"When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous." --Thomas Jefferson

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Eliminate the Useless Eaters

Every time I turn around I will hear over the news, or read in the paper of the tremendous over population of our planet. This is very interesting, because if you took the entire population of the world (roughly seven billion people), and stood them side by side in the state of Texas, each person would have 1000 square feet! There are 261,914 square acres in Texas (that figures to seven trillion square feet). So there is enough room just in Texas for every person in this world to get a piece of land 32 ft. X 32 feet! And that's just Texas! There is no overpopulation problem! This planets just not big enough for the rich and the poor to live together, that's the real problem!
We are also told through various media sources, that we are using up the earth's precious resources. Yet we have the technology to find a license plate on a car by use of a satellite. We have the technology for our government to listen to every phone call going on in the United States by use of a computer. This computer has about 400 key words, that if it picks up on any of these words, will record the phone call. We have the technology to put a computer chip containing all information on a person in the back of their hand the size of a grain of rice. We have the technology to put all information on a person on a strip in the back of their license, that can be run though a little machine and call up all info on that person. Is the media trying to tell us that we don't have the ability to use the earths precious resources wisely to feed and cloth everyone on the planet? I mean, our government pays farmers not to grow food. Food in third world countries (e.g., India) is stored in buildings and left to rot. What is going on here? What would be the purpose of stressing a fact that isn't even true? For those of you folks who have read the Iron Mountain Report, you will notice that they stress that the population would have to be at a controllable level. They give many examples on how the population could be brought down to a level that would be controllable. The simple fact is that (according to them), there are simply too many people on the earth to be controlled at this point.

The following information is taken from the report written by Dr. J Coleman , (copyright 1992: 2533 North Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89706) "Global 2000: A Blueprint For Global Genocide." I will be using quotes out of the
report that should get every reader thinking. http://jahtruth.net/300.htm

In the first paragraph of the report Dr. Coleman wrote, he stated,

"In 1979 I received a copy of a massive document commissioned by the Club of Rome and written by Cyrus Vance, three days after President James Earl Carter accepted it as official U.S. Policy....Global 2000 was unknown outside the Committee of 300 and carefully chosen official inside U.S. Government circles...." Keep in mind that many of the ideas for "Goals 2000" came from 19th century thinkers and writers such as Jeremy Bentham, William Petty-the Earl of Shelburne, H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell. (page one, paragraph three) http://jahtruth.net/darth.htm

"In his book 'The Impact of Science on Society' Russell expounded his views on how the world's population ought to be controlled, so as not to become a threat to the privileged rulers...." (page three, paragraph five)

"We are also witnessing the Great Plagues of 1987-2000 in the form of a, herpes, cholera, smallpox, tuberculosis....Aids, as we know, is an artificially induced virus which in effect is a cancer of the blood. The first experiments were conducted in Africa on the border of Sierra Leone and Nigeria..." (page four and five paragraph's five and one)

"...namely that the world is populated with too many redundant people who must not be allowed to procreate and consume scarce natural resources..." (page five paragraph five)

"..jobless people be confined in concentration camps, run by a joint stock company for profit....Once committed to concentration camps, inmates would never leave there alive." (Page six, paragraph two)

"Bentham, Shelburne, Wells and Russell hated the idea of education for the masses....systems in operation that would allow people to have a vocabulary of no more than 500 words....might help to explain why Alexander King of the Club of Rome was commissioned to destroy education in America.....A destructed education system qualifying millions who can barely read and write....will ensure a society in which the majority can and will be easily manipulated by men like President Bush, Cyrus Vance, Lord Carrington and James Baker III." (page six, paragraph five)

"The First and Second World Wars were wars designed to kill millions....wer e not successful enough hence the new methods outlined in the Global 2000 Report." (page seven, paragraph two)

"the mechanism of agriculture and the industrialization of the world was a terrible mistake....it has led to, and presently supports, a mass of people who perform no indispensable service....consuming the limited resources and destroying the environment of the globe....which they...the Committee of 300 representing the 'preordained leaders' of the world, say is theirs.....the remedy...lies in destroying an economy based upon agricultural and industrial expansion, because these support larger and larger populations of unwanted 'useless eaters'." (page seven, paragraph seven) http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm

"The 'surplus population' thus created is targeted for death as 'useless eaters' in terms so clearly expressed in the Global 2000 Report." (page eight, paragraph four)

"By the year 2000 the world SHALL have rid itself of at least 100 million 'useless eaters' and by the year 2050, the number culled SHALL amount to not less than 400 million." (Page nine, paragraph four)


The quotes I have given from Dr. Coleman's report sound pretty unbelievable. Or do they? Let's take a look at what is happening in our country. In the report, Dr. Coleman mentioned abortion and the gay life style. Abortion has killed about 36 million babies. Many in America have been conditioned to believe this is not murder, but it has reduced America's population by 36 million. The gay life style was encouraged, because with same sex partners, there is no procreation.

The education system in America has "dumb downed" our children so much that people are going to and graduating from college who can't read. Out-come-based Education does not teach the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. It is training our children to become "global citizens".

The environmental movement is bringing man down to a level lower than the animals. In public schools, children are being taught to worship "Mother Earth". People can no longer do with their property what they want, but are accountable to the government if they want to add a room to their house, put a side walk up, cut a tree down.

Our weather is being controlled. Droughts, earthquakes, floods, hurricanes are rampant. People are starving to death because of droughts in their countries and the food being shipped to them is being left to rot in storage houses.

Aids is rampant. The behaviors that cause the spread of Aids is being encouraged by our government.

Civilian labor camps are being put up on military installations. Saw an interesting article in the Daily News, January 8, 1995. It was called "Doing Time On The Outside". It talks about using prisoners to do work, like construction or road work, while they are in prison to save the taxpayers money. A sign on outside the Department of Corrections said, "Inmate Work Crews, Reducing Costs to Taxpayers". As I was reading the article, the thought kept going through my mind, "Is this how they are going to get people used to seeing prisoner slave labor?"

Global 2000 doesn't seem to have a list of people who they want to get. It seems that they consider most of the population "useless eaters". I do imagine they will go after people fighting this first. There was no evidence that folks who keep quiet and don't try to get the word out would be safe. No one will be safe. The Committee of 300 believe that the world is theirs to do with as they want. The rest of us are excess baggage.

The above is a brief insight into a disease of the mind, the following is an overview of how the disease has spread across the world and now infects the minds of the majority.

Ask this question: are you supporting the people who are working to eliminate you by whatever means they can, cancer, aids, war, starvation, abortion are just some of the means devised and implemented via world-wide campaigns put in place by these maniacs to reduce the population. Too monstrous to believe, well think again, look at the evidence, there is official documentation of the plan that sets out and supports this official agenda. Yes, it is extremely difficult for the average mind to come to grips with their plan. It is beyond human belief, but it is the plan and it being implemented as you read about it.
When you come to realise what the plan is you will not only understand why trillions are spent on war and peanuts on preventing disease and starvation.

If you believe in not damming rivers, letting the bush take over farmland, the right of local councils to decide whether you can cut down a tree on your property then you are a victim of the brainwashing carried out by the popular media under instructions from the supporters of the Club of Rome's agenda. The truth is the truth, whether you accept the truth will depend on the level of success of the popular media has had brainwashing you.

Why is that people say, - "don't believe everything we see in the popular media", and at the same time believe everything the popular media promotes? Why, because they repeat the lie until we accept it as the truth.

The popular media promote anything and everything that supports the lie while denying the existence of all creditable evidence that proves the lie to be what it is, a lie. Don't believe this? The ask yourself why the popular media has not covered the President Jimmy Carter's accepted Global 2000 as official U.S. Policy and the fact that it has not since been rejected and the popular media never mention it.
Loading...

GET THE U.S. OF THE UN

she's an asshole to the highest degree

she's an asshole to the highest degree
THE ANSWER TO 1984 IS 1776.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."

BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING

BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING
Loading...

NATO MAP

NATO MAP
"If one of the NATO countries is attacked, attacks or otherwise or becomes involved in armed conflict, then all of them are to be considered as part of the conflict."

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thom

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thom
Loading...

BAAA BAAA BAAA-NO MORE!!!!!!!

My photo
SEATTLE, THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF WASHINGTON, United States
IT'S NOT ABOUT ME, IT'S ABOUT US. MY PURPOSE IS TO BRING LIGHT INTO THE DARKNESS AND HOPEFULLY WAKE UP SOME OF MY FELLOW FREEMAN.

THE RED PILL

Satanism and the CIA: International Trafficking in Children

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS NEO-CONNED SPEECH, JULY 10, 2003

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 10, 2003

Neo – CONNED !

The modern-day limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocation that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive “just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we’re entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be naïve for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later.)

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is “hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal, Christopher Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1.

They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2.

They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3.

They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4.

They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5.

They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6.

They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7.

They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8.

They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9.

They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10.

They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11.

They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12.

They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13.

Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14.

9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15.

They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

16.

They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17.

They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.

Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an “American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago. Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen’s most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is’ is.”

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains:

"Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle."

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:

"Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."


It’s of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

I’d like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular” state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the “spectacular state.”


He explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.


Neocons—anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.


Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999):

…of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.


Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”


Recognizing a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being “lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.


The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.


The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.


We know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.


There’s no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty—are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.


Instead of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.


Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s role in welfare.


The supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.


Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?


Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or not it is done with good intentions.


I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.


Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.” Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.


If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.


The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.


In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.


We’re at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.


One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.


Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.

NEW WORLD ORDER...IN THEIR WORDS.

Fischerspooner: We Need a War

IBM-Verichip & the 4th Reich

WAKE UP!

New World Order

Fortress North America: A Vast Gated Community


America has always been known as the great melting pot where people from various nations can come here with hard work and a bit of luck enrich their lives and the lives of our families. Immigrants have come to America and brought skills that we as Americans valued. We gained from their skills and labor and they came to a country where you can be free to live in peace and comfort.

Today Mexicans are leaving their country in droves and come to America to improve their lives. If I lived In Mexico where the there is such a divide between those have and those who have not I would take the risks and come to America myself. The problem is that there are at least 30 million illegal aliens in America who have not been tested for diseases like TB[1] and they are being exploited by America businesses who don't want to pay the minimum wage or higher.

These men and women break their back in this country only to be paid slave wages. In many states such as Florida, Georgia, Texas and Arizona they have taken over many towns and locals have had to move out. Now many of us have begged the government for a border fence, well we are going to get one but is it took keep the illegals out or to keep us in?

Fortress North America[2] is a term used during World War II which was devised to protect America and Canada from the Nazi blitzkrieg in case all the other nations failed to stop them. Since 9/11 it has been used to further integrate North America and secure the continent. If we are to integrate with Canada and Mexico why is it that we can no longer cross both borders without a long-range RFID enabled passport, thumb print and a cavity search[3]?

Forget about travelling out of the country on an airplane, you must have 'clearance' before hand. If you are on a no-fly list then you can't even leave the country. Now when you travel abroad you are put in a Homeland Security database which creates a risk assessment profile to determine whether you are a terrorist, subversive or peaceful protestor. This is called the Automated Targeting System[4]. Bruce Schneier said it best, "It's the sort of thing you'd expect from the former Soviet Union or East Germany or China."

RFID, radio frequency identification is being using in U.S. passports, Wal-Mart groceries and the jeans you buy in The Gap. It is being used by the government because it is easy to track and trace travelers who come and go. A recent story showed that the National Guard[5] during times of disasters and emergencies will be using RFID to track people, pets and equipment. So if you are put on a bus going to a wonderful local FEMA center you are being tracked and corralled like cattle.

On the northern and southern border the U.S. VISIT[6] initiative has created biometric checkpoints for everyone but illegal aliens. The U.S. government may be willing to put unregulated mercenary forces such as Blackwater USA or Dyncorp[7] on both borders to 'keep us safe'. All of this safety is beginning to look a lot like East Germany. We have lost so many liberties that Americans have taken for granted. Our government has taken our liberties and replaced them with permissions attached with fees.

We live in a gated North American community ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the police state. When the next attack happens on American soil will you quietly go to your local FEMA center? Halliburton[8] is building detention camps, and preachers[9] are being bought off by Homeland Security to quell dissent when martial law is declared. This police state apparatus is being built right under our noses. It is late in the game but we still have time. Plan for your family before your government unveils their plans for you.


Clever tyrants are never punished. --Voltaire

1. Business World. Illegal aliens bringing drug-resistant TB and other diseases with them. 2005 [cited; Available from: http://www.businessword.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1598/.

2. Global Research. "Securing the North American Security Perimeter". 2005 [cited; Available from: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=175.

3. PC World. Plan to Use RFID in U.S. Border Control Draws Fire. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136981-pg,1/article.html.

4. Bruce Schneier. Automated Targeting System. 2006 [cited; Available from: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/automated_targe.html.

5. Mobile Radio Technology. National Guard uses RFID to track people, property. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://mrtmag.com/briefs/national_guard_rfid_091007/.

6. SECURE ID News. Biometric data to be required upon exiting the United States [cited; Available from: http://www.secureidnews.com/news/2007/06/29/biometric-data-to-be-required-upon-exiting-the-united-states/.

7. El Paso Times. Private security force isn't desirable. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_6847673.

8. Alternet. American Prison Camps Are on the Way. 2006 [cited; Available from: http://www.alternet.org/rights/42458/.

9. KSLA. Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987.

Doublespeak

Doublespeak
The words listed here are ones that are often used by politicians and the media to put spin on an idea. The following words mean almost the same thing, but convey completely different images to the listener.

Affirmative Action / Racial Discrimination - Both mean "preferential treatment for a particular race". However, the first is mandated by law and the second in illegal.

Alternative lifestyles / sexual perversions - First, let's examine the definition of perversion from Webster's dictionary:

per-ver-sion (per-vur'-zhan) n. a turning from the true purpose, use, or meaning; corruption; unnatural manifestation of sexual desire.
If you follow this definition, any sexual act performed for any "unnatural" reasons (i.e. for any reason other than the "natural", instinctual purpose of reproduction) can be considered a perversion. There are many activities that either completely prohibit or are unnecessary for the purpose of propagation of the species, such as Bestiality (sex with animals), Homosexuality (attraction to same sex), Pedophilia (attraction to children), Necrophilia (Sexual gratification by having sex with the dead), Monogamy (attraction to only one mate), Chastity (abstaining from sex), and Bondage. It is difficult to claim that any of these practices are instinctual, since they are not routinely practiced by other mammals. This is not to say that these desires are necessarily wrong, but it should be recognized that they are all perversions of a human's natural desire to mate.

Unfortunately, this fact is hard for some people to take. They don't like being told that what they are doing is in fact, very weird. So, in order to remove the stigma of being a pervert, it was necessary to come up with the term alternative lifestyle to describe these strange mating habits.

Here is an interesting example I found in the St. Louis Riverfront Times

...a fall 1999 British-made documentary, "Hidden Love: Animal Passions", reported on practitioners in Missouri's "zoophile" community (i.e., Human beings romantically involved with animals), including an interview with an uncloseted zoophile gushing over his "wife", Pixel, a horse; said one activists, "We are not sick at all. Zoosexuality is (merely) an alternative lifestyle". - Riverfront Times, Feb 9-15, 2000 p.8


Attack / Retaliation - When our allies suffer a loss of life/property at the hands of an enemy, it is called a cold-blooded attack. When our enemies suffer a loss of life/property at the hands of an ally, it is called retaliation.

And when that enemy retaliates for the attack it just suffered, it is again referred to as a cold-blooded attack -- never as retaliation. No matter how often this cycle continues, our side is always said to be retaliating to the other side's attack.

This effect is most apparent in the Israeli / Palestinian war. The Palestinians will launch a surprise attack, and Israel will retaliate. The Palestinians will launch another surprise attack, and Israel will retaliate again. The Palestinians launch yet another surprise attack, and Israel... well, you get the idea.

When the events are explained in explained in this manner, one might get the impression that Israel is the victim of Palestinian aggression -- That Israelis desire nothing but peace and Palestinians desire nothing but war. Of course, it is impossible to say for sure 'who started it'. After all, this land had been changing hands continuously for the last 2500 years. However -- As far as I can tell, this latest conflict began back in the 1940's when Anglo-American and Jewish terrorist forces (Irgon and Stern) forced the Palestinians off their land in order to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish state.

Of course Israel wants peace now -- They are the ones with the land! Demanding peace after forcibly taking another person's land is like winning a large sum of money on the first hand of poker and then refusing to play another game. The Palestinians want their land back -- and Israel is trying to claim the moral high ground by denying them a chance to win it back.

Bust / Massive arrest by the state - When US police go on rampage and incarcerate large numbers of people during the "War on Drugs" it is considered a great victory ... When China arrest large numbers of people for trying to bring down the government, it is considered to be a barbaric act against basic human rights.

Campaign contribution / bribe - Is there any difference at all? In theory, a bribe is a guarantee that a political payoff will result on a specified action being taken by a politician. But a campaign contribution is not supposed to contain such a quid pro quo But why else would an organization give $500,000 to a political candidate, if the didn't expect something in return?

Civilian Casualties / Collateral damage - Other countries kill their own citizens... America only damages them.

Charity / Redistribution of wealth - When you offer food to people that are hungry, you are giving charity. When a government takes money from you in order to give it to people that aren't a whole hell of a lot poorer than you, it is called redistribution of wealth.

Dedicated / Fanatical - The US is "Dedicated" to keeping drugs out of America, while the citizens of Salem were "Fanatical" for their desire to keep witches out of Salem.

Educated / Brainwashed - US children are "Educated" about the evils of drugs, pollution, and race relations ... Soviet children were "Brainwashed" in Soviet doctrine.

Ethnic Cleansing / Population Transfer - The US forced thousands of Germans out of their homes after WWII. (The land was given to Poland for "war reparations") At the time, we called this "Population Transfer".

Freedom fighters / Terrorists - Freedom Fighters attack other governments to obtain "freedom". Terrorists attack the U.S. and our allies, in order to gain their freedom.

Invasion / Military Police Action / Peacekeeping - All of these words can be used to describe when one country puts troops in another land. The choice of which word to use depends entirely on which country is performing this action. When the USSR entered Afghanistan to support the existing government, it was called an invasion. When the US put troops in Vietnam, it was considered a "police action". The presence of U.N. troops in Bosnia is called "Peacekeeping".

Law and Order / Oppression - Every law has at its core a desire to force a person to behave a certain way, and is a form a oppression. The only factor that determines whether a law is "oppressive' is whether or not you agree with it -- and whether or not you believe that the law will effect you!

Prohibition / War on Drugs - You can find a detailed comparison here.

Realistic / Stereotypical - If a person believes that it is a bad idea to walk though the ghetto at night, they are simply being realistic. However, if they take the next step and say that the reason it's such a bad idea is because of the people that live in that neighborhood, they are accused of stereotyping.

Revolution / Civil War - When the colonies revolted against oppression from Britain, it was called a "revolution". When the south revolted against the oppression of Washington DC, it was called a civil war. I guess it all depends on who wins the war. If the government wins, it is a civil war. If the citizens win, it is a revolution.

Shell Shock / Combat Fatigue / Operational Exhaustion / Post-traumatic stress disorder - The comedian George Carlin once pointed out how the way we describe this condition has changed over the years. He pointed out how the wording has changed to completely remove any connection with the horrors of war from the name of the condition, even though it is the horrors of war which is the direct cause of the condition.

Self-confident / Arrogant - Liberals are self-confident... because they are dedicated to their beliefs. But, conservatives are arrogant because they are dedicated to their beliefs.

Slave/Serf/indentured servant/debtor

A slave labors for his owner, and in return is given food, shelter, and the occasional lashing. He is the property of his master, and may be sold at any time.

In the by-gone days of Europe, a surf was required to give 20% of his produce to his lord - in exchange he had enough food to eat, and was allowed to live on the land. Actually, a serf is considered part of land - If the property is sold, he is sold with it. This is an improvement over slavery in that families cannot be broken up at the whim of the master - plus the peasant is allowed to accumulate some possessions.

An Indentured servant was required to work for his "master" for a term of years. This servitude was generally "repayment" for some sort of loan or grant. Many colonists became indentured servants to pay for their passage to the new world.

Today's society is far more advanced. People are no longer considered to be anybody else's property. They my own their own property. None-the-less, a worker must still pay 38% of what they earn to the state. To make matters worse, most are heavily in debt to banks and other lending institutions. In a sense, they have allowed themselves to become "indentured servants" by agreeing to loans with 15%-20% usury charges. They are forced to hand over a large percentage of their income to their new masters. (Did you really think the bank was doing you a favor by giving you a credit card?)

Spend / Invest - Politicians aren't spending taxpayer money - they're investing it. Normally, when one says that he is investing money, we assume that that person is intending to profit monetarily from that investment. The definition according to the American Heritage® Dictionary is:
in•vest - To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: (invested their savings in stocks and bonds.)
If we adhere to this definition, the act of squandering taxpayer money on pet projects cannot be considered investing -- That is, unless the politician is expecting to profit from it personally. But of course, this is sometimes the case. Like when politicians spend money in order to please their campaign contributors, who in turn give the politicians even more money come election time.

Tax Cut / Tax Scheme - When the Republicans propose a tax cut, the Democrats call it a tax scheme. In the English language, the word scheme is normally used to describe a plot to rip people off. It is not used to describe a plan to let people keep what is theirs.

Take a look at these examples, and see if you can figure out which sentences are not correct:

  1. A dangerous computer hacker came up with a scheme to steal thousands of credit card numbers without getting caught.

  2. The bank robber came up with a scheme to become a law abiding citizen.

  3. The unscrupulous tele-marketing company schemed to rip-off the elderly.

  4. The doctors in the emergency room schemed to save their patient's life.

If you answered #2 & #4, CONGRATULATIONS - You are a normal human being!

I can appreciate the fact that it is hard for a politician to fight a tax cut, but blatant misuse of the English language is not the answer. Shame on you, Democrats.

Trickle-Down Economics / Supply side economics - The belief that companies create jobs. It is the belief that if America produces more, we will have more stuff... go figure.

Visionary / unrealistic - All Visionaries have been called unrealistic at one time or another.

Suspected 9-11 Criminal Coconspirators

Bush

George W. Bush — eldest son of Bush crime family; guilty of election fraud in 2000, 2004; guilty of war crimes, war profiteering, treason, crimes against humanity; likely signed-off on 9-11 plot

cheney

Dick Cheney — former PNAC member; guilty of war profiteering, treason; was in bunker on 9-11 directing several “war games”; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about timing of 9-11 activities

rumsfeld

Donald Rumsfeld — former Secretary of War and PNAC member; close friend of Cheney; was at Pentagon on 9-11; once slipped and said “when that missile hit the Pentagon”

Wolfowitz

Paul Wolfowitz — Deputy Secretary of War on 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member; chief architect of Iraq war; forced to resign in World Bank scandal

Perle

Richard Perle — former assistant Secretary of War, chairman War Policy Board, and PNAC member; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; allegedly gave $100,000 to head of Pakistan’s ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad; nicknamed “Prince of Darkness”


Feith

Douglas Feith — effectively in command, with Wolfowitz, of War Department on 9-11; Undersecretary of War for Policy; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; investigated for spying for Israel; former PNAC member

Zakheim

Dov Zakheim — Pentagon comptroller when trillion dollars reported missing on 9-10-01; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; Shul Rabbi; former CFR member; former CEO of fly-by-remote manufacturer; reputed 9-11 mastermind

Tenet

George Tenet — director of the CIA on 9-11; was awarded the “Medal of Freedom” by Bush for his fine work on 9-11; reported to be “dual citizen” of US and Israel

Mueller

Robert Mueller — FBI director on 9-11; under his “leadership” FBI field agents’ warnings of an imminent attack were stifled

Pickard

Thomas Pickard — took over the job of FBI director from Louis Freeh in August 2001; held this position only for a few weeks before Robert Mueller became director; former Terror Task Force chief John O’Neill complained about sabotage by Pickard

Watson

Dale Watson — former Deputy Chief of the CIA at the Counter-Terrorist Center; appointed Inspector Deputy Assistant Director of the National Security Division (NSD), FBI Headquarters, Washington, DC in July 1998; appointed FBI Headquarters Assistant on December 6, 1999 by the Attorney General; ignored at least four different FBI agents’ warnings including an “urgent cable” from the CIA on August 23rd about Almihdhar and Alhazmi

np

Dave Frasca — FBI Radical Fundamentalists Unit Chief; personally scuttled the work of Kenneth Williams in July 2001 and Coleen Rowley in August 2001, the Arizona and Minnesota FBI agents who were actively investigating “terrorist” patsies in CIA-operated flight schools

np

Marion “Spike” Bowman — FBI agent who thwarted FBI investigations into both Zacarias Moussaoui and the anthrax attacks on Congress

Ashcroft

John Ashcroft — Attorney General on 9-11; protected “terrorist” patsy Abdussattar Shaikh from subpoena after 9-11; stopped flying commercial aircraft in 2001

Chertoff

Michael Chertoff — Assistant Attorney General on 9-11; freed over 100 Israeli spies in the US after 9-11; promoted to head Homeland Security; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist; likely Mossad agent

Powell

Colin Powell — Secretary of State on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad two days after 9-11; former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; helped cover up Vietnam My Lai massacre

Rice

Condi Rice — National Security Adviser on 9-11; promoted to Secretary of State; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission while under oath

Thompson

Tommy Thompson — Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary; hired Jerome Hauer, former Office of Emergency Center, on 9-10-01

Hauer

Jerome Hauer — managing director of Kroll and senior adviser to US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for National Security and Emergency Management on 9-11; put John O’Neill at the WTC on 9-11; lied to Dan Rather on CBS News on 9-11 about the controlled demolition of WTC buildings; director of Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management from 1996 to 2000

Goss

Porter Goss — former House Intelligence Chair; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; promoted to Director of CIA, resigned after “hookergate”

Graham

Bob Graham — former Florida Senator; was meeting with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on 9-11; ran for President in 2004

Grossman

Marc Grossman — Under Secretary for Political Affairs on 9-11; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, on or shortly after 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel

Armitage

Richard Armitage — former member of PNAC, Deputy Secretary of State; met with General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s ISI and 9-11 financier, shortly after 9-11

Zelikow

Philip Zelikow — led the 9-11 Cover-Up Commission; personally wrote the 9-11 Omission Commission Report, a best-selling work of fiction; appointed Counselor of US Department of State; “dual citizen” of US and Israel

Fleischer

Ari Fleischer — White House spokesman for Bush on 9-11; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; connected to the extremist group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics

Meyers

Richard Meyers — in charge of USA air defenses on 9-11; lied to 9-11 Omission Commission about reasons for air defense failure on 9-11; promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Eberhardt

Ralph Eberhardt — NORAD Commander on 9-11; fanatical supporter of missile defense scheme, militarization of space; enthusiastic supporter of merging law enforcement and the military

Arnold

Larry Arnold — NORAD Commander Major General on 9-11; has used 9-11 to push militarization of USA

Findley

Eric Findley — Canadian Air Force Major General; acting commander of NORAD on 9-11

Winfield

Montague Winfield — Major General in charge of Pentagon war room on 9-10-01, the evening of September 10th he requested a rookie to stand in for him on 9-11

Mies

Richard Mies — former Admiral; ran Global Guardian “war game” on 9-11 out of US Strategic Command (Stratcom) at Offutt Air Force Base; now CEO of Hicks & Associates, a “strategic consultant” to the USG dealing in “military transformation”

Shelton

Henry Shelton — chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9-11; supported formation of Able Danger

Schoomaker

Peter Schoomaker — US Army Chief of Staff; former SOCOM (Special Operations Command) chief; ran Able Danger

Lambert

Geoffrey Lambert — Major General; SOCOM (Special Operations Command) Intel Chief; made Able Danger, the program that tracked patsy “terrorists”, off limits to FBI

Gentry

Tony Gentry — Army Intelligence and Security Command General Counsel; ordered 2.5 terrabytes of Able Danger data destroyed

Odeen

Philip Odeen — as director of Program Analysis for the National Security Council, provided staff support to Henry Kissinger from 1971 to 1973; served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of War in Systems Analysis; named to chair the National War Panel in 1997; former president of Reynolds and Reynolds; former CEO and president of BDM International; executive vice president of Washington operations of TRW

Abrams

Elliot Abrams — former member of PNAC, National Security Council; pleaded guilty in 1991 to lying to Congress about Iran-Contra affair; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist

Libby

Lewis “Scooter” Libby — former PNAC member; studied political science at Yale under Paul Wolfowitz; aid to Cheney; convicted for lying about outing of Valerie Plame; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist

Abramoff

Jack Abramoff — entertained USG “terrorist” patsy Mohammed Atta on his yacht just before 9-11; convicted criminal lobbyist; ardent Zionist

jeb Bush

Jeb Bush — Florida governor on 9-11; declared martial law in Florida four days before 9-11; brother of George Bush; PNAC member; guilty of election fraud in 2000

Giuliani

Rudolph Giuliani — mayor of New York on 9-11; hailed as “hero” for his “gutsy” leadership on 9-11; allegedly involved with FEMA and former NYC Police Chief Kerik in Operation Code Angel

Kerik

Bernard Kerik — NYC Police Chief on 9-11; “sidekick” of Giuliani; allegedly involved with FEMA in WTC demolition “war games” called Operation Code Angel

Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer — New York Attorney General on 9-11; barred his top aide, Deputy Attorney General Dietrich Snell, from testifying to Congress on Able Danger; threw out Karl Schwarz’s 9-11 synopsis

Holbrooke

Richard Holbrooke — former US ambassador to UN; CFR member; co-chaired “Independent Task Force on America’s Response to Terrorism” in which the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) was promoted

Deutch

John Deutch — former Undersecretary of War, director of CIA; co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow, Ashton Carter; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America; MIT professor; grandson of Yonah Fischer, Antwerp diamond merchant who ran Zionist Federation of Belgium

Carter

Ashton Carter — co-authored paper, “Catastrophic Terrorism: A National Policy” with Zelikow and Deutch; senior partner at Global Technology Partners, an affiliate of Rothschild North America

Shaikh

Abdussattar Shaikh — FBI informant to the San Diego office; helped bring “terrorist” patsies to USA; protected by Attorney General Ashcroft

np

Abdullah Noman — worked for the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; filed 10-15 visas for the patsy 9-11 “hijackers” in the Visa Express Program

Lewin

Daniel Lewin — officer in elite, secret unit of Israeli military called “Sayeret Matkal”; orchestrated activities of Mossad agents in USA before 9-11; was allegedly stabbed or “shot” by highjacker Satam al-Suqami before AA flight 11 crashed into the WTC

np

Dominic Suter — Mossad agent; his front company, Urban Moving Systems, employed the five Mossad agents caught celebrating in New York on 9-11

np

Sivan Kurzberg — driver of van belonging to the celebrating Israelis; when stopped by police on 9-11, he said “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem”

Gross

John Gross — one of the lead engineers for the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed; denies existence of molten steel at the WTC

np

Theresa McAllister — edited the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed

Hamburger

Ronald Hamburger — structural engineer and Senior Principal at Simpson Gumpertz and Heger consulting engineers in San Francisco; was a principal author of FEMA’s initial report on the collapse of the twin towers; later a key participant in the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed

Baker

William Baker — member of FEMA Probe Team; partner with Skidmore, Owings, Merrill; contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed

Nelson

Harold Nelson — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed

Gilsanz

Ramon Gilsanz — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed

np

Shankar Nair — contributed to the flawed NIST report on why the WTC buildings collapsed; quoted in Chicago Tribune, September 19, 2001 that “Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center”

Corley

Gene Corley — led FEMA/ASCE WTC collapse “investigation”; was the principal investigator for ASCE and FEMA of the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City

Mlakar

Paul Mlakar — part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks

Sozen

Mete Sozen — part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks

Thornton

Charles Thornton — partner of Richard Tomasetti; told Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel, “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse”; part of ASCE team that investigated both WTC and Murrah Federal building attacks

Tomasetti

Richard Tomasetti — partner of Charles Thornton; reportedly behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the WTC steel evidence

np

Benjamin Chertoff — 25-year-old cousin of Michael Chertoff; senior “researcher” for Popular Mechanics’ hit piece on 9-11 Truth Movement

np

unnamed — FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center who destroyed controllers’ tapes of 9-11

Marvin Bush

Marvin Bush — brother of George Bush; on board of Securacom, US-Kuwaiti company paid $9.2 to manage WTC security October 1996 to 1998; on board of HCC Insurance, big WTC insurer

np

Wirt Walker — cousin of George Bush; principal at Securacom, US-Kuwaiti joint-venture that managed security for WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Airport, all of which figured into 9-11

Silverstein

Larry Silverstein — he and partner Frank Lowy obtained 99-year lease on WTC shortly before 9-11; made several billion dollars on 9-11 insurance fraud; admitted to “pulling” WTC 7

Rockefeller

David Rockefeller — vice director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1949-1985), vice president (1950-1970), and chairman (1970-1985); as chairman of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association (1958 to 1975) was primary builder of WTC complex; founder and honorary chairman of the Trilateral Commission; president or CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank, 1961 to 1981; 9-11 was the anniversary of 1973 CIA-sponsored coup plotted by David Rockefeller’s cabal and overseen by Nelson’s protégé Henry Kissinger that toppled Chile’s President Salvadore Allende

np

Nicholas Rockefeller — told film-maker Aaron Russo of coming catastrophic event eleven months before 9-11

Buffett

Warren Buffett — was hosting golf charity event at the US Strategic Command headquarters at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha on 9-11 (Bush flew to Offutt afternoon of 9-11); world’s second richest person

Greenberg

Maurice Greenberg — CEO of American International Group (AIG) on 9-11 which became co-owner of the “private spy agency”, Kroll Associates, in 1993 and was a major share-holder in Marsh & McClennan whose CEO on 9-11 was Maurice’s son Jeffrey; director of the New York Federal Reserve bank (1988-1995); deputy chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1996; major investor in the Blackstone Group

Kroll

Jules Kroll — founder of Kroll Corporation, a “security services” company which was in charge of “security” at WTC on 9-11; has close links to CIA and is active private military contractor in Iraq; Zionist

Bremer

Paul Bremer — Marsh & McClennan executive on 9-11; Chairman of the Congressional National Commission on Terrorism, 1999 to 2000; US Ambassador-at-Large for Counterterrorism, 1986 to 1989; Presidential Envoy to Irag and Adminstrator of the Coaltion Provisional Authority, May 2003 to December 2004

peterson

Peter Peterson — CEO of the Blackstone Group, parent corporation of one of three lease-holders for WTC 7 on 9-11; also chairman of the CFR and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on 9-11; CEO of the Institute for International Economics in October 2000

Krongard

A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard — now number three Executive Director at the CIA; until 1998, managed firm used to place “put options” on United Airlines which has left $2.5 million in “profits” unclaimed

Loizeaux

Mark Loizeaux — as CEO of CDI was instrumental in “recycling” steel from WTC crime scene; CDI also buried the rubble from the crime scene of the Murrah Federal Building

Knoblauch

Loring Knoblauch — CEO of Underwriters Labs; said that jet fuel fires were not “reasonably foreseeable”; resigned suddenly in August 2004 after UL performed tests of WTC floor models where floors did not collapse and were barely affected

Cherkasky

Michael Cherkasky — CEO of Kroll on 9-11; former investigator in the Manhattan DA’s Office from 1978 to 1994; now CEO of insurance-firm Marsh & McClennan

Carlucci

Frank Carlucci — former Secretary of War; affiliated with PNAC; served as chairman of the Carlyle Group (1992-2003); on BoD of BDM International

Kristol

William Kristol — PNAC co-founder; adherent of Leo Strauss; editor of The Weekly Standard; strong advocate of the Iraq war; “dual citizen” of US and Israel; Zionist

Perry

William Perry — former Secretary of War; associated with the Rothschild's banking empire through Global Technology, a Rothschild affiliate

Woolsey

James Woolsey — former CIA director; PNAC member; claims “incompetence” was reason for 9-11

Gingrich

Newt Gingrich — former Speaker of the House; PNAC member; reputed to be a member of the CFR; served on the Pentagon’s War Policy Board

Kissinger

Henry Kissinger — long criminal history; wanted for war crimes in several countries; sat on War Policy Board under Perle; chosen to lead 9-11 Cover-Up Omission Commission; “dual citizen” of US and Israel

HW Bush

George H.W. Bush — Bush crime family Don; Skull and Bones; CIA operative involved in JFK assassination; former head of CIA; son of friend shot Reagan when he was VP; war profiteer

Blair

Tony Blair — British Prime Minister on 9-11; ally and partner in crime of George Bush; London 7-7 bombings were also “false flag” operation

Jones

Pauline Neville-Jones — International Governor of BBC on 9-11; Chairman of UK Joint Intelligence Committee (1991-1994); Chairman of QinetiQ Group, a war technology company with government customers in UK and USA; Chairman of Information Assurance Advisory Council (IAAC)

Ahmad

Mahmoud Ahmad — head of Pakistan’s ISI; had Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh wire $100,000 to lead 9-11 “terrorist” patsy Mohammad Atta

Netanyahu

Benjamin Netanyahu — former Israeli Prime Minister; said 9-11 was “good” for US-Israeli relationship

Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act."


George Orwell


Loading...
Loading...

SAY 'NO'!

SAY 'NO'!

ME & THE WOLFS

ME & THE WOLFS