and there’s more than enough work for everyone to go around,” Donald A. Collins quotes her as declaring.

13. GEN. JAMES L. JONES – NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR

Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle-East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, NATO commander, member of Brent Scowcroft’s Institute for International Affairs along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger and former CIA Director John Deutch.

Gen. James Jones: Former Marine general and former NATO supreme commander James Jones will be Obama’s National Security Advisor. Jones sits on the board of directors of the Boeing Company, Chevron, and NATO’s Atlantic Council of the United States. Jones is cozy with the Council on Foreign Relations. He is reportedly a good friend of John McCain and is respected by Republicans.

In essence, Jones will serve as Big Oil’s security chief. “Jones is currently a director of Chevron Oil. He also heads of the Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy — a group lobbying on energy issues in DC and described by the Grist as ‘part of the Republican machine, dominated by — and lobbying fiercely for the interests of — Big Oil, Big Auto, Big Pharma, and other such Bigs,’” writes Mitchell Anderson.

“Jones would be reflective of two huge Obama priorities,” notes Spencer Ackerman. “First, Afghanistan. As NATO Commander, Jones ceaselessly lobbied the European allies for greater assistance in the Afghanistan war. Second, energy security. Jones is widely known to be an advocate of alternative energy sources, and, as Politico notes, chairs an energy task force for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And of course there’s the good optics of such a well-respected general being Obama’s closest White House aide on foreign policy.”

Incidentally, even though former Sec. Def. Rumsfeld exiled Jones to his mostly ceremonial NATO post, the general is onboard with the coming attack against Pakistan and possibly Iran. During a September, 2006 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Jones testified that it was “generally accepted” that Taliban leaders operated out Quetta, Pakistan.

Finally, Jones “has pointed to Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo as a ‘model’ for US bases elsewhere,” writes Chad Nagle. “Anyone who has seen the gigantic and ominous Bondsteel, set amid the wasteland of bombed out and destitute Kosovo, has an idea of what the US-imposed New World Order will look like – destroyed dumps where a fortress houses thousands of American military personnel behind its walls and the fearful population outside can rot in hell.

It was, of course, the husband of Obama’s choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that turned Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia into a wasteland. An Obama administration promises more of the same.

14. SUSAN RICE – U.N. AMBASSADOR

Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes scholar, campaign foreign policy advisor to presidential candidates John Kerry and Michael Dukakis, member of Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and assistant secretary of state for Africa, member of the Brookings Institute (funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers), and member of the Aspen Strategy Group (teeming with Bilderberg insiders such as Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, and Madeleine Albright).

Susan E. Rice: Ms. Rice, a former assistant secretary of state for African Affairs under Clinton and a Rhodes scholar, is a minion of the Brooking Institution. Brookings is a neolib “think tank” par excellence. It is funded by the Ford Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, American Express, the Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, and the United Nations.

Rice, who the neocons consider a “leftist,” is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group, the latter where she rubs elbows with the likes of Brent Scowcroft, the neocon Eliot A. Cohen (a “leading champion” of the war in Iraq), Madeleine Albright (a proponent of mass murdering Iraqi children), CFR president Richard N. Haass, and other crossover neocons and neolibs.

Party Time!

Party Time!

Grandmother Proud To Have Lived Long Enough To See First Viable Female Candidate Torn Apart

PEORIA, IL—Seventy-six-year-old grandmother Anita Graney told reporters Monday that she was “overwhelmed with pride” for having lived to see the first viable female presidential candidate in the nation’s history so successfully run into the ground by vicious media attacks and hubristic, arrogant miscalculations. “Hillary [Clinton] showed America that a woman can be politically destroyed just as completely and heartbreakingly as any man,” said Graney, a lifelong feminist. “What an amazing example for today’s young women who aspire to fail spectacularly at the highest levels.” Graney expressed hope that one of her granddaughters might someday be the first woman to get utterly eviscerated in a nationwide general election.

Check out The Onion Movie Blog and win a free DVD. Offer ends today.

U.S.A.’s Middle Eastern Affairs Failures Perpetuated by Obama

B’Man: I have come to the conclusion that our meddling in the Israel’s government’s affairs is totally counterproductive to our safety and security. Our unending support of this nation, while turning a blind eye to Israel’s own abuses and hypocrisy (especially about nukes in the area), will not give us further security. It makes even more enemies out of the other Muslim countries in the area.

The more I read and learn about AIPAC and its control over America’s foreign affairs, the more I am frightened and confused. How is it that we have gotten to the “Spike the Bulldog/Chester the Terrier” mindset? I will be writing more about this in the near future. Until then, I wanted to share an email I received from the Nader campaign which highlights how the “Major” candidates are all the same when it comes to Israel and our unending support and defense of their foreign policy which is the reason why I can say that the little dog is wagging the Big Dog tail.

Ralph Nader for President 2008

There is one clear choice this year for peace in the Middle East.

Nader/Gonzalez.

Thanks to your ongoing support, the Nader/Gonzalez peace in the Middle East campaign is aiming to be on the ballot nationwide in November.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the courageous Israeli and Palestinian peace movements.

Only Nader/Gonzalez stands with the majority of Jewish Americans and Arab Americans which polls repeatedly show support a two-state solution as a way for peace in the Middle East.

Only Nader/Gonzalez would reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Doubt it?

Then just listen to Barack Obama’s speech from this morning to the militarist and right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Did Obama make one mention of the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people and the UN-documented resulting humanitarian disaster there?

He did not.

Instead, Obama talked about “a Gaza controlled by Hamas with rockets raining down on Israel.”

Did Obama mention U.S. government supplied Israeli firepower resulting in Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza at a ratio of 400 to 1 (Palestinian to Israeli)

He did not.

Many peace loving Israelis and Jewish Americans will be disgusted by Obama’s speech today.

Like the editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz who wrote that the Israeli government has “lost its reason” through the brutal incarceration, devastation and deprivation of the innocent people in Gaza.

Obama told AIPAC today that “we must isolate Hamas.” (In its current form.)

Did he mention that a March 2008 Haaretz poll showed that 64 percent of the Israeli people want direct negotiations for peace between Israel and Hamas, while only 28% oppose it?

He did not.

Instead, Obama said this morning that “Egypt must cut off the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.”

Did he say that Israel must stop bombing the people of Gaza?

He did not.

Obama this morning told AIPAC that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Did Obama mention that this pledge undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan?

He did not.

So, in a nutshell:

In this critical election year, Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.

Obama/McCain stand with the hard-line minority position of AIPAC.

With your generous help, Nader/Gonzalez will work to make the voices for peace heard throughout this election year.

Together, we will make a difference.

Onward

The Nader Team

PS: We invite your comments to the blog.

Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.