Meet ALEX JONES of INFOWARS

31 08 2011

It’s just past 9 a.m. when Alex Jones pulls his Dodge Charger into a desolate parking lot in Austin. From the outside, the squat, single-story office complex that Jones calls his “command center” resembles a moon base surrounded by fields of dying grass. But inside, blinking banks of high-tech recording gear fill the studio where he broadcasts The Alex Jones Show, a daily talk show that airs on 63 stations nationwide. Jones draws a bigger audience online than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck combined — and his conspiracy-laced rants make the two hosts sound like tea-sipping NPR hosts on Zoloft.

Glenn Beck’s Shtick? Alex Jones Got There First

 

A stocky 37-year-old with a flop of brown hair and a beer gut, Jones usually bounds into the studio, eager to launch into one of his trademark tirades against the “global Stasi Borg state” — the corporate-surveillance prison planet that he believes is being secretly forged by an evil cabal of bankers, industrialists, politicians and generals. This morning, though, Jones looks deflated. Five days ago, a mentally disturbed 22-year-old named Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd in Tucson, Arizona, killing six and seriously wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner was reported to be a fan of Loose Change, a film Jones produced that has become the bible for those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.

This article appeared in the March 17, 2011

 issue of Rolling Stone. The issue is available in the online archive

.

 

All week, Jones has been twisting in the media crossfire. Now, his staff plays him a clip of a new attack by Limbaugh. In it, the conservative icon bemoans the social rot caused by three films that prominently feature Jones, including Loose Change.

“So a conspiracy movie,” Limbaugh bellows, “appears to be the most influential media of this young man’s life.”

Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators

 

Jones begins to fume. “What a whore Limbaugh is,” he mutters. “All of them. Just a bunch of whores for the Borg state. Get the clip ready. I wanna talk about this.” Limbaugh’s comments, Jones declares, are nothing but a “transpartisan McCarthyite attack on everything not 100 percent inside their little thought bubble.” He points out that Loose Change has been viewed by at least 50 million people. “During these societal upheavals, it’s messy,” he says. “A lot of bad things happen. And yeah, you’re gonna have paranoid schizophrenics that get set off by the crazy things corporations and governments are doing, and by those who are exposing it to them. But we can’t allow ourselves to become paralyzed. If a schizophrenic takes three hits of acid in the forest and sees demons in the trees, and snaps, do you cut down the trees?”

The Truth About the Tea Party

 

Jones being Jones, he’s not sure the Tucson rampage is as simple as a psychotic snap. Turning over the possibilities sends the tendrils of his anti-government imagination into wild motion. “The whole thing stinks to high heaven,” he says. “This kid Loughner disappeared for days at a time before the shooting? My gut tells me this was a staged mind-control operation. The government employs geometric psychological-warfare experts that know exactly how to indirectly manipulate unstable people through the media. They implanted the idea in his head by repeatedly asking, ‘Is Giffords in danger?’”

National Affairs: Political and national news coverage from Tim Dickinson

 

Jones doesn’t stop there. The Gates Foundation? “Obviously a eugenics operation.” The latest WikiLeaks dump? “All the hallmarks of an intelligence disinfo campaign.” While urging his audience to wake up and smell the police state, Jones can sound thoughtful and intellectual, quick to quote Nietzsche, Plato, de Tocqueville, Gibbon and Huxley. Mostly, though, he defaults into machine-gun bursts of rage that crescendo with an adolescent snarl — Holden Caulfield playing Paul Revere.

“Government-lab-produced airborne Ebola?” Jones thunders. “It’s comin’ your way! Enjoy it, yuppies!

It’s just after 11 a.m., and Alex Jones is just getting started

Jones has been yelling into microphones and bullhorns more or less continuously, and often at violent volumes, for the past 16 years. Since launching his broadcast career, he has become a multiplatform prophet of paranoia who sees diabolical plots in every turn of the news cycle. In his Manichaean melodrama, nodes of private and state power share an ugly face and a demonic brain intent on a single, shared goal: creating the New World Order. To Jones, the New World Order is a blanketing presence, a wicked beast for which he has endless pet names: the “demonic high-tech tyranny” or the “absurdist 1984 regime of control-freak sadists.” Jones, who loves to draw analogies to sci-fi classics like Dune and Star Wars, sees the 21st century as a kind of fanboy-fantasy landscape populated by three groups: a rebel alliance of liberty-loving patriots (his fans); masses of consumerist sheep (those who ignore him); and a sadistic elite (global bankers and their agents), forever tightening the screws on the imperiled remnants of human freedom.

The New World Order’s methods are many: manufactured economic crises, sophisticated surveillance tech and — above all — inside-job terror attacks that fuel exploitable hysteria. The endgame, Jones believes, is a mass eugenics operation that will depopulate the planet by poisoning our food and water with fluoride, radioactive isotopes and various futuristic toxic soups being engineered in New World Order laboratories. Those who resist are being tracked by secret, federalized police bunkers known as “fusion centers” that will eventually round up every dissenter and throw them into camps run by the Federal Emergency Management Authority.

By disseminating such theories over the airwaves and online, where followers can get the word out faster than any film distributor, Jones can draw a million viewers within days for a documentary like his The Obama Deception. “In the past, such theories were circulated in booklets, books, public speeches and sermons,” says Chip Berlet, who studies conspiracy culture for Political Research Associates, a Boston-based think tank. “Jones reaches more people over the Internet than any conspiracy crank in U.S. history.”

Jones has 80 million hits on his YouTube channel, and his fringe views have slowly begun to infiltrate more mainstream outlets. Many of his fans, in fact, believe that Glenn Beck routinely rips off Jones, stealing his ideas and then watering them down for broader consumption. “People inside his company tell me Beck follows what we do closely,” says Jones. “It’s frustrating that I’ve never sold out, yet I’m being gobbled up by this giant Pac-Man who puts my work through his corporate-media assembly line. He takes information from me about secret combines and elites and then spins it against big government, but he ignores big business. He says George Soros is at the top of the New World Order power pyramid? Give me a break. I have no love for Soros. But I don’t trust Beck. Ninety-eight percent of my audience hates him. New listeners tell me I’m a Beck wanna-be. I’m like, ‘No, it’s the other way around.’”

In November, Jones put on a demonstration of his power by employing his latest guerrilla technique. Asking his audience to stage a mass online search of the phrase “Revolt Against TSA” — a tactic known as Google Bombing — Jones instantly manipulated the term to the top of Google’s search index. As intended, the maneuver caught the sensitive traffic antennae of Matt Drudge, who put the TSA story on the national news agenda. “Our show was the detonator on the cap of the TSA story, and Drudge was the barrel of the gun,” says Jones. “The result was a direct head shot on the New World Order.”

Such attacks get Jones lumped in with the far right, for good reason. It was Jones, a longtime supporter of presidential candidate Ron Paul, who spread the Obama “Joker” poster that defined the early Tea Party protests in 2009, and he employs the movement’s rhetoric of “patriots” and “government tyranny.” But on closer inspection, his mishmash, anti-establishment politics are too bad-trip weird to fit neatly into any political category. “Ignore the left and right wings,” Jones likes to say. “Study the brain of the bird.”

To Jones, what matters most is the “continuity of agenda at the top. When I called Clinton a Wall Street puppet, they called me a right-wing extremist. When I said the same about George W. Bush, they called me an anti-war communist. Now that I’m against Obama for the same reasons, mainline conservatives embrace me. When I attack the next right-wing ‘savior,’ they’re gonna call me a communist again.”

On the spiritual cancer of modern capitalism, Jones sounds more like Ralph Nader than a Fox Business channel libertarian. “Madison Avenue makes us addicts of consumerism, using glass wampum to steal our capacity to direct our own lives,” Jones says. “The globalists are smart and tell us sin is fun, sin is a red-­devil cheerleader. No — sin is cheating other people, it’s sending troops to die in illegal wars, it’s keeping people dumb so you can control, exploit and kill them.”

Jones and his staff are currently scripting his 19th film, which will examine the New World Order strings attached to Rick Perry, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck — a sort of Tea Party Deception. Among the targets, Glenn Beck looms large. “Beck, and more lately Limbaugh, sees our success and knows he has to talk about the New World Order to stay relevant,” says Jones. “But he spins it in a neoconish way that reinforces the controlled, left-right paradigm that divides people instead of bringing them together.

For such an angry guy, the barrel-chested Jones is a surprisingly jolly presence. Off-air, his gravel-pit voice softens to crack jokes with his young staff, dote on his wife and three kids, and take chatty calls from his 86-year-old grandmother. Jones is always talking about how boring and conventional his life is. He attends a Methodist church on Sunday, blushes at profanity and likes to take his family hiking on the 193 miles of trails that crisscross Austin. Any rage left over from his show appears reserved for the black Dodge Charger he guns down Austin’s highways, 450-horsepower engine roaring, speakers pumping old-school rap, heavy metal and classic country.

“People think I’m depressive and angry, but it’s the opposite,” Jones tells me over margaritas at his favorite Mexican joint. “My life is a love letter to humanity. What the globalists do is a hate letter, a curse.”

The restaurant, like many of Jones’ favorite spots, is located in South Congress, an artsy neighborhood featured prominently in Slacker, director Richard Linklater’s 1991 ode to Austin’s eccentrics. Here, in the self-proclaimed world capital of live music and conspiracy culture, Jones is part celebrity, part mascot. During lunch, a stream of teenage and twentysomething fans approach Jones to shake his hand and thank him. “Aw, you’re sweet,” he tells the girls; “Thanks, buddy — what’s your name?” he asks the guys.

“My one weakness is enjoying my long enemies list,” he says, after posing for a picture with a young fan who looks like she just stepped out of a Suicide Girls pinup calendar. “I don’t get off on being famous.”

Critics of Jones often focus on the question of whether his narrative of evil is responsible for inciting violence. Last July, an ex-convict named Byron Williams was arrested following a gun battle with California police. Williams, an Alex Jones fan, was allegedly on his way to shoot up the Tides Foundation, a liberal nonprofit that had been targeted by Glenn Beck in repeated rants. To hear Jones tell it, such vio­lence is really the fault of the New World Order — and victims like Gabri­elle Giffords are essentially collateral damage.

“Some unstable people are drawn to the bright flame of enlightenment that is so-called ‘conspiracy culture,’” Jones says. “Some trees are going to become uprooted in a storm like this. But we can’t stop telling the truth for fear of what telling the truth is going to do. If we do, then human life as we know it is over and we’re just Prozac-head automatons.”

When I press Jones on how he would respond to a violent attack on one of his boogeymen, the Council on Foreign Relations, he once again implies they would have it coming. “I strongly believe in nonviolence and have protested the Council on Foreign Relations with a bullhorn because it’s the most effective thing to do,” he says. “But if someone attacks the globalists at the CFR, it will be a manifestation of all the evil they’ve been part of — the corporate neocolonialism, the bombings of villages.” Evil, as he sees it, begets evil. “I don’t want anybody to attack the CFR,” he insists. “But it’s up there in the hierarchy. We’ll all be judged.”

Jones was born in Dallas in 1974, the descendant of two lines of Texas frontiersmen. He describes a childhood that will disappoint those searching for the Freudian roots of his crusade. His parents, a dentist and a homemaker, raised him with love in the manicured suburb of Rockwall. “I was the all-American kid with a great family,” he says. “I read Time-Life books, played football, was friends with everybody.”

Home life was intellectual, but not overtly political. “My parents were careful not to give me political views almost as an experiment to see what I’d turn into,” he says. “The closest thing to a childhood political training was some neighbors who were members of the John Birch Society. They’d come over for dinner and I’d be exposed to those ideas, starting at around age two.”

It was in high school that Jones discovered a corrupt, Blue Velvet underbelly to his town. At weekend parties, he watched as off-duty cops dealt pot, Ecstasy and cocaine to his friends. “A truck would appear, sometimes with a guy still in uniform inside,” Jones recalls. “Then, on Monday, they’d have D.A.R.E. and drug-test us for football.” Jones, a young var­sity lineman, did not appreciate the irony. “I was like, ‘You want to drug-test me, when I know you’re selling the stuff?’ I called them the mafia to their face. At the time, I didn’t know anything about CIA drug-dealing.”

Things came to a head during Jones’ sophomore year, when he was pulled over while driving without a license, a six-pack of beer under the passenger seat. Jones told the cop he was corrupt and had no right to enforce laws. “They brought me to jail,” Jones says. “Afterward, one of the cops told me to wise up, or they’d frame me and send me away.” The following week, his father was so spooked that he sold his dental practice and moved the family to Austin. A few months later, Rockwall County’s sheriff was indicted on organized-crime charges.

For Jones, the encounter with state hypocrisy was transformative. “The Rockwall cops were lowbrow thugs, and Alex was a hell-raiser,” says Buckley Hamman, a cousin who grew up with Jones. “The conflict with the cops started Alex down the road of his current pursuit.”

In Austin, Jones quit football and smoking pot (“It made me paranoid”), and began consuming history: Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. “I started understanding that governments have been staging terror and dealing drugs throughout history,” he says. “The whole program was there.”

The most enduring influence, though, was a 1971 bestseller he found on his father’s bookshelf: None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Authored by Gary Allen, a spokesman for the John Birch Society, the book provided the cornerstone for New World Order conspiracies. According to None Dare, the federal income tax is nothing but a plot by a cabal of megarich “insiders” who work to suck the middle class dry and transfer its wealth to the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. As a teenager, Jones read the book twice. “It’s still the easiest-to-read primer to the New World Order,” he says

After graduating high school in 1993, Jones took classes part-time at Austin Community College, and he found himself drawn to the studios of Austin’s community-access cable station. Soon he was subbing for sick hosts, mixing conspiracy theorizing with muckraking reporting. When the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995, Jones began accusing the government of being involved in the attack. “I understood there’s a kleptocracy working with psychopathic governments — clutches of evil that know the tricks of control,” he says. His mailbox began to overflow with manila envelopes from fans who offered up more pieces of the New World Order puzzle: RAND reports, declassified intelligence, yellowed press clippings. Within months, Jones landed his own show on KJFK, a local station, and became a folk hero in Austin, a town that prides itself on its characters.

By 1999, when new owners of the station fired Jones for what they called his “inside-terror-job stuff,” he had already outgrown the limitations of old-fashioned broadcasting. His website, infowars.com, gave him a platform that no one could censor, and an ISDN line he installed at home enabled him to beam his broadcasts to 10 stations across the country. “My KJFK colleagues made jokes about it,” he says, “but I was reaching more people at home than the terrestrial station.”

A new age of media was dawning, and Jones was one of its earliest pioneers. “Alex Jones is a model for people to create their own media,” says Michael Harrison, editor of the industry trade magazine Talkers. ”When the history is written of talk broadcasting’s transition from the corporate model of the 20th century to the digital, independent model of the 21st century, he will be considered an early trailblazer.”

Jones also moved into filmmaking with America: Destroyed by Design, which posits a “World Bank takeover” of public lands. The film caught the attention of Richard Link­later, an Austin director who would go on to cast Jones as a crazed street prophet in his animated cult hits Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly. Jones won a spot as a host for a libertarian-minded syndication outfit, which was set up to steer business to a gold company called Midas Resources. Jones quickly began racking up affiliates. He was nearing 100 stations on July 25th, 2001, when he looked into the camera and issued a warning that has since become legendary among 9/11 Truthers. “Please!” he implored. “Call Congress. Tell ‘em weknow the government is planning terrorism.” Jones mentioned the World Trade Center by name and warned against the propaganda he expected to accompany the attacks. “Bin Laden is the boogeyman they need in this Orwellian, phony system,” he said.

Seven weeks later, Jones became the only radio host in America to begin his September 11th broadcast with a tirade against the U.S. government. “I went on the air and said, ‘Those were controlled demolitions. You just watched the government blow up the World Trade Center.’ I lost 70 percent of my affiliates that day. Station managers asked me, ‘Do you want to be on this crusade going nowhere, or do you want to be a star?’ I’m proud I never compromised.”

After 9/11, his mainstream commercial appeal plunged to zero, but his cult profile continued to rise. A month after the attacks, Linklater’s dreamy and innovative film Waking Lifefeatured an animated version of Jones driving through downtown Austin and proselytizing through a rooftop megaphone. “We are being conditioned on a mass scale!” Jones yells to empty streets. “Start challenging this corporate slave-state … and stand up for the human spirit!” As the rant builds, Jones’ face progresses from pale, to violet, to blue, and finally to crimson-red, the color of spilled blood, a picture of madness.

The Bush years were a ripe time for Jones and his message of government deceit. The lies leading to the invasion of Iraq and the complicity of the media were plain for all to see. By the time Jones produced his 9/11 film Loose Change, he was no longer a lonely voice in the media wilderness, but the founding father of a growing national movement. Charlie Sheen suggested he organize a 9/11 Truth conference in Los Angeles, and Jones appeared in Link­later’s adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s dystopian novel A Scanner Darkly. ”Alex’s mind is a turbocharged research and information processor,” Link­later has said. Sharing the credits with Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr., Jones once again played himself as a street prophet. His scene ends when plainclothes agents haul him into an unmarked police van for ranting publicly about government drug dealing.

His future arrest, or worse, is not a scenario Jones finds fictional. “I know I’m risking my life, but if they kill me, it’ll confirm everything,” says Jones, who has been arrested four times and suffered a torn rotator cuff for his activism. “This information that I’ve helped reverse-engineer is here to stay. I enjoy life. But I’d rather they blow my head off at a rally when I’m 40 than die during surgery at 85. There’s freedom and power in total commitment.”

Unlike many of his conspiracy-minded predecessors — Henry Ford, the Ku Klux Klan, the militia movement — Jones has no tolerance for racism or anti-Semitism. “There is no globalist command center, and I never make it about certain groups,” says Jones, whose wife is of Jewish descent and whose adopted sister Marley is Asian-American. “All humans do the same stuff. Class solidarity should transcend race and religion in the fight against the globalists. Everything they touch turns to mutated death.”

Jones claims he can document every aspect of the New World Order — the eugenics master plan, the inside-job terror, the FEMA camps. “It’s basic criminal psychol­ogy to brag,” he says. “Because the globalists talk about it, 95 percent of what I say is based on official documents and the mainstream press. I don’t speculate.”

But those documents and press clippings don’t always say what Jones claims they say. Jones points to an old Henry Kissinger memo as proof of a New World Order plan to forcibly depopulate the Third World, but a close reading of the document reveals little more than government officials beginning to grapple with the strategic implications of runaway population growth. Nor does Operation Northwoods, a declassified 1962 government proposal for staging terror in the United States and blaming agents of Fidel Castro, serve as proof, as Jones frequently implies, that every act of terror originates with the U.S. government. The fact that Wall Street and big business exert an alarming control over the political system does not mean that every financial crash is part of a long-term scheme to bankrupt the world and leave everyone prostrate before the planned release of a cancer-causing monkey virus.

This is not to say that Jones is a conscious fabulist. By all impressions, he is shockingly sincere in everything he says. But for a man of otherwise high analytical ability, his logic and reading-comprehension skills are often victims of his Ahab-like obsession with the New World Order. Extreme extrapolation and prosecution by circumstantial evidence can be useful intellectual exercises. Almost never are they reliable guides to a complex world.

“I have deep context for every claim I make,” Jones insists. “I know some people say I exaggerate, but I believe everything I say. It’s just that the denial is so strong, the apathy so deep, that people need something to shake them out of their morass. We’re like flowers who naturally turn toward the sun, and the globalists want us turned toward Hollywood and the TV so they can poison us. It’s like one of those drawings with a hidden pattern. Once you stare long enough, it appears. Then you wonder: How did I ever not see it?”





U.S. States Hide Billions In Secret Slush Funds by Jim Tucker AFP

31 08 2011

The Minnesota state government shut down in July, closing state parks on a normally busy holiday weekend, because of a $5 billion “budget deficit.” At least 10 states have expanded gambling options for casinos, inviting more mobsters into their streets, again because of “budget deficits,” which they blame on the weak economy. However, it’s not “deficits” but states hiding money that causes this pain. Minnesota’s shutdown threw thousands of state employees out of work. Construction projects stalled. Millions of dollars in state revenues were lost. But Minnesota had $2.9 billion hidden from taxpayers in fiscal 2010, which ended June 30.

Assets exceeded liabilities by $10.9 billion. Another $2.9 billion in “unrestricted net assets” were hidden from public view.

What all states are not saying is they have plenty of bucks salted away, but you aren’t supposed to know that. Each year, all state and local governments prepare a financial report on assets, liabilities, revenues and expenditures called the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or CAFR. You read about the budget and how your tax dollars are supposed to be spent in your local newspaper, but you don’t read about money hidden in the CAFR, because America’s controlled media hides these important facts.

CAFRs combine the financial reports of government agencies at all levels. They report all government funds, including those held outside the government treasury. It cites amounts owed the government but not received by the end of the fiscal year. It contains information on real property and other fixed assets and long-term obligations held outside the government treasury.

Walter Burien, a former commodity trader and leading authority on CAFRs, claims that state governments are sitting on more than $600 billion worth of assets. And that’s just the states. When you tally up the holdings of all 85,000 local, state and federal governments, the value of all of the assets comes to about $60 trillion, says Burien.

“Being that the CAFR is the accounting document for every local  government, and with it effectively being blacked out for the last 60 years, this intentional omission of coverage is the biggest conspiracy that has ever taken effect in the United States,” said Burien. It’s “the biggest game in town.”

Alan Greenspan, a Bilderberg luminary, got it right years ago when he testified as chairman of the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve before a Senate Committee: “I’m of the old fiscal school that you raise revenues for basic government purposes and if you don’t have those purposes you give the money back or you don’t tax it. . . . [P]rivate rates of return are significantly higher than the government rates of return.”

The good news is that, thanks to the Internet, it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments to bury their assets. A quick search on the Internet turned up thousands of websites dedicated to exposing CAFRs.





One In Seven Americans Now Admit They Are Convinced 9/11 Was An Inside Job

30 08 2011

One in seven people are convinced that the U.S. government was involved in a conspiracy to stage the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people.

A survey, which interviewed 1,000 people in the UK and the same number in the U.S., found that 14 per cent of Britons 15 per cent of Americans think the past administration was involved in the tragedy.

They were asked: ‘It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda. However some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?’

One in seven people are convinced that the American government was involved in a conspiracy to stage the September 11 attacks, which saw the collapse of the Twin Towers in New YorkOne in seven people are convinced that the American government was involved in a conspiracy to stage the September 11 attacks, which saw the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York

The belief that there was a conspiracy was more common among younger people, with a quarter (24 per cent) of 16 to 24-year-olds subscribing to the theory.

 

 

About two thirds of those polled – 68 per cent – said they didn’t think there was a conspiracy.The aftermath of the World Trade Centre which conspiracists say must have been demolished in a controlled explosion as it imploded so quickly without affecting other buildings

The aftermath of the World Trade Centre which conspiracists say must have been demolished in a controlled explosion as it imploded so quickly without affecting other buildings

The survey was carried out for a BBC documentary which examines why so many people believe there is a darker truth behind the attacks.

American radio host and actor Alex Jones says 'the official story doesn;t add up' about 9/11American radio host and actor Alex Jones says ‘the official story doesn;t add up’ about 9/11

The survey was carried out by Gfk NOP as part of a BBC Two programme, The Conspiracy Files – Ten Years On.

Telephone polls in the UK and the US  were carried out last month.

American radio host and actor Alex Jones is a vocal advocate about the conspiracy theories.

BBC Radio 2 quoted him as saying this morning: ‘Private, corporate, world networks working in US, British, Israeli intelligence – all three groups – have been found to have fingerprints but the main driver was rogue networks at the top of the US Government.

‘The Government admits they’ve staged events before. The official story doesn’t add up.’

The view is taken despite a series of official inquiries which have found no evidence to support the claims.

A U.S. Army helicopter hovers in front of the Pentagon in Washington after a Boeing 757 crashed into the buildingA U.S. Army helicopter hovers in front of the Pentagon in Washington after a Boeing 757 crashed into the building

Emergency workers look for debris in Shanksville, near Pittsburgh, where the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, killing all 45 people on boardEmergency workers look for debris in Shanksville, near Pittsburgh, where the hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 crashed, killing all 45 people on board

TOP 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES

1. Why did the world’s most powerful airforce fail to intercept any of the hijacked planes?

What the conspiracists say: The US Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to stand down and not intercept the planes.

Official reports say: The transponder, which provides the exact location of the plane, had been turned off or changed.

There was a lack of communication between the civilian air traffic control (FAA) and the military and the military’s equipment was outdated, designed to look out over the ocean to deal with a Cold War threat.

2.  Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, imploding without damaging surrounding buildings, after short fires on a few floors?

What the conspiracists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

Official reports say: The planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing. About 10,000 gallons of jet fuel drenched the towers, starting the fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of explosions.

Controlled demolition is carried out from the bottom floors whereas this collapse started at the top.

3. How could an amateur pilot fly a commercial plane in a complicated maneuver, crash it into the Pentagon, 78 minutes after the first report of a possible hijack and leave no trace?

What the conspiracists say: The aircraft was not under the control of al-Qaeda but the Pentagon itself.

Official reports say: There is a large amount of video and still photography showing the plane wreckage and evidence of its flight path, such as broken lamp posts.

4. Why was the United Airlines flight 93 crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible?

What the conspiracists say: The plane was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in mid air, scattering the wreckage over a large area.

Official reports say: There are clear photographs showing aircraft wreckage and the cockpit voice recorder proved passengers had revolted and the hijackers had deliberately crashed the plane.

Another theory was based on a quote from the local coroner, Wally Miller, who said he stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies. But he also said he quickly realised it was a plane crash and there would have to be a large funeral service for the many victims.

5. How could the World Trade Centre 7 building, which was not hit by a plane, collapse so quickly (2.25 seconds) and symmetrically, when no other steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire?

What the conspiracists say: The building was destroyed by a controlled demolition using both explosives and incendiaries.

Owner, Larry Silverstein, was heard saying ‘pull it’ in a TV interview but he was talking about pulling firefighters back.

Some scientists examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermite, a material which reacts when heated up, and that had been explosives rigged inside.

Official reports say: The building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, which burnt for seven hours.

The mains water feeding the emergency sprinkler system was severed.

The thermitic material is a type of primer paint.

 





The China Deception

30 08 2011

Jeff Orr
Infowars.com
August 29, 201

The current trend in the world of finance and politics is toward consolidation of power into the hands of a few large financial intuitions like Goldman SachsOver 40 US states have turned over control of unemployment payments to the largest private banks such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Citibank.  Recipients of benefits are often forced to have a bank account and a debit card at these banks in order to receive their benefits.

The state of Kentucky handed over control of all their revenues and financial transactions to these same banks which caused the global financial crisis.  Handing over large accounts of public money are among the many gifts and support measures provided by US government entities to prop up and rescue too big to fail banks.

So how do these mega bank show their gratitude to the American People for throwing them a lifeline during the financial crises that began in 2008?  A little known fact is that last year Citigroup, JP Morgan, and many other large international banks were engaged in promoting China’s renminbi currency to be accepted in place of the dollar in world commerce.  The financial times of London ran an article on August 26, 2010 entitled “Banks back switch to renminbi for trade” which states:

“A number of the world’s biggest banks have launched international roadshows promoting the use of the renminbi to corporate customers instead of the dollar for trade deals with China.  HSBC, which recently moved its chief executive from London to Hong Kong, and Standard Chartered are offering discounted transaction fees and other financial incentives to companies that choose to settle trade in the Chinese currency.”

“We’re now capable of doing renminbi settlement in many parts of the world,” said Chris Lewis, HSBC’s head of trade for greater China. “All the other major international banks are frantically trying to do the same thing.”

“HSBC and StanChart are among a slew of global banks – including Citigroup and JP Morgan – holding roadshows across Asia, Europe and the US to promote the renminbi to companies.”

These moves toward internationalizing the Chinese renminbi to replace the dollar would require approval from global corporate giants.  Ironically the American icon McDonald’s became the first foreign company in the world to sell corporate bonds in renminbi.     

CHINA IS TOP POLICY ISSUE FOR UNITED STATES

Considered unimportant to many, the pivotal political event for global politics this year was the Jan 2011 State visit to the U.S. by Chinese President Hu.  US negotiations with China primarily concern the dollar’s competition with China’s currency, the fate of the dollar, and what will be the future world reserve currency.  Leading into the January 2011 State Visit, the  New York Times ran an article which discussed President Obama’s earlier 2009 Asia tour and its overall failure.

“In Seoul, instead of getting hammered on its currency, China managed to persuade Europe to join it in rejecting core elements of Mr. Obama’s strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. In addition, several major nations accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar in an effort to put the costs of America’s competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home.  The result was that Mr. Obama appeared on the world stage as a leader of a country losing ground to a rising China. Administration officials are determined that this will not happen during the visit to Washington this week.”

This ‘determination’ alluded to by Obama administration officials would evidence itself both in the Arab revolts and the harsh criticism of China during the Chinese President’s visit to Washington.  The criticism came through top officials such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.  It is quite unusual diplomacy to openly criticize the policies of a head of state while they are concurrently a guest in your country.   What was further unusual was the extent to which US Officials, corporate leaders, and political elites simultaneously attempted to make a powerful and friendly impression on the Chinese President.  This seemingly contradictory policy was made mention of in a New York Times article.

D. Rothkopf

“David Rothkopf, a national security expert who worked in the administration of President Bill Clinton, said: “There’s been this well-orchestrated and clearly well thought-out campaign, over the past two weeks, involving the secretary of state, Treasury, defense and commerce making strong statements regarding currency, the trade imbalance, human rights and China’s military stance.” He added, “So you’re welcoming the leader of the most important rival power in the world into the capital, and the way you pave his entrance into the city is laid with these four big thorny issues”

During the State Visit on Wednesday Jan 19th the Chinese President attended a meeting where he was surrounded by a large show of American corporate might.  Such was actually an indication that the US was trying to mask its weakness and really needed something important from China.  The list of executives in attendance was unprecedented and included all of the following:

Steve Ballmer of Microsoft

* Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs,

* Jeff Immelt of General Electric

* Paul Otellini of Intel

* Ellen Kullman of Du Pont

* David Rubenstiein of Carlyle Group

* Aris Candris of Westinghouse Electric Corp.

* John Chen the former Sybase Inc. chief executive

* Muhtar Kent of Coca-Cola Co.

* Greg Page of Cargill Inc

* John Thornton of HSBC Holdings

* Andrew Liveris  of Dow Chemical Co.

In spite of all the diplomatic shock and awe, the United States did not achieve what seemed to be its primary objective which was to have China eliminate protections on its banking sector and currency.  Richard Adams of the UK Gaurdian presented a time-line of events and quotes from the State visit and press conference with the Chinese and American heads of state.  The quotes of President Obama are a good indication of what the US was requesting from China in private discussions:

“The currency issue is a part of the problem, the RMB [renminbi] is undervalued,” says Obama, more bluntly. “President Hu has indicated that he is in favor of moving towards a market-based system,” …” but it’s not happening fast enough.  Anyway, it will be a win-win for both countries once the renminbi floats”…

“We want to sell you all kinds of stuff. We want to sell you planes, we want to sell you cars, we want to sell you software,”

HENRY KISSINGER ON CHINA

Henry Kissinger continues to be an important figure on US policy toward China and has been for the last 4 decades.  He was in attendance for the State Dinner with the Chinese President, and was reported to have also had a private meeting with the Chinese President.  He has been influential on policy and in numerous appointments of the Obama administration.  Dr. Kissinger released a book in 2011 entitled “On China”  His writings and statement provide a great insight into what may be guiding present decisions on US military and foreign policy.

On Oct 12, 2009 Kissinger posted an article advocating that Obama has no real option but to support the Af-Pakistan surge which General Stanley McChrystal lobbied for.  Obama ended up agreeing with this position.  Carefully reading between the lines of one of Dr Kissinger’s articles we find clues as to why US has made such a large commitment and sacrifice in Afghanistan. He wrote:

“The special aspect of Afghanistan is that it has powerful neighbors or near neighbors—Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran”

In January 2009 just 8 days before Obama was inaugurated Henry Kissigner laid out his thoughts on the importance of China to the United States entitled “A Chance for a New World Order”

“As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amidst grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy…”

“The Atlantic partnership will need to work towards a common design if it is to survive….This is why the U.S. relationship with China is so central…What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years.”

IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY AND BANKING

In the context of Dr. Kissinger’s assement, the promotion of the Chinese renminbi currency by JP Morgan, Citigroup, HSBC, and other western banks cited earlier makes perfect sense.  The actions of these banks appears to be a preliminary good will gesture to China in hopes they will agree to share control of the renminbi with the ‘Atlantic partnership’ else share control over a new world reserve currency.

As Dr. Kissinger indicates, a deal with China on financial issues is required by interests in the United States.  This seems to explain why U.S. political leaders have been tolerating the large trade imbalance with China and helping facilitate the transfer of American technology and manufacturing jobs to China.

But it seems the needed deal with China was not achieved during the State visit in January 2011.   Since the carrot approach with China wasn’t working,  it seems the stick approach was implemented.  Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and the other Arab revolts were a timely message to China that the Atlantic partnership will not go away quietly.  China’s growing economic and political ties in North Africa and the middle east region were going to be undermined until Chinese elites came to the realization that they must make a deal.

Goldman Sachs played an integral part of the unusual State Visit diplomacy as evidenced by its reversal of position in calling on investors worldwide to pull out of China while the January 2011 State visit was underway.  Facebook and Google played a key role in supporting the Arab revolts and the timeline of events is suggestive of a connection between the Chinese State Visit and the Arab revolts.  The day the Chinese President left Washinton DC was the very same day Google Executive Wael Ghonim posted the Facebook call for a January 25 protest by Egyptians.

The underlying issue is that the Atlantic partnership is bankrupt and China believes that its currency deserves to be the new unit of trade in the world.   The time is upon us where the US dollar can no longer be maintained as the worlds reserve currency.  China holds the key to determining if the bankrupt financial institutions of the West will live or die.  China is poised to become the new financial center of gravity in the world as the value of the dollar fades. Therefore China is holding the best cards in the game.

There is another factor that makes China vital to the Western powers.  The Financial Oligarchical system of rule which dominates the Western world today thrives by occupying every country like China, which is both a military and economic superpower.  It is those who control that system that want to gain a foothold in China.  That is why we are seeing Arab revolts and a NATO war on Libya.  It is for that agenda that the United States will continue to pay the heavy price for occupying Af-Pakistan, bank bailouts, transfer of jobs to China, and the flight of capital and industry out of the United States.

Changing the balance of power is what is needed and the ability to do so is within the power of everyday people.  Abuse of power by banks with this China agenda is actually enabled by individuals who unconsciously deposit their money in them.  State and local governments put trillions in public money in these same banks in the form of state reserves and pension funds.  The solution to the problem is in the hands of individuals all over the world, not just in the United States.  The most viable option for world peace and a global economic recovery is for people worldwide to move their money somewhere else.  Remove trillions of dollars from the bad banks and instead use it to establish banks which invest responsibly and operate in the public interest.  Start locally and start today.





CNN’s Jack Cafferty Slams GOP Frontrunners: Why Are Americans ‘Allergic To Brains?’ by Kstreet607

29 08 2011

Kstreet607

When I lived in New York for the first 50 years of my life, in the 70′s and 80′s I used to watch Jack Cafferty on our local ABC affiliate.  I can remember him being opinionated way back then.  Since he’s been on CNN, I think they’ve  given him an even longer rein to “express” himself…

Mediaite

Cranky CNN commentator Jack Cafferty lit into Republican superstars Sarah Palin (R-FNC), Gov.Rick Perry (R-TX), and Rep. Michele Bachmann(R-MN) on Wednesday’s The Situation Room, comparing them to The Three Stooges (sansShemp), calling Perry’s instant burial of Mitt Romney in the polls “a little scary,” and asking, “When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?”

Tell us how you really feel, Jack.

Since becoming a national media figure, Jack Cafferty has become known for this kind of Howard Beale-meets-Abe Simpson venting, and last night’s rant was vintage Cafferty. He blasted Bachmann’s promise of $2 gasoline, called Perry and Bachmann “whackjobs,” and derided “former half-term dropout governor of Alaska” Sarah Palin by sarcastically calling her a “Mensa member.”

Cafferty went on to praise candidates like Ron PaulNewt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman as examples of “the other end of the intellectual spectrum.”

Part of Cafferty’s critique had to do with the amount of attention being given to “Larry, Curly, and Moe” (as he calls Perry, Bachmann, and Palin), but people like Jon Huntsman have been getting tons of air (especially compared with his poll numbers) for trying to inject some sanity into the proceedings, to little effect. Cafferty can’t hang this on the media, but he’s dead-on when he asks why Americans are “allergic to brains.”

It’s tempting to see this as a strictly conservative problem (their contempt for academia and journalism certainly enabled it), but the media and the Democratic establishment have long played along with the modern American idea that intellect is a political liability. Many would trace the phenomenon to the Al Gore-George W. Bush race, but this “who would you rather drink a beer with?” garbage has been around for as long as I can remember.

The silver lining to Cafferty’s critique is that the American allergy to brains will become a significant asset when the inevitable Zombie Apocalypse arrives.





“Believing Is Seeing”: Truth, Lies and Photographs

29 08 2011

They knew they were right: That phrase (with apologies to Anthony Trollope) could serve as a tag line for the collected works of director Errol Morris, the maker of such classic nonfiction films as “The Thin Blue Line” and “The Fog of War.” People often find support for their claims of perfect certainty in photographic evidence, and who better to point out the rickety nature of such “proof” than a master of images and their slippery charms?

Morris has worked both as a private investigator — the archetype of the truth-seeker in American pop culture — and a director of television commercials — pretty much the opposite. His first steady work as a writer, however, came from the New York Times Op-Ed desk, which hired him as a contributor to its Opinionator blog a few years ago. The essays collected in Morris’ new book, “Believing Is Seeing (Observations on the Mysteries of Photography),” have been adapted from those posts and handsomely mounted in an image-rich hardcover. Morris considers five instances in which photographs were seized upon as testimonials to the truth; in all but one case, that testimony was later challenged.

The photographs are famous: Roger Fenton‘s 1855 images of the Crimean War, particularly the desolate moonscape titled “Valley of the Shadow of Death”; the snapshots taken by soldiers in Abu Ghraib during the Iraq War; pictures of a sharecropper’s cabin taken by Walker Evans in collaboration with James Agee during the 1930s and published in the book “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men“; an AP photo of a child’s toy lying in the rubble after the 2006 Israeli bombing of Tyre in southern Lebanon; and an ambrotype of three children found on the otherwise unidentifiable body of a Union soldier killed in the Battle of Gettysburg.

In each case, Morris presents his readers with a photograph that seems eminently intelligible. We know what we’re seeing and we think we know what it means. Then Morris ushers us behind the scenes and into a world of tangled doubt. Why are there cannonballs strewn on the road in one version of Fenton’s photograph and none in another taken during the same 90-minute period? Which image came first, and who was responsible for either removing the cannonballs from the road or scattering them over it? And why did whoever did it, do whatever it was they did? Whew. Accompanying Morris on his quest is simultaneously bewildering and thrilling, like finding a fathomless secret world hidden behind the seeming simplicity of everyday life.

Provoked by Susan Sontag‘s serene conviction that Fenton “staged” the best-known “Valley of the Shadow of Death” photograph by moving the cannonballs onto the road, Morris decided to investigate. This entailed flying to the Crimea and searching out the exact position of Fenton’s tripod in order to ascertain which direction the camera was facing when the photos were taken, then bringing in several experienced image analysts to scrutinize and compare the shadows in each photograph to determine which one was shot later in the day. That turned out to be even more involved than it sounds. Having followed this rabbit hole to its furthest reaches, perhaps it’s only natural that the investigators found themselves nicknaming rocks — Esmerald, Lionel, Marmaduke — and even exclaiming, as one expert did when presented with Morris’ contemporary shot of the site, “Oh my god. There it is! That’s Marmaduke.”

I won’t spoil the results of Morris’ inquiry, but for him it provokes ruminations on the nature of documentary and journalism. Ben Curtis, the AP photographer whose image of a Mickey Mouse doll amid the rubble of a destroyed residential tower in Tyre is the subject of another chapter, describes being unwilling to slightly reposition the toy even though that would have made for a better composition. Nevertheless, he was pilloried by bloggers who accused him, as Morris writes, “of deliberately placing the toy in the war zone.” Ironically, both sides charged Curtis with producing propaganda for their opponents.

Seventy-five years ago, Arthur Rothstein, working as a documentarian in the Dust Bowl for the Farm Security Administration, didn’t know any better than to take several shots of a steer’s skull in a parched South Dakota field, repositioning it each time (within a 10-foot radius) until he got one he liked. This prompted Dakota boosters and New Deal critics to denounce the results (released to newspapers by the federal government) as “phony.” Morris points out that “the photographs led the viewer to infer that the Dakotas were experiencing a severe drought. But the Dakotas were experiencing a severe drought,” a fact nobody contested.

Conundrums like these are highly pertinent to Morris’ own work. The juxtaposition of dramatized segments with traditional documentary footage in “The Thin Blue Line” contributed to making that film ineligible for an best documentary feature Oscar in 1988. It’s not that Morris doesn’t believe in truth, he’d just like to remind us that, when it comes to photographs, we see what we expect to see rather than what’s actually there (hence the book’s title). The idea that a photograph presents us with objective information about the world is delusional, partly because a photograph reflect the beliefs of the photographer, but mostly because until we surrender that delusion, we can’t stop the image from reflecting our own beliefs. “Truth in photography is an elusive notion,” Morris tells Curtis at last. “There may not be any such thing.”






The Real Reason Hollywood Makes Pro-Military Movies

29 08 2011

Did the Pentagon make Hollywood an offer it couldn’t refuse?

D. Sirota

That’s the charge David Sirota made in an editorial in Sunday’s Washington Post. According to Sirota, for decades the U.S. military has waged a sneaky propaganda war with pro-military films, tricking the apparently dim-witted masses into blind devotion through movies featuring “sweat-shined martial machismo.” The plot is diabolical in its simplicity: The military allows directors to film military bases, tanks, planes, ships or personnel only after approving their scripts.

Case in point: 1986 megahit “Top Gun,” in which screaming fighter jets and shadow-kissing duped an entire nation onto the Highway to the Danger Zone.

“Not only did enlistment spike when ‘Top Gun’ was released,” writes Sirota, “And not only did the Navy set up recruitment tables at theaters playing the movie, but polls soon showed rising confidence in the military … America fell in love with Maverick, Iceman and other high-fivin’ silver-screen super-pilots as they traveled Mach 2 while screaming about ‘the need for speed.’”

But what, exactly, does Sirota expect the Pentagon’s film liaison to do? Open our military bases to every scruffy-faced, long-haired kid with a camera who comes knocking? Say Matt Damon had asked to use military resources on “Green Zone,” which alleged that the Bush administration created and propagated false information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs in the run-up to the Iraq War. Surely a wartime Pentagon isn’t required to help Hollywood produce movies that make such irresponsible, demoralizing and damaging accusations.

What if a disciple of terrorist imam Anwar Al-Awlaki demands to use an Afghanistan operating base to film Al-Qaeda propaganda? Does the Air Force have to let him pose in the cockpit of a F-22 Raptor, or must it let him fly the plane?

It’s not as if theaters are full of pro-military propaganda. Audiences have plenty of chances to wallow in the smell of napalm in the morning. The same year “Top Gun” was released, Oliver Stone released his excellent but critical Vietnam War opus “Platoon.” “Full Metal Jacket” and “Good Morning Vietnam” soon followed. High-ammo ’80s hits like the “Rambo” franchise and “Commando” do not exactly portray the U.S. military positively, for all their high body counts. Then, as now, for every pro-military “Battle Los Angeles,” there is a negative “Green Zone” or “In the Valley of Elah.”

Sirota’s real issue is with the movie-going public, not with the Pentagon. Despite a steady stream of movies calling into question America’s policies and methods, the masses stubbornly refuse to pay for the privilege of sitting through a two-hour anti-war screed. “Battle Los Angeles” made a respectable $83.5 million domestically, according to BoxOfficeMojo.com. “Green Zone” brought in $35 million, the Oscar-winner “Hurt Locker” just $17 million and “In the Valley of Elah,” which featured abuse of prisoners and post-traumatic stress in soldiers, a paltry $6.7 million.

It seems there’s just no market for movies lecturing us on the bad behavior of U.S. troops and the wrongheadedness of U.S. policies.

Sirota confuses the chicken and the egg. “Top Gun” took our breath away because it reinforced Ronald Reagan’s message that the military is an agent for good in the world and something of which to be proud. There is a tendency on the left to believe soldiers somehow are duped into joining the military and that they’re victims of predatory recruiters, just as people who are pro-military must be ill-informed. Soldiers and others who believe in the mission of the military? To quote Vizzini of “The Princess Bride,” “Inconceivable!”

I have no doubt that the “Big Boys” at the Pentagon have all sorts of nifty little propaganda tricks up their sleeves but I think there are far more important and proven problems to deal with.





Families of 9/11 Victims Knocking on America’s Door by Rev Michael Bresciani

29 08 2011

It is no secret that New York’s Mayor Bloomberg has decided not to ask clergy of any religion to be part in the tenth anniversary ceremonies at Ground Zero.  A cross section of responses from both religious and secular sources shows that most people are shocked or at the least scratching their heads in wonderment at Bloomberg’s decision.

M. Bloomberg

Bloomberg said that government “shouldn’t be in the business of picking” one minister or religion over another.  That being true, it raises two simple but important questions.  The first is, who asked him to pick?  Is Mr. Bloomberg the Mayor, or is he New York’s pastor?

The second question should be whether he has considered asking the families of 9/11 victims if they want clergy to be present and to offer prayers. The ceremony is not about the government and it has never been.

In the gospel of Luke Christ gave a parable about a woman who comes to a judge to seek avengement in her cause. The judge ignores her because it is said that he “feared not God, neither regarded man.” (Lk 18: 2) In today’s twisted world who would have guessed we have come to a place where even this has been reversed and now it seems there are those who “fear man and don’t regard God” Has it come to this?

The woman is not deterred but she persistently knocks on his door day after day seeking his assistance in adjudicating her case. Eventually it pays off. He doesn’t give a whit about God and he couldn’t care less about what men think of him, but he knows what it is like to be subjected to the steady dripping of the leaking cistern, the daily braying of sheep and beasts of burden and the incessant murmuring of crowds in the marketplace just outside his chambers in the city. He steps up and helps the woman.

If a hundred clergy were called to pray at the ceremony they could do nothing to bring back those lost in the 9/11 attack.  They could only be expected to comfort, encourage, honor and provide empathy for those who have lost so much.  It would be an act of respect, of consolation and above all a respite from the indignities the families have already endured.

They have been subjected to disputations about where the perpetrators of the world’s most heinous act of terrorism should be tried. They have been embroiled in the controversy of the proposal to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and now at the last comes this new insult from the minds of those who are like so many “reeds shaken in the wind.” (Mt 7: 11)

If the choice were left up to me I would pick the same clergyman who prayed this incredible prayer.

“Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, wordsand work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ.”

Oh, I forgot we can’t ask him to pray because no clergy or religious people have been asked to pray and besides this man has been dead for centuries. His name is George Washington and these words were found in his personal prayer book.

www.americanprophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles of columnist

Rev. M. Bresciani

Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. ampro@americanprophet.org





Liberty for the Ron Paul Generation

28 08 2011

The stark reality about the Ron Paul revolution is that the power elites could not survive in a society based upon individual liberty. Nevertheless, this statement does not imply that a Paul presidency would guarantee the elimination of the oligarchy.

The faint memory of what a free nation could be, or even what our country once was, could be revived under certain circumstances. Imagine the abolishment of the Federal Reserve and the fractional debt-created money system. Consider a non-interventionist foreign policy that allows for actual national defense and secures the borders. Or, best of all, a limited government culture that is based upon the principle that government exists to serve citizens in their pursuit of freedom. Thomas Jefferson’s soul lives within the Ron Paul generation.

The barons of media exclusion, that spread a confederacy of silence around Ron Paul, are descendants of the same cabal that sent Jefferson to France during the drafting and debating at the Constitutional Convention. These latest cohorts want to continue the same dominance over the spirit of the revolution. This eternal battle is presently waged under an invigorated new awakening. The old game no longer works. Swept away are their lies, because their pseudo propaganda all point to the oz cult behind the curtain, and the destructive reality of their plots are visible for all to see.

No wonder, since he does not play their game, Ron Paul is such a threat to their control. Consider the insight of our long-time friend and courageous advocate of an American First foreign policy, Mark Dankof. He gets to the core reason why the (FCM) Fawning Corporate Media wants to prevent Ron Paul from winning the GOP nomination.

Israel, the Jewish Lobby worldwide, the Central Bankers, and the energy/gas consortiums, are the driving force behind making this war happen. Jay Solomon’s story (WSJ – Senators Press Obama On Iran’s Central Bank) indeed notes that Senator Mark Kirk (R., Illinois) and Senator Charles Schumer (D., New York), are the co-sponsors of the letter, in a “sign of bipartisan support for tougher financial measures against Iran. . . .” What the Wall Street Journal omits, of course, is that Kirk received more Israeli/Jewish PAC money for his initial election to the Senate, than any other candidate in the last election cycle, and that Schumer’s pockets have been lined historically with reams of the same levels of financial largesse for doing the bidding of the Zionist State. We might also draw the legitimate and documentable conclusion that Kirk, Schumer, and their colleagues in both houses of Congress, demonstrate the stranglehold that Israel has on both major political parties, as demonstrated each year by Hugh Galford and Janet McMahon of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in Washington. The numbers provided annually by Galford and McMahon provide the quantitative proof of what President Obama told Ha’aretz in his last trip to Israel: that Obama himself could not possibly have been elected to the U. S. Senate in Illinois (the seat now held by Kirk, by the way), or the American Presidency, without the amount of Jewish money and political support that came his way. Presumably, the President is saying something about the larger political system and the way it works systemically. Follow the money trail. And the Bankers. And the number of Israeli assets in the GOP Presidential sweepstakes (the exception is Ron Paul) who have never met a surrogate war they didn’t like, including the one on the drawing board now they will assiduously promote if The Masters should decide that Mr. Obama needs replacing in 2012 for insufficient sycophancy.

 Sadly, many Tea Party conservatives still accept the Neocon foreign policy deception. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Watch the thinking man’s version of a strong leader in the video, Ron Paul Speaks Out: Media Blackout, Economic Freedom, Intellectual Revolution. Go beyond the sound bites and ads, then ask the hard questions.

Once the presidential campaign heats up after Labor Day, the cast of characters will keep shucking out the phony common man populism, while cavorting with the same money interests, corporatists and banksters that select every other nominee. Have you forgotten the Skull and Bones ticket of 2004? Surely, the progressive McCain was no choice over the “bomber” Obama general.

Now the Ron Paul generation understands that liberty and genuine national security is never advanced under the military-industrial-homeland war party. Yet, usually the only candidates you get to vote for out of the duel party wag the dog parade is a kosher toady. The unremitting plans to eradicate Iran, drives the banking internationalists for the same reason that Libya became a bombing range target. No nation is allowed to challenge the money monopoly. Gaddafi’s gold and Ahmadinejad’s economic independence as cited in an IMF report, cannot stand the risk of any unorthodox ruler. How dare the Zionist controlled press make a rare slip up and reveal, “The IMF said it has revised its previous figures on Iran’s economy after a brief visit to the country, expressing admiration for some of the controversial plans introduced by the hardline president.” The entrenched GOP party facilitators want to marginalize Ron Paul as dangerous because he resists tribe orders and refuses to waste another generation of youth in the service of zealots. Liberty demands that our sons and daughters no longer be consumed as cannon fodder. Translate the “ON BEHALF OF A GRATEFUL NATION” sympathy statement to read – The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because they were stupid.

Now even the disappointed left have figured out that warmonger Barry Soetoro, is no different from George W. Bush. So when will the Republican faithful come to grips, that Bachmann and Cain are IRS and Federal Reserve cronies, respectively? As for Romney, anyone who is willing to champion person status for corporations deserves to file chapter 7 on his own campaign aspirations. New World Order Perry is the puppet of choice. His rhetoric will ring home to many, because he lifts it directly from the Ron Paul journal. However,Rick Perry is the next incarnate plastic doll, which will read the script from the banksters’ ledger sheet, once elected.

When was the last time you heard another Republican presidential candidate utter the words civil liberties? Or name another public figure that actually made his life’s work synonymous with LIBERTY? Only Ron Paul stands the test of performance.

So how can Paul win in the GOP primaries? The New York Times offers a salient chart and states, “On the Republican side, partisan self-identification peaked in the early 1990s – as did the percent of the electorate voting in Republican primaries – before declining.” Decrying the GOP hacks, every liberty Republican patriot needs to organize their universe of friends and acquaintances to get the vote out at the ballot box on primary day. Just a minimum increase and return to the 33% 1990 levels with Ron Paul voters will result is his victory for the nomination. The caveat does require a verifiable monitoring of any enhanced electronic voting count against liberty-minded voters or the sabotage by the party of the delegate certification process.

Presidents are selected well before the general election. Ron Paul will generate significant support and votes from independents. Even disgruntled Democrats will rally in a general election; however, the Republican registered primary voter must resist the perennialNeocon treachery.

The frustration of discussing politics in an era of denial needs to be overcome. Enrolling a Republican voter into the cause of Liberty can be a daunting task. Those who believe that the party of Lincoln champions a proper conservative defense of liberty are wholly confused. Tea Party proponents must reject the GOP establishment and their hijack express. Do not believe the hype. Accurate public Tea Party approval sentiment is not in decline. Simply, the only drink that Rick Perry partakes is an imported Camellia sinensis brew, while he worships another lord in the Bilderberg temple.

Lastly, those critics of Ron Paul’s Austrian economics usually oppose a return to a resurrection of a modified gold standard. Yet if you dig deeper, those same detractors maintain an apologist attitude for keeping a central banking system. Few disparagers view the preservation of liberty on the same scale as their return from compound interest.

The money elite may soon conduct another false flag to scare the uninformed and redirect one more staged diversion. The rush of enthusiasm for retaking our liberty is the essence of the Ron Paul message. The generation that tasted the joy in the establishment’s fear during the 1960s appreciates just how a government can be broken, from conducting an exhausted and immoral war.

Today everyone needs to learn this lesson, apply traditional conservative populist principles, and eliminate the central banking tyranny that is the prime destroyer of our economy. The fascist state that follows orders and reports to this private bank-ruling cartel is the foremost enemy. Is Liberty more important to you or do you think a looser fit of your governance chains is achievable with your continued apathy?





Government: The Cause of — and Solution to — All Our Problems by Thomas E. Woods

28 08 2011

 

In case you’ve ever wondered what it must have been like to read Pravda, reading the American media’s treatment of the financial crisis and our wise leaders’ expert management of it all has given everyone a wonderful opportunity. For instance, check out this piece from several days ago on Politico.

If you can’t bring yourself to click on the link, I’ll give you the headline: “Obama Would Regulate New ‘Bubbles.’”

Yes, you read that right. “Bubbles” just occur spontaneously. They have no cause or explanation. We need government to identify and destroy them.

Sometimes I wish our overlords would get their stories straight. First, Alan Greenspan — whom the New York Times once described, in its typical toadying, totalitarian fashion, as “the infallible maestro of our financial system” — told us it was impossible to tell if a bubble existed at any given time. Now we have Barack Obama insisting that not only can we detect bubbles, but we can also deflate them with sufficient dispatch to prevent them from causing any serious economic disturbances.

How are we peons to decide between the competing views of our infallible maestro on the one hand and the man who would be FDR on the other?

I shouldn’t be so cynical. It is not for us to question how our overlords intend to distinguish between genuine growth in some industry on the one hand and bubble conditions on the other. Just to be safe they may have to quash all rapid growth wherever it occurs. Perhaps they can cut off credit to an entire sector of the economy, or levy industry-specific taxation. (Anyone who thinks this type of discretion and micromanagement might be exercised with political motivations in mind, or for any purpose other than the common good, is almost surely a good candidate for surveillance in our progressive commonwealth.)

In their quest to free us from economic instability, our betters may find it necessary to institute new rules. It is our job to accept these new rules with docility and thanks. These rules might have to be kind of sweeping, perhaps on the order of nobody may do anything. In liberal times that could perhaps be modified to nobody may do anything without asking permission. True, we could then wind up with a lengthy debate about whether asking permission itself counted as doing something, such that we’d need to ask permission in order to ask permission, in an endless regress. We’d then be back to the original nobody may do anything, which is probably the safest place to be anyway.

Or perhaps our rulers could shut down the electrical grid from time to time. I’d like to see those greedy fat cats inflate a bubble without any electricity!

Now the possibility that the government itself could be the primary culprit in the generation of asset bubbles is of course not merely rejected; the very idea cannot even be entertained. The great progressive institutions of government and central banking the causes rather than the solutions to our problems? Impossible!

Everyone knows Bad Things happen in the economy because of wicked speculators and grasping businessmen. If someone were to ask whether the Federal Reserve’s creation of $8 billion out of thin air every week on average for four solid years might have had a tiny bit to do with the housing bubble, well, we’d have to remind such a cynic that the Fed was created in order to give us macroeconomic stability. Our present crisis was caused by excessive “leverage,” you see — though we won’t bother asking where major economic actors managed to get all this credit in the first place. That might lead people to ask hard questions about the Fed yet again, and as we’ve seen, the Fed is our Wonderful, Stabilizing Friend.

It is true that Anna Schwartz, the famous monetarist (and not an Austrian economist), recently observed that asset bubbles cannot form without loose monetary policy by the central bank to fund them. “If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it’s so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object. And then of course if monetary policy tightens, the boom collapses.” (Schwartz also rejects former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan’s “attempt to exculpate himself” for the housing bubble.)

Schwartz is here echoing what Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises said decades earlier. A sudden drive for a particular kind of investment will raise the prices of complementary factors of production as well as the interest rate itself. In order for a mania-driven boom to persist, there would have to be an increasing supply of credit in order to fund it, since investments in that sector would grow steadily more costly over time. That could not occur in the absence of credit expansion. The dot-com and housing bubbles can both be explained by artificial credit expansion, say such economists.

If we are to believe these economists, the best way to prevent future asset bubbles would be to stop the Fed from creating so much money out of thin air in the first place. Better still, we should abolish the Fed altogether, since in the view of these economists it is entirely superfluous to a market economy.

Again, though, our trust should be in princes. After all, Austin Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the president, assures us that Obama will be on the lookout for both bubbles and busts. The president, Politico notes, is “prepared to intervene to make sure that kind of red-hot growth doesn’t occur. And he’s willing to do it with added government regulation if needed to prevent any one sector of the economy from getting out of balance — the way the dot-com boom did in the 1990s and the real-estate market did earlier this decade.” See, those things just happened! No cause. They just happened. And government will protect us from them.

Mark Zandi, a former economic adviser to John McCain, adds that “policymakers always intervene in a downturn. So it is necessary for policy makers to take action against bubbles. You’ve got to be symmetrical in your policy.” What we need, says Zandi, is a “systemic regulator” who will decide whether or not bubbles exist and then take appropriate action. (See how much different a McCain administration would have been on the economy?)

Naysayers may point out that the Fed’s own economists denied that a housing bubble existed, and that, as we observed earlier, Greenspan himself believes it’s impossible to detect bubbles at all. But surely one more regulator, a big, giant, super-duper regulator, should be able to get things right.

Some people say the market is the best regulator. After all, the free market doesn’t pump up the money supply and push interest rates down to levels that promote unsustainable bubbles. The free market punishes reckless risk-takers, while it is government that bails them out (and thereby encourages them to take greater risks in the future). It was the Fed, not the free market, from which the “Greenspan put” — the implicit promise to bail out major Wall Street players — emerged. The Financial Times warned that these guarantees were encouraging dangerously risky investments. The free market makes no such guarantees, and thereby cultivates a more cautious class of entrepreneur.

But enough with these naysayers. I for one welcome our new overlords. Every American citizen could stand to learn from that model of filial piety, Britney Spears, who urged, “I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.”

Amen.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.