Activist Post: The Ultimate “RED” Herring: The Russians are Back!
More noteworthy is that these spies were not caught corrupting standing officials of American government, but rather were outed in their attempt to get deep into the very system which promotes Globalism. They “had jobs that put them in contact with opinion makers, corporate executives or aspiring technology industry workers,” according to the Bloomberg report, indicating that this was a long-term endeavor. The initial target, Harvard, is one of the prime recruitment sources for The New World Order. Within the overall recruitment structure, Harvard can be viewed as the global business division rounding out the controlled education network consisting primarily of Princeton (intelligence consulting division), Yale (political grooming division), and Stanford (science and medical division). These institutions form the matrix of the Globalist agenda to control all aspects of world management.
New study documents media’s servitude to government
Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Alliance Policy recently debated O’Reilly on the failed War on Drugs. Can it be more obvious that it is time to be sensible? O’Reilly fails to make a single valid argument despite his best efforts.
The War on Drugs is a proven failure; our jails are over-crowded, our states are bankrupt, drug wars are shutting down entire communities in the U.S, and we spend billions per year to catch pot smokers – all while Jack Daniels and Pfizer live fat and happy. It’s time to get REAL and stop prohibition. The very word means “Screw your FREEDOM.”
Please read the Personal Liberties and War on Drugs essay below the video and support the Drug Policy Alliance to fight for reasonable drug laws that protect Personal Liberties, sovereignty over your own body and mind, holistic health choices instead of currently-legal and dangerous pharmaceuticals, and basic human rights.
Personal Liberties and the War on Drugs
Compiled by Anonymous, Drug Policy Alliance. 2002.
How does the drug war affect our rights to free speech and privacy?
Under the aegis of the “War on Drugs”, police and federal agents have pursued increasingly invasive investigative tactics.
The latest public relations stunt to shore up support for the ongoing war in Afghanistan is the “new” discovery of minerals and riches in the supposedly vast wasteland previously thought to define Afghanistan. This PR stunt aims to convince Americans that the newest quagmire is somehow justified by the potential economic benefits. The aim of the PR ‘Scam’ is always to couch the exercise in what Americans can understand best as the altruistic belief that America only aims to bring democracy and economic freedom to the countries she invades, then perhaps take a commission for her work back to the homeland. Because, after all, this latest treasure trove discovery will “boost the Afghan economy.”
The truth is a full 180 degrees from this public relations campaign. America will never allow Afghanistan to benefit from her riches, having already co-opted the opium trade, in the same way that money from oil has not trickled down to the invaded Iraqis. One can be sure that when, “The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development,” a full-scale flotilla of pirate ships is on the way.
When we review the blueprint to The Grand Chessboard that we have been given by Zbigniew Brzezinski, we see that a key component to the endgame is controlling access to resources. The resources at stake are truly vast:
“In that context, how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three fourths of the world’s known energy resources (page 30).”
This grand chess match between powerful nations vying for the rights to exploit much-needed resources requires from America, according to Brzezinski, the “exercise of decisive influence but, unlike the empires of the past, not of direct control. This condition places a premium on geostrategic skill, on the careful, selective, and very deliberate deployment of America’s resources on the huge Eurasian chessboard (page 34).”
The Psychopathic Criminal Enterprise Called America
Most Americans know that politicians make promises they never fulfill; few know that politicians make promises they lack the means to fulfill, as President Obama’s political posturing on the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico makes perfectly clear.
Obama has made the following statements:
He told his “independent commission” investigating the Gulf oil spill to “thoroughly examine the disaster and its causes to ensure that the nation never faces such a catastrophe again.” Aside from the fact that presidential commissions have a history of providing dubious reports and ineffective recommendations, does anyone really believe that a way can be found to prevent industrial accidents from happening ever again? Even if the commissions findings and recommendations succeed in reducing the likelihood of such accidents, doesn’t this disaster prove that it only takes one? And unlikely events happen every day.
The president has said, “if laws are insufficient, they’ll be changed.” But no president has this ability, only Congress has, and the president must surely know how difficult getting the Congress to effectively change anything is. He also said that “if government oversight wasn’t tough enough, that will change, too.” Will it? Even if he replaces every person in an oversight position, he can’t guarantee it. The people who receive regulatory positions always have ties to the industries they oversee and can look forward to lucrative jobs in those industries when they leave governmental service. As long as corporate money is allowed to influence governmental action, neither the Congress nor regulators can be expected to change the laws or regulatory practices in ways that make them effective, and there is nothing any president can do about it. Even the Congress’ attempt to raise the corporate liability limit for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion has already hit a snag.
The President has said that “if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice” and that BP would be held accountable for the “horrific disaster.” He said BP will be paying the bill, and BP has said it takes responsibility for the clean-up and will pay compensation for “legitimate and objectively verifiable” claims for property damage, personal injury, and commercial losses. But “justice” is rendered in American courts, not by the executive branch. Any attempts to hold BP responsible will be adjudicated in the courts at the same snail’s pace that the responsibility for the Exxon-Mobile Alaska oil spill was adjudicated and likely will have the same results.
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. In Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages, but after nineteen years of appellate jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on June 25, 2008 issued a ruling reducing the punitive damages to $507.5 million, roughly a tenth of the original jury’s award. Furthermore, even that amount was reduced further by nineteen years of inflation. By that time, many of the people who would have been compensated by these funds had died.
The establishment calls this justice. Do you? Do those of you who reside in the coastal states that will ultimately be affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster really believe that the President can make good on this promise of holding BP responsible? By the time all the lawsuits filed in response to this disaster wend their ways through the legal system, Mr. Obama will be grayed, wizened, and ensconced in a plush chair in an Obama Presidential Library, completely out of the picture and devoid of all responsibility.
Politicians who engage in this duplicitous posturing know that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know they are lying; yet they do it pathologically. Aesop writes, “A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” Perhaps that’s why politicians never do.
Government in America consists of law. Legislators write it, executives apply it, and courts adjudicate it. But the law is a lie. We are told to respect the law and that it protects us. But it doesn’t. Think about it people! The law and law enforcement only come into play secundum vitium (after the crime). The police don’t show up before you’re assaulted, robbed, or murdered; they come after. So how does that protect you? Yes, if a relationship of trust is violated, you can sue if you can afford it, and even that’s not a sure thing. (Remember the victims of the Exxon-Valdez disaster!) Even if the person who violated the relationship gets sanctioned, will you be “made whole”? Most likely not! Relying on the law is a fool’s errand. It’s enacted, enforced, and adjudicated by liars.
The law is a great crime, far greater than the activities it outlaws, and there’s no way you can protect yourself from it. The establishment protects itself. The law does not protect people. It is merely an instrument of retribution. It can only be used, often ineffectively, to get back at the malefactor. It never un-dos the crime. Executing the murderer doesn’t bring back the dead. Putting Ponzi schemers in jail doesn’t get your money back. And holding BP responsible won’t restore the Louisiana marshes, won’t bring back the dead marine and other wildlife, and won’t compensate the victims for their losses. Carefully watch what happens over the next twenty years as the government uses the law to shield BP, Transocean, and Halliburton while the claims of those affected by the spill disappear into the quicksand of the American legal system.
Bilderberg 2010: Between the sword and the wall
The Catalan police are refreshingly friendly. But if the time for action comes, whose side will they be on?
Policing Bilderberg: beneath the uniforms beat human hearts Photograph: Charlie Skelton for the Guardian
The enormous bald detective in beach shorts took the camera from my wife. “Let me see.” He scrolled through the photographs, just taken, of me being detained at the campsite gates. He scrolled past, to see a photo of a limousine convoy, whooshing up the hill to Bilderberg. “I don’t like this,” he said, and waved a huge, disgruntled hand towards the conference hotel.
“Do you know how much this is costing?” asked Hannah. “Do you think the Spanish economy can afford all this?” Grimly, the enormous bald detective started deleting images of his comrades with his giant thumb. “Your opinion,” he growled, “is right.”
He handed the camera back to Hannah. “But you’ve deleted my best shots!” The detective whistled to his comrades, who were busy sniffing a jar of salted olives they had found in my car boot. He had them turn around, facing away from the camera. “Go head,” he rumbled. “Take photographs.”
What a difference a year makes. Last year in Vouliagmeni when I tried covering the 2009 Bilderberg meeting, I had Greek policemen yelling “No fotografia!” at me at every turn. I was arrested, tailed, harassed, rearrested, yelled at, bundled into squad cars, lied to, intimidated, wrestled with and hounded round Athens like I was John Dillinger.
This year, the police have been deployed in the same extraordinary numbers, but they are smiling, rolling their eyes at the rigmarole; the riot police are giving the thumbs-up to protesters and honking their horns as they come round the “awareness roundabout” at the foot of the hotel.
“The police have been laughing and chatting,” says Daniel Turon, a Spanish psycho-sociologist, here in Sitges to psycho-sociologise Bilderberg. “One of them said he had read a book about Bilderberg; another said, ‘Yes, we understand.'” The Catalan police, he says, “have a different sensibility” from what you may expect. “They are Catalan. Their minds are independent.”
Bilderberg 2010: Why the protesters are your very best friends
The people who are being detained, searched and questioned are not playing some game. They are deadly serious, and they are worried to death
Guerrilla journalists in Sitges, where the Bilderberg conference is being held. Photograph: Alex Amengual Photograph: Alex Amengual/guardian.co.uk
Ivan was alone on the roundabout. He had been left in charge of the banners while everyone else ate breakfast.
He slipped an empty bottle of red wine into a binliner and stretched. At his feet was a chalk-drawn pyramid showing the structure of society, the word “pueblo” at the bottom, and the tip pointing up the hill towards Bilderberg. It’s a short pyramid today, maybe half a heavily-armed mile from Rockefeller down to Ivan.
Ivan’s bed last night – is it had been the night before – was the scrub by the roadside. “It’s not so cold in my bag,” he said. “A lot of times I travel in the mountains – in the mountains, you can sleep anywhere.”
A lone Catalonian in green trousers, he clutched a leaflet and stood in the Sitges sun as, up the hill, billionaires and finance ministers ate kiwifruit patisseries.
The shame, the awful poignancy of Bilderberg, is that, for much of the time, there are more delegates up the hill than there are protesters at the foot of it.
On that point, there’s something I’d like you to do. I’d like you to extend a grateful thought, a prayer of thanks, an idle nod of acknowledgment – a something, an anything – towards Ivan and all the others who have come to Sitges to bear witness to Bilderberg 2010.
These people are on your side, they are fighting your corner. And if you don’t think it’s a corner that needs fighting, or if it’s a corner you think is being fought by the people up the hill … well, good luck to you.
I want you to know, though, that the people who are crawling around on pine needles with long lenses, trying to identify delegates (and doing pretty well, by the way), the people who are being detained, searched, questioned, then heading out again into the hills, the people who are sitting late into the night at the campsite bar, talking about distracted populations and central banks, are not lunatics.
Monday, May 24th, 2010
A primetime CBS show that aired last week featured a notable example of so called “propaganda placement”, where a talking point is inserted into the plot in order to shape public perception, often at the behest of the government.
CSI NY’s episode entitled “Point of View” featured a character who researches “conspiracy theories”, such the deliberate dispersal of potentially dangerous chemtrails into the atmosphere.
First the character, a professor, is labeled”odd”, then “anti-American”, before finally he is revealed to be a “domestic terrorist” hell bent on releasing a biological weapon in New York.
The following is a partial transcript of dialogue from the show:
CSI detective: “I have a little intel on Professor Scott; he has a history of espousing various conspiracy theories; sharing them with his students got him into a little trouble.”
Professor’s friend: “Every university has a least one unconventional professor.”
Second CSI detective: “Oh come on Payton, this guys ideas here are totally anti-American. Look at this; water fluoridation, tsunami bombs, chemtrails…
First CSI detective: “What are chemtrails?”
Third CSI detective: “Some people believe that vapor exhaust from aircraft are actually dangerous bio-chemicals dispersed into the air.”
Friend of the professor: “Which only proves that the professor is a little odd.”