Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Court Jester and 9/11 Truth

The Next Stage: Global Naked Body Scanners

Vatican/Jesuits Updates

Stewart and Colbert Sell Neocon Agenda to Left & Trash 9/11 Truth

Stewart and Colbert Sell Neocon Agenda to Left & Trash 9/11 Truth

  •  The Alex Jones ChannelAlex Jones Show podcastPrison Planet TwitterAlex Jones' FacebookInfowars store
Scott Creighton

American Everyman

September 30, 2010
I just have to ask, is there anything, anything, that billionare Sumner Redstone’s progressive propaganda tag-team of Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert won’t do to help turn the supposed left 180 degrees from positions they held during the previous administration?
I have written several times about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert turning into blatant propagandists since the Chosen One took office.
For example: there’s the time Jon Stewart played the MEMRI TV video demonizing Palestinians, Stephen Colbert’s recent revolting sucking-up to globalist Joe Biden, there was Stewart’s story about the South Park episode psyop involving Revolution Muslim which turns out to be run by a “converted” jewish ex-settler from the West Bank,Stephen’s sycophantic groveling and rebranding the Afghan occupation just after Obama took office, and then of course Stewart’s ambushing of Rod Blagojevich which I thought was a pretty odd position for a “progressive” to take after he practically gave back rubs and “happy endings” to each and every neocon that has come on his set to pimp their new books or try to rebrand themselves as anything but the war criminals they are. That list includes but is not limited to Bill Kristol, Ari Fleischer, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Thomas Friedman, Tom Ridge, and John Yoo. Each and every one of the previously named neocons and or war criminals, Jon Stewart treated with more respect than he did Rod Blagojevich who’s only crime was to threaten Bank of America if they didn’t live up to the conditions of the banker bailout bill.
Recently these two progressive shills have each taken on a new directive which certainly lives up to their pathetic performances in the past.
Jon Stewart is now involved in what he calls the “Million Moderates March” and the premise of this is that everyone who is anyone in America these days is a “centrist” or a “moderate” and that only the “fringe” are getting any attention.
Centrism is, of course, just another name for the Washington Consensus, which is neoliberal/DLC “New Dem” corporatist fiscal ideology.
I seriously doubt that Stewart is correct in that assumption considering so many people are suffering under this economy, but since he recently had to grovel at the ultimate neoliberal’s feet (Bill Clinton), its not surprising that he would come out with this “move to the center” propaganda. Also interesting to note that he announced this new propaganda effort the same day he had Clinton on his show.
What is surprising is that Stewart chastised the radical left for holding such beliefs as “George Bush is a war criminal” and called to “restore sanity” on Oct. 30th 2010.
He later labeled it a “Million Moderate March.” The purpose, he said, is to counter what he called a minority of 15 percent or 20 percent of the country that has dominated the national political discussion with extreme rhetoric. He tarred both parties with that charge, mentioning both the attacks on the right against President Obama for being everything from a socialist to un-American and on the left against former President Bush for being a war criminal. Glenn Greenwald
Greenwald also noted Stewart’s history of aiding neocons with their image rebranding and book sales, though he doesn’t draw any conclusions about it like I do. Very polite of him if you ask me.
… but far more important than tone, in my view, is content. For instance, Bill Kristol, a repeated guest on The Daily Show, is invariably polite on television, yet uses his soft-spoken demeanor to propagate repellent, destructive ideas. The same is true for war criminal John Yoo, who also appeared, with great politeness, on The Daily Show. Moreover, some acts are so destructive and wrong that they merit extreme condemnation (such as Bush’s war crimes). Glenn Greenwald
Personally, I have to agree with Mr. Greenwald in that certain actions merit extreme condemnation (like impeachment and imprisonment) and to that list I would like to toss out 1. lying 935 times to justify an illegal war which has killed over a million Iraqi people and dislocated about 4 million others, 2. creating false documents (Niger Yellow Cake) like the neocons at the Office of Special Plans did to justify an illegal war, 3. torture, 4. rendition, 5. secret prisons, 6. CIA backed mercenary death squads 7. depleted uranium spread across Iraq … I mean, if these actions don’t merit calling George W. Bush (and several of Jon Stewart’s recent guests) a war criminal, what does?
Is turning a blind eye to such atrocities and war crimes really “sanity” or is it something else?
“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.” Glenn Greenwald
It’s clear that Stewart is doing his part to help the globalist regime in charge whitewash the past 10 years. He’s actually helping to rewrite our collective history on these matters and turn “moderate” progressives, those with their heads buried in the sand, against those “fringe” elements who tried to demand justice and accountability from the previous administration. If anything proves Jon Stewart’s complicity in the globalist criminal actions, this is certainly it.
Colbert is certainly not being left out in the cold either. He just recently “testified” before a congressional sub-committee in congress speaking out in favor of the precursor to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill being pushed by the Obama/Clinton regime but it was actually a holdover from the George Bush administration, that little tidbit they don’t like to mention too much these days. They also don’t like to hear the word “amnesty” tossed out in these congressional hearings, judging from a Democrat’s behavior.
Colbert’s presence at the hearing was insulting to say the least.


His presence was insulting to the congress members who were there and insulting to any intellectually honest American who would be offended that a paid comedian who has been shilling for his globalist boss would actually be asked to join in on any part of a serious discussion of the matter.
John Conyers, to his credit, asked Colbert to submit his “testimony” for the record and excuse himself before the hearing took place. He politely reminded Stephen he had nothing of value to add to the discussion, but Colbert couldn’t resist the spotlight and all the play he could get out of the stunt, so he remained but he was clearly shaken that someone there reminded him in public that his presence was nothing more than a PR stunt. He felt foolish and it showed. It was an embarrassing thing to watch, and if you absolutely have to, here it is.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Colbert’s qualifications for being at the hearing was apparently centered around the fact that his film crew and he went out to an upstate New York farm where they filmed him acting like a completely spoiled, lazy American who couldn’t do the work a 65-year-old man sitting on his ass and picking beans in the field could do. Of course, the 65 year old man is here illegally so somehow that makes him capable of doing something a 30-year-old unemployed American can’t do. That’s pretty much the sum total of Stephen Colbert contribution to the discussion.
The Ag Jobs Bill this committee is discussing is an effort supported by big US agriculture and other major corporations and in essence it would create an official 2nd class citizen status in America for these seasonal migrant workers and give them credit for the years they have worked in the agricultural industry toward a “path toward citizenship” (in short - coming to America illegally to work for slave-wages for 3 years would put them ahead of Mexicans who apply for citizenship legally and have to wait for 6 to 8 years for a green card) . It would also help create an increase in surplus labor which would certainly only serve to drive wages in the agricultural sector to near record lows. But it’s not only the agriculture industry that would be effected as Dr. Carol Swain pointed out during the committee hearing since many of the illegals once here, migrate out of the fields and into other, low skilled jobs, which only serves again to create a labor surplus in those fields and thus even more reductions in pay. The bill will give these slave-citizens the right to organize, a right they actually already have, but since the head of the UFW is clearly in bed with big agriculture here in America, that is like giving autoworkers the “right” to be represented by the UAW… and we all know what that has been good for recently.
Colbert’s testimony has been widely panned and with good reason.
Colbert’s “testimony” was painful to watch and adding insult to injury were his two staff members sitting behind him who clearly understood their little stunt wasn’t going as well as they had imagined it would. Life’s a little harder when you don’t have a studio audience being prompted by electric signs to laugh and applaud when they are told to. It’s also harder when your boss is sitting in front of you pretending like he had something to add to the hearing when he didn’t.
Maybe this Ag Jobs bill would help. I don’t know. Like most members of congress, I haven’t read it. But maybe we could offer more visas to the immigrants, who, let’s face it, will probably be doing these jobs anyway. And this improved legal status might allow immigrants recourse if they’re abused. And it just stands to reason to me that if your co-worker can’t be exploited then you are less likely to be exploited and that itself might improve pay and working conditions on these farms and eventually Americans may consider taking these jobs again.” Stephen Colbert
In the history of convoluted logic, this stands in a seminal position in our recent congressional record, right up there with the healthcare bill being called the best thing for Americans since the New Deal, I suppose.
The Ag Jobs bill is easy to find so there is no excuse for Stephen Colbert not to have read it, since it is the subject of his “testimony” before congress. The man had zero qualifications for being there and the least he could have done is read the bill. But he didn’t.
Basically, the bill itself is a holdover from the Bush administration that was tweaked and then submitted in May of 2009 just after the new neoliberal regime took office. It establishes a legal 2nd class citizen role by handing out what they call “blue cards” to certain migrant agricultural workers which locks them into a subservient role similar to the old feudal state. They basically have to take what they are given and STFU because if they get tossed out of the program, fired from the job, they get deported back to Mexico with nothing.
And it’s not just them. The bill creates a “derivative” legal status for the “blue card” worker’s wife and children which essentially means they can’t be deported even if they are here illegally, just so long as the worker behaves himself. Imagine the threat of having yourself and your entire family deported simply because you speak up for better working conditions or more pay. Quite a threat to be leveled at the worker, quite an incentive to take what he is given and shut up… and this is what the “progressive” left and Stephen Colbert are fighting for?
That’s neoliberalism folks.
This country has struggled for 200 years to earn the rights of each and every human being; to end the idea that there is a second class citizen status in America. People have marched, protested, fought and died for that prinicple. And here we have the “progressive” champion Stephen Colbert arguing for the creation of a second class citizenship of slave workers in America.
If you really want to understand what this is all about, you should have a listen to the testimony of Dr. Carol Swain from Vanderbilt University, a labor rights expert and activist of over 20 years. She used to be considered a hero on the left when she was railing against the injustices of the Bush administration but now that the Obama/Clinton neoliberal regime has taken office, she is vilified on the right AND left for fighting the same good fight.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Unlike Colbert, Dr. Swain has earned her right to testify before congress on this subject and her words prove it.
“I contend that America does not have a shortage of agricultural workers, instead we have a manufactured crisis by some who would like to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor and in some cases labor that bi-passes the H2A and H2B visa programs. … these unemployment numbers indicate there are native agricultural workers actively seeking employment in the sector… America cannot continue to bring in low skilled workers to compete with the most disadvantaged Americans…. nor can it continue to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. Often surplus labor that starts in the fields migrates into other industries. Without surplus labor, employers would be forced to pay higher wages and many would be forced to improve substandard working conditions… the UFW ‘Take Our Jobs” initiative has not, in my opinion, made a serious effort to recruit American workers, this is a publicity stunt…. the rapid influx of cheap labor from foreign countries creates an over-supply of labor that works against the interests of native workers, it depresses their wages, it reduces their opportunities, and it deters employers from investing in native human capital…. this is a disgrace. Congress needs to reform immigration and they need to protect the most disadvantaged Americans.” Dr. Carol Swain
Once this bill is passed, and it will be, it’s impact on the already suffering disadvantaged in America will be staggering. There is also nothing that states that other industries won’t push for a similar bill regarding the H2B workers. The bill calls for the agricultural workers to put in 150 days per year and that of course frees them up to work in other industries the remaining 200+. The spouses of these workers will also be free to work in the country under their “derivative” status, which of course will only help to further undermine native workers wage structure even more.
There is nothing humanitarian or “progressive” about this bill, yet that won’t stop the “moderates” on the left from getting behind it simply because Stephen Colbert showed up at congress and made a fool out of himself. And that of course was the whole point.
As the neocon/neoliberal agenda moves on, shills like Stewart and Colbert are doing their part to rebrand the cruelty and inhumanity of their corporatist agenda to make it palatable to their audience; the left. These two recent propaganda efforts only prove how tightly the threads of “centrism” are woven in our dominating culture.
But they also show something else. That it only takes a few minutes, a little research and effort, to expose the fraudulent nature of their work. The emptiness that fills their words. While Stewart argues for the whitewashing of the Bush regime’s history and Colbert clowns for the creation of an indentured servant class of slave labor, each and every remaining liberal gets a little closer to seeing them for what they are; a clearer picture of the puppets and their masters.
We won’t be fooled again.

MSNBC Video: Nixon Plot to Kill Columnist Jack Anderson Detailed

More News

The Pentagon’s Pedophile Problem »

It’s The Real Thing: The Power of Koch »

Anti-Immigrant Groups Funded by Wealthy Racists (Pioneer Fund, Colcom Foundation)

Obama Told on Abortion: Change Your Mind Because Unborn Children Feel Pain

UN Policy Paper Describes Incremental Steps Toward World Government

Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of “Resentment Toward Government”

Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of “Resentment Toward Government”

  •  The Alex Jones ChannelAlex Jones Show podcastPrison Planet TwitterAlex Jones' FacebookInfowars store
Paul Joseph Watson

September 30, 2010

Authorities Plan To Trawl Phone Calls And E Mails For Signs Of Resentment Toward Government  300910top
Photo: Pal Berge
Do you resent the government for enforcing Obamacare or raising your taxes? Write about it in an email or talk about it on the phone and you could be placed under surveillance as a potential terrorist, if frightening new technology being shopped to law enforcement agencies is implemented.
Forget pre-crime and get ready for face-crime, Big Brother is set to unleash a new wave of shockingly invasive and Orwellian technology on the American people if a recent symposium in Hamburg New York is anything to go by. Federal agencies, police departments and others were all in attendance to see a demonstration of a system that trawls phone conversations, emails and instant messages to detect “resentment toward government,” alerting authorities to potential “terrorists” who are then placed under surveillance.
The technology was demonstrated to law enforcement officials, mental health professionals, and military representatives at a recent International First Responder-Military Symposium held at Hilbert College.
“A Swiss professor working with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientist who heads the Mind Machine Project there outlined how this program operates through computerized scanning of phone calls and electronic messages sent through e-mail and social networking mechanisms,” reports the Buffalo News.
The system works by detecting “resentment in conversations through measurements in decibels and other voice biometrics,” more specifically the emotional spikes that characterize “hatred and deep resentment toward government.”
“As for written transmissions scrutinized by the computer program, it can detect the same patterns of fixation on specified subjects,” states the report.
Once an individual has been identified as harboring “resentment toward government,” the information can be “passed along to authorities so surveillance can begin.”
Besides law enforcement applications, the program is also designed to aid mental health professionals to help “war veterans” become emotionally stable, chillingly implying that distrust or hatred of government, which was hailed by the founding fathers as a vital virtue, is now considered a mental illness.
Of course, this technology completely violates the 4th amendment, but by introducing it as a tool to fight terrorism, authorities hope to skirt around the issue – the problem being that, as we have exhaustively documented, the federal government now sees any political activity whatsoever, be it anti-war protesters on the left, or anti-big government activists on the right, as potential domestic terrorists.
The technology is rationalized by its adherents, who claim that it will help stop terrorists in their tracks, while also being used against ‘troubled veterans and first responders’.
However, the introduction of a program that closely resembles George Orwell’s “facecrime” in 1984 has little to do with fighting extremist Muslims hiding in caves in central Asia, this is all about targeting the American people with total panopticon-style surveillance, while also creating a chilling atmosphere and reminding people that their every conversation, instant message or email is being scanned by super-computers for any sign of extremism or “resentment toward government”.
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

As we have seen from the MIAC report, the spying case in Pennsylvania, and a host of others in recent years, the federal government defines “terrorist propaganda” as any material critical of the state, therefore any dissent against Big Brother in a phone conversation or an email would automatically trigger the new technology.
This is not only a constitution killer, it represents a hammer blow to free speech. The Internet as a forum of open discourse and free exchange of ideas will be fundamentally damaged if people live in constant fear of being raided by the feds at any minute because they sounded off about the government in an e mail or a posting on a comment board.
Of course, with distrust towards the state touching all time highs, there are millions of Americans who “harbor hatred and deep resentment toward government,” but that doesn’t mean they plan on bombing federal buildings.
The technofascism blog dug up a couple of quotes from George Orwell’s 1984 that almost precisely describe the exact same technology being used in the legendary dystopia about a totalitarian society that constantly hounds, harasses, and surreptitiously spies on its citizens.
“It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself–anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face…; was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…”
-George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5
“Your worst enemy, he reflected, was your nervous system. At any moment the tension inside you was liable to translate itself into some visible symptom.”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 6
Rather than an improper facial expression or nervous tic, which was more within the purview of the equally ludicrous “gait analysis” division of Admiral John Poindexter’s Total Information Office, a program that claimed to be able to identify terrorists by the way they walk, the facecrime technology defines “abnormality” as being critical of the authorities, a frightening throwback to the Soviet psikhushkas — mental hospitals — which were used by the state as prisons in order to isolate political prisoners, discredit their ideas, and break them physically and mentally.
Indeed, the establishment media has intensified its dissemination of talking points that attempt to categorize distrust of authority as a mental disorder.
Although it survives under a number of different names with private sector funding, Total Information Awareness was mothballed by Congress in 2003 after widespread criticism that it would lead to the implementation of a “mass surveillance system”. Facecrime goes a step further, it not only creates a mass surveillance system of all our communications, it also corrodes and corrupts people’s confidence in being able to exercise their first amendment right to express “hatred and resentment toward government,” without being harassed and targeted as domestic terrorists.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Facecrime technology is illegal, immoral, anti-American and something that needs to be ditched permanently if the United States and indeed any free country is to heed George Orwell’s warning and resist the descent into totalitarianism.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Print this page.

More Americans Losing Their Liberties Every Day

Tony Curtis died at 85 years old (June 3, 1925 – September 29, 2010)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010


John Henrik Clarke

Internal Checkpoints

Natasha Pettigrew and the Recipe for Omission


Note by Me: I don't agree with the Jewish baiting rhetoric or wanting to burn the Bible. Yet, most of these words are accurate. It's ironic that is going in the Jew baiting, pro-Catholic mindset, yet they won't expose the Vatican in real concrete terms at all. People like me expose everything from the Labor Zionists, the Masons, the Vatican, etc.

By Timothy

The Best Foods to Fuel Exercise

The Country that I Live In

There is a coincidence when the UT shooting cancels a pro-gun speech. John Lott was about to speak when it was cancelled. This was when the recent shooting at the University of Texas campus took place. It was done by a lone person. The gunman opened fire randomnly in a library because he committed suicide. Some believe a 2nd gunman could exist.  Lott just wanted to speak about the right of people to have a concealed carry weapon. John Lott worked with the organizers of the event named UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. “I don’t want to comment on any political aspects of this,” said Jeff Shi, the president of UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, “I hope everything turns out well and the only casualties are the bad guys.” Some people believe that the cancellation was an unfortunate coincidence. Others believe that it was a ploy to undermine the nationwide push to allow students to carry concealed carry. Robberies and other crimes are soaring in campuses, because criminals view these places as eaiser targets, etc. This why more students desire to protect themselves. There are gun debates on campus too. The 2007 Virginia Teach massacre was done by the murderer Sueng Hui-Cho. He killed 32 people and wounded many others. This was preceded by a campus gun ban that prohibited “unauthorized possession, storage or control” of firearms on campus. This prevented the dozens of victims from being able to properly defend themselves against the killer. The poliitcal aspect behind this coincidence of the shooting is something. It is that if the gunman or gunmen had been more successful in their rampage, students who had exercised their gun rights and adopted concealed carry would have been far more protected than those who had not. Lott could of spoke to give more light on the need of a concealed carry on campus. The corporate media use school shootings as an excuse to demonize the Second Amendment. I won't be suprised if they use this incident to attack the rights of victims to defend themselves.

There is the American Monetary Institute or the AMI. They will host their 6th Annual AMI Monetary Reform Conference. The confernece is going to have many of the finest experts and actors on financial from September 30th to October 3rd at the University Center in Chicago. People want solutions to our economic plight and it's transparent. The concept of monetary power is simple. The power to develop new money shouldn't be held in a few hands. Even the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says that: "...The Congress shall have Power…To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..." That is why people don't want monetary monopoly to control our economy. Some want the American Monetary Act that was authored by the American Monetary Institute. It would implement three key reforms. They are to: nationalizing the Federal Reserve, eliminating the private sector’s ability to create money, reclaiming the government’s ability to create money and invest it in infrastructure, including people. Founder of the American Monetary Institute, Stephen Zarlenga, details the reforms in the last chapter of his book The Lost Science of Money-The Mythology of Money and the Story of Power. The Annual AMI Monetary Reform Conference desired to have solutions to the economy since its inception in 1996. Some speakers there are top  top Australian monetary economist Steve Keen who won the inaugural (Paul) Revere Award for giving an early warning (2005)  of the present debt-deflation collapse;  Prof. Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism and Global Fracture; editor, Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East; distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Missouri, the first to publicly identify the mechanism of "Dollar Imperialism" through the U.S. balance of payments deficits, etc. Dr. Michael Calrk is the speaker.

There has been a lot of discussion about education. People want to follow the model of Finland in order to improve the education system in general. People know about the problems in the school system from poor quality schools, low test scores, bullying, and problem. Now, folks want independent solutions to solve the problem. Even D.C. has little political power or its own statehood. Now, more Democratic individuals want to find more corporate solutions to solve educational issues. Some of the reforms that the mainstream media loves are corporate and foundation sponsored school reform. Even Washington, D.C. residents don't want a voucher program. “It's not the first time we've sent that message,” DC native Marian Douglas-Ungaro told Black Agenda Report. “The last time they let us vote on a voucher plan was back in the eighties. DC voters rejected it by a nine to one margin. We have a real anticolonial mentality here because we've been treated like a colony for so long.” She isn't exaggerating about Washington, D.C. being treated as a colony. The reason is that D.C. is deprived of their own real tax baed. D.C. wasn't even allowed to elect its own mayor until the seventies. The Republicans used slick tactics to get vouchers in Washington, D.C. when many people opposed it in 2003. The Republicans made a meeting in the dead of night to pass the voucher bill by a single vote when the entire Congressional Black Caucus was away at a presidential debate in Baltimore. Democratic Senators Robert Byrd and Diane Feinstein voted with the Republicans for the voucher program, but Feinstein hypocritically oppose vouchers in her home state of California. Mayor Fenty and chancellor of DC schools Michelle Rhee support charter and private schools. Rhee fired hundreds of experienced teachers (most of whom were black and female). Rhee used abuse as a means to justify her action. Of course, the corporate media, even CNN, the rich, and the Washington Post love her. Rhee was shocked that voters voted Fenty down. The Waiting for Superman is a popular pro-privitization film too. The legitimate greivance of public school problem is used in the film as a slick excuse to promote school, corporate privatization (Rhee addressed Bill Gates, John Legend, and people from Congress with corporate and foundation elite ties). The elite want to infiltrate and dismantle most if not all public schools to be replace with charter and private schooling. DC's incoming mayor Vincent Gray had the support of teachers unions and many residents who vehementy opposed the Rhee-Fenty agenda of privatizing education. Gray can't afford to openly dismiss and disregard the opponents of privatization.  More Democrats support the privitization agenda like the Secretary of Education. That is why tons of people are legitimately fighting against gentrification, privatization, etc. as found in some in the Freedom Party. They want DC Statehood, which I have no problem with whasoever. The Democrats like the Republicans are 2 heads of the same hawk of nepotism (with their house slaves of many races running around supporting both parties like they are the "Master" when God is my only MASTER). Independent educational solutions include smaller class sizes, more funding for modernizing equipment and supplies, group plus peer learning, better phonic techniques, focus on the arts, focus on math plus science (including technology), better parent and student intervention, allows the federal government to fund education where it's needed (while have some local control in educational services), student centered projects, etc. You can't have to starve public schools out (under the guise of attacking unions) and replace them with charter schools in order to achieve this plan. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is an enemy. He wants to cut wages, get rid of tenure, cut pensions, and cut public education by millions of dollars, etc. He's going after teachers and unions. He's an union buster and Republicans are known for being against organized labor for decades. He supports tax breaks for the top 2 percent of income earners and restrict benefits from teachers.

People already know that Glen Beck is a Mormon. This Mormon follower goes on FOX new to spew his rhetoric and propaganda. Beck earnes millions dollars a year. His role is to misdirect much of the anger among the American populace (much of this anger is legitimate) into promoting scapegoats. This is done while the evils of the bankster elite is ignored. The scapegoats are unions, the poor, and other people. Beck obsessed with 60s radicals when they don't have true international power causing mayhem worldwide at all today. There are even Left Gatekeepers funded by globalist foundations. Beck talks about leftists, Marxists, admirers of Mao and Stalin, and SDS people in order to make the political paradigm solely a Left vs. Right issue. He ignores that many of these people were infiltrated by the FBI and some of these so-called "radicals" don't have real power. Some issues Beck has talked about are legitimate (like Cass Sunstein, police GPS and cell phone tracking, mobile x-ray scanner, a proposed government control of thermostats and big screen television, Al Gore trying to allow children to propagate his man-made global warming views, etc.). Yet, Beck sees the green agenda and the police state grid as apart of a diabolical progressive plan to form a communist dictatorship (those who disagree with this plan are sent into re-education and death camps). Beck falslely equated progressive ideology to the agendas of Stalin and Mao. Yet, Wall Street helped to install the communist system in Russia. David Rockefeller support Mao and Mao murdered over 70 million human beings. Beck has legitimately tied Goldman Sachs to the funding of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the cap and trade shceme. There are stories about unions, Van Jones, ACORN, and Obama's past as an Alinksy inspired community organizer in Chicago that Beck talks about on his program. Yet, Beck doens't talk about FOX News talking in support of green issues. Beck talks about George Soros. Yet, Soros is a globalist being a Bilderberger and a CFR member (Soros funds Clinton era Democrat's John Podesta's Center for American Progress). Bohemian Grover Newt Gingrich has even been in the CFR since 1990. Beck and Palin act like they promote the Constitution, but they are a new generation of neo-cons promoting the same policies as the neo-conservative movement. Some in the Tea Party movement have taken the bait to follow the war mongering of the Republican platform (or never ending war and further encroachments on the Constitution and Bill of Rights). This is doen in the name of fighting terrorism that has been created in large measure by the CIA. The military industrial complex serves in the interests of Wall Street and the international bankers. Beck won't allow the people to expose the real globalists, but throwbacks from the 1960's (who have been infiltraed by the FBI. The Weathermen even was created to demonize the rest of the real anti-war movement). The New Left work for globalist Foundations today. Real anti-war activists are organizing marches and other things. The Glenn Beck Tea Party will reassert the ideology of the neocons. Regardless of what happens in 2010 and 2012, we will have to fight against the archiac views of the neocons. We support no wars of aggression and the civil liberties of Muslims including all peoples. Even Keith Olbermann and Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow won't expose certain issues.

People have the right to be Pro-Life if they want to without shame. Unfortunately in our time, Pro-Life people are threaten and harrashed all of the time by pro-abortion extremists. One Pro-Life Tennessee minister recieved threats. His name is Pastor David Shelley of Nashville, TN's Smith Springs Baptist Church. He wanted to endorse candidates, which in my opinion is his right. He has the free speech right to do it. If you don't like, you can go into another church. If I didn't agree with a pastor's political views, I have the right to leave that church and go into another one. He fears vandalism. Now, the controversy is that tax code restricts church and nonprofit political activity in exchange for tax exempt status. In other words, the government bribes churches to not speak on certain issues for the sake of control. Some pastors are defying the law. Shelley exposed the pro-abortion ivews of many candidates like U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, and state Sen. Thelma Harper, D-Nashville. Shelley exposed the fact that 52 million American babies have been murdered since Roe came about. He didn't want to vote for a person that would agree with an innocent baby getting their body parts destroyed, which is his right. Hypocrispy existed on the establishment Left. They criticize real racists like NY Republican Jim Russell (who has pro-eugenics opinion), yet, they won't expose Planned Parenthood's racist and pro-eugenics past history though. We shouldn't symphatize with the views of Jim Russell though. Jim Russell wrote disagreeing with people voluntarily communicating with each other of different races. He wrote the bigoted remark that: "...The population should be homoegeneous...What is still more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make any large number of fre-thinking Jews undesirable." Of course, Russell is radically anti-immigrant. Margaret Sanger wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED." Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct." So, Sanger is no role model. She was an evil woman. Sanger was Pro-Klan too.

By Timothy

Feds Radiating Americans At Internal Checkpoints

After 10 Years, RU 486 Abortion Drug Hasn't Helped Women as Promised


10 Years, RU 486 Abortion Drug Hasn't Helped Women as Promised

Steven Ertelt Editor

September 29

Add to My Yahoo!


DC ( --
Two women have written editorials about the
tenth anniversary of the RU 486 abortion drug, which has been responsible
for the deaths of dozens of women and injuring thousands more across
the globe. They say the abortion pill was supposed to help women but
can't find any evidence of that.

Monahan of the Family Research Council, and formerly an employee at
the Health and Human Services Department writes in a
column at Human Events
that the drug has been entirely unsafe
for women during the
10 years

abortions, while indeed legal, have over the last ten years posed
major safety concerns including infection, life-threatening bleeding
and even maternal death," Monahan writes. "Despite this
dubious safety record, it appears to be a major goal of the abortion
industry to increase the number of chemically induced abortions."

says the Food and Drug Administration approval process made it clear
the Clinton administration, which approved the drug, had no interest
in helping women.

back at the spring and summer of 2000, the FDA approval process of
RU-486 was flawed, rushed, politicized and deviated from the FDA norm
in a variety of ways, including the use of inferior clinical trials
to support its safety," she noted. "For example, when the
FDA’s advisory panel voted to approve RU-486 in 1996, American
trial data was neither finished nor sufficient, so the FDA relied
on French data primarily, which is atypical."

pro-life writer says the FDA said the same data had been found by
the FDA to be marked by “carelessness,” “fraud”
and “evidence tampering.”

points to the death of Holly Patterson, an 18-year-old from California,
who died after getting the abortion drug and bad instructions to take
it vaginally from Planned Parenthood. That, she says, proves allowing
sales of the abortion drug in the name of women was a fraud.

RU-486 celebrates its ten-year anniversary, one thing is ironic. The
abortion movement promised decades ago that women having abortions
would have the best medical attention—no more unsupervised, lonely
abortions with women bleeding away in back alleys," she writes.

now with chemical, and especially with telemed abortions, women have
less medical attention and still bleed away, having a lonely, unsupervised
abortion over a toilet. Progress for women’s health? No,"
Monahan concludes. "Instead, pursuing an agenda of increasing
chemical abortions at all costs, the abortion industry is reverting
women’s health back to the Dark Ages."

Anna Franzonello of Americans United for Life also
condemned the abortion drug
in terms of its adverse impact on

look at the facts surrounding the FDA approval of the drug and its
10 years of use in the U.S. is sobering. Women’s health has been
sacrificed and countless lives have been taken to advance the agenda
of the abortion industry," she writes.

was not adequately tested for its safety and effectiveness and it
does not provide any meaningful therapeutic benefit over surgical
abortions already available. In one study, RU-486 failed in 18.3 percent
of patients, while surgical abortions failed in only 4.7 percent of
patients," Franzonello notes. "Taken alone, RU-486 fails
in one-third of cases, so the regimen includes a second drug –
a prostaglandin – that must also be taken."

accuses the FDA, under the Obama administration, of continuing to
ignore women's health with its approval of the ella
, which causes abortions but is billed as a morning after

August 2010, the FDA approved the drug ella. Like RU-486, ella is
a selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM). By blocking progesterone,
an SPRM can either prevent a developing human embryo from implanting
in the uterus, or it can kill an implanted embryo by starving it to
death," she says.

addition, there are serious concerns about the lack of studies regarding
the drug ella. The FDA’s prescribing instructions for ella note
among the things that have not been studied are: the safety and efficacy
of repeated use of ella, how ella may interact with hormonal contraceptives,
the effects of ella on minors, the risks to a fetus when ella is administered
to a pregnant woman, and risks to an infant when ella is taken by
a nursing mother," he explained.

says ella, like RU 486, subjugates women's health to a second class

"September  28, 2010 is a somber anniversary. Ten years ago today the FDA put
politics above women’s health. Unfortunately, it was not an isolated
incident. The approval of ella demonstrates that when it comes to
chemical abortion, advancing the abortion industry’s agenda is
more important to the FDA than protecting women’s health,"
she concludes.

Common Sense Tax Reform


Common Sense Tax Reform
September 22, 2010 by Keith Gardner

Replace income and payroll taxes with a progressive sales tax. The Fair Tax is such a proposal. The Fair Tax is a sales tax to replace income and payroll taxes. It also pays everyone a prebate of approximately $200/month. This is a form of agrarian justice. It gives everyone the value of a minimum number of resources. It taxes those who consume excessively. It is difficult to avoid and doesn’t punish those who save and invest. It reduces demand for natural resources and increases supply of natural resources. It makes the cost of living more affordable for everyone.

If you replace income taxes with sales taxes, you also make American labor more competitive. An income tax places the burden of taxation on American workers. If you buy an American product or service, you are paying for a hidden tax, the income tax. If you buy an foreign product or service, you’re not paying that hidden tax. A sales tax places the burden of taxation on domestic and foreign products so the burden of taxation distributed among all goods and services and not just what is provided by American labor.

Make property taxes progressive. Don’t cut property taxes. They serve a good purpose of preventing wealthy people from buying up all the land and driving up the price. They also help prevent boom/bust cycles in real estate. You do want to significantly increase property taxes on the undeveloped land value, reduce the property taxes on the developed value, and offer a significant personal deduction for a person’s primary residence. This shifts the burden of property taxes on those who buy and hold land without using it, who take the most valuable land, or who use it for commercial purposes. It shifts the burden of taxation away from your average home owner who only owns one home in the suburbs or a rural area. It helps keep property prices from rising. It helps keep property tax rates stable. It puts people to work developing land in prime locations. It makes owning a home affordable for everyone.

Make business/corporate taxes progressive. Make the tax rate 0% for small business. Make the tax rate progressively higher for larger business. This helps guard against monopoly, drives innovation, and provides jobs. It gives people the ability to compete.

Finally, Glenn Beck is a liar. You want to increase money supply. If you shrink money supply, as what is happening now, you kill economic growth and cause an economic depression. During the Great Depression and other economic depressions in America, it was because the money supply was reduced. If a dollar gains in value, it is because the money supply was reduced. A strong dollar is economically destructive. Money is just a unit of trade. You want to increase the money supply as the economy grows and to allow the economy to grow. You want a mild inflation rate. You want to increase the money supply. You want the banks to increase the money supply. Our dollar has gained strength during this economic depression because the banks aren’t adding to the money supply. The banks have reduced money supply. The reason why homes dropped in value is because there just simply isn’t as much money in circulation as there was 2 years ago.

We need to reform the money system where the government creates money debt-free and spends into circulation in lieu of taxation, like the Lincoln Greenback, so that banks can’t cause another economic depression.


Milton Friedman Gave Bill Still Bad Advice
August 15, 2010 by Keith Gardner

While Milton Friedman is correct that the real problem is fractional reserve lending, he gave Bill Still completely bad advice when he suggested that money supply be fixed per capita. Fractional reserve lending gives private banks the primary power to expand and contract money supply and profit on the expansion and contraction of money supply. It is normally inflationary, which is good, but banks can add a certain amount of volatility and can still cause deflation if they decide not to issue enough new credit, which is what we are seeing now.

Any promoter of debt-free money system knows the key issue is the management of money supply. Bill Still is completely correct that it is about who controls the quantity, the supply of money. By managing the supply of money, you regulate the value of money. The value of money will change if held in fixed supply due to economic growth, economic collapse, population growth, or population collapse. Velocity or how long people hold money without putting it to use, wealth concentration, and export of money are additional related factors. You want to hold the value of money ideally constant so that markets, especially capital and credit markets, don’t experience market distortion due to money supply. Inflationary expansion is usually fine since it tends to promote economic growth and is corrected/paid off with economic growth, though inflation can be problematic with credit markets and debt-based monetary systems.

If money supply is fixed per capita, deflation and inflation can still result because only population is being considered. If people become more efficient at producing goods and services and if the population is fully employed, deflation is going to result. If wealth concentrates, people can become unemployed since those people won’t have money to trade among themselves, and deflation is going to result. Every monetary economist, other than those laymen brainwashed by the Austrian Cult of Economics, knows deflation is destructive. If money increases in value, people hold onto money rather than use it. Everything gets devalued except the money. People lose their homes, farms, businesses, and jobs during deflation.

Fixing money supply per capita is the most retarded thing Milton Friedman has ever suggested. I think Milton Friedman gave intentionally poor and sadistic advice to mislead Bill Still. Milton Friedman knows better. Milton Friedman knowingly gave the bad advice. Never trust an economist when it comes to monetary issues. You are going to have to understand inflation and deflation, what causes inflation and deflation, and what inflation and deflation causes.

The causes of inflation and deflation are numerous. The only way to manage money supply to prevent deflation and inflation is through monitoring the economy for deflation and inflation and signs of deflation and inflation. You have to monitor price indexes, population growth, employment, and other indicators. That is the primary problem, among many others, with gold as money. You can’t manage the supply. If the economy grows, gold increases in value, and the economy collapses from the deflation. The supply and demand of gold distorts the supply and demand of all goods and services in the free market.

With a debt-free money system, one can even cause and cease inflation at will to encourage velocity, lending, and investment or to provide emergency deficit spending without making the tax payer pay interest to bond holders. Inflation caused by excessive expansion of money supply is only destructive if it is unpredictable, excessive, financed with debt, or results in systemic bad investments.

The primary concern is preventing deflation. With expensive money or fixing money supply per capita, you’re not going to prevent deflation, you’re going to cause deflation. Fixing money per capita is just as bad as a gold standard.

I had other concerns about the interview. However, that was the main one. I wish Bill Still would focus on what debt-free money and ending fractional reserve lending means. It means we can use the monetary expansion necessary to end fractional reserve lending and to prevent deflation to pay off the national debt and to end income taxation.

The good news is that it is nice more people in the liberty movement like the radio show host are awake to the gold standard scam. Looks like we’re going to have to also warn people about the scam of fixing money supply per capita.

Social Inequality in America: 2009 income gap in the US highest on record

Pro-Life News

Billionaires Unite! Against Public Education and Teachers

Cuttingedge Newsletter

Controversial STD drug tied to 16 more deaths

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Early American history

During the beginning of the age of reason, the availability of gnostic texts were preferred reading for moralists, looking for reason to reject historic Christianity.
The revolutionary Gnostic Americans were constantly under strong conviction from churches in early America that maintain the purity of the Biblical Gospel; handed down by the Disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The veracity of Jesus Christ is not only testified in extra biblical works, but is also well documented in early Christian writings, such as those from Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc.

Most of the American revolutionaries who were moralists, content with Gnosis (investigative knowledge) were never able to understand the power of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were content with empiricism (sense experience perception).

Empiricism must be calibrated by Holiness, else the lust passions and desires that corrupt empirical data will corrupt the reality of what "IS" is.
The true application of obeying the calling of the Lord Jesus Christ cleanses the mind and body to produce a separation of lust desires that make the acquisition of data free from personal contamination.

Gnostic's who are ever learning and never able to come to the righteousness of Jesus Christ will inevitability deny the super-natural; seeing only the bias of their own fallen nature. This was the case with most of the "founding fathers" of the American revolution who denied the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and life found in Him

This Gnostic thought has been the reason why the Constitution of the United States has been used, and will continually be used to facilitate a global solidarity that will contribute to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Recent Studies Confirm Women Face Depression After Abortion, Other Problems

Obama Uses "Safe, Legal and Rare" Term in Answering Question on Abortion

Amazing “Coincidence”: UT Shooting Cancels Pro-Gun Speech


Second Amendment expert John Lott was due to give presentation on right to concealed carry on campus
Paul Joseph WatsonPrison

Tuesday, September 28, 2010
A shooting at the University of Texas campus that was initially blamed on a lone nut took on a political aspect after it emerged that the incident coincided with a speech by second amendment expert John Lott about the right to concealed carry that was due to take place tonight but has since been cancelled.



The Associated Press is now reporting that police are investigating two separate crime scenes after a gunman opened fire inside a library then fatally shot himself early this morning. Authorities are still searching for a second suspect and the University is on lock down with all classes having been cancelled.
Shortly after the incident, the Austin-American Statesman somewhat sardonically reported that the John Lott event, which was organized by UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, had been cancelled as a result of the “unfortunate coincidence” of it falling on the same day as this morning’s incident.
“I don’t want to comment on any political aspects of this,” said Jeff Shi, the president of UT Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, “I hope everything turns out well and the only casualties are the bad guys.”
Was the timing of the shooting just an “unfortunate coincidence” or a deliberate ploy to undermine and cancel the Lott event amidst a nationwide push to allow students the right to concealed carry? With robberies and other crimes on campus soaring, more students are demanding they be authorized to protect themselves,
The timing of mass shootings, although thankfully in this case there were no victims aside from the gunman, routinely coincide with the passage of stringent gun laws or debates about concealed carry on campus.
Amazing Coincidence: UT Shooting Cancels Pro Gun Speech 150709banner2
The 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, in which the perpetrator Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many others, was preceded by a campus gun ban that prohibited “unauthorized possession, storage or control” of firearms on campus. This prevented the dozens of victims from being able to properly defend themselves against the killer.
The only “political aspect” behind the “coincidence” of the shooting happening on the same day as the second amendment event is the fact that if the gunman or gunmen had been more successful in their rampage, students who had exercised their gun rights and adopted concealed carry would have been far more protected than those who had not.
Indeed, presuming that the danger is now over with the gunman dead, there would have been no better time than tonight for Lott to give his speech about Second Amendment issues on campus.
However, as a consequence of this amazing “coincidence,” Lott’s presentation has been postponed with no indication of when it will be rescheduled.
It remains to be seen whether the corporate media will play up the connection between the shooting and the Lott speech as a means of demonizing the Second Amendment, but given how the establishment has ceaselessly exploited mass shootings in the past to attack the rights of the victims to defend themselves, don’t be surprised if the talking points in reaction to this story start to take on this very character.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Big Sis Tries To Force Body Scanners On Other Countries Amidst Backlash

Geoengineering: “The Horrifying Idea Whose Time Has Come”?

Drone attacks in Pakistan

Rand Paul's neo-con conversation (That's wrong since I will never ever be a Neo-Con)


Rand Paul kisses neocons' ring, but some neocons remain wary

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Source: Washington Post
One faction of the GOP that has remained particularly wary of Rand Paul's Senate candidacy are neoconservatives who are still angry about his father Ron Paul's criticism of Israel and his disdain for Bush-era military adventurism.
In the past, Rand has echoed his father's views, opposing the Iraq War, and from the neocon point of view, the Paul family's isolationism is as whacked out as anything hatched by the anti-war left.
Now, it turns out, Rand is looking to mend fences. He made a quiet pilgrimage and met privately with some of Washington's most influential neocons, as well as the pro-Israel lobby, delivering them a not-too-subtle message: Never mind my father's views, you guys can trust me now.
The episode is buried in Jason Zengerle's big new profile of Rand in GQ Magazine:
At a private office in Dupont Circle, he talked foreign policy with Bill Kristol, Dan Senor, and Tom Donnelly, three prominent neocons who'd been part of an effort to defeat him during the primary. "He struck me as genuinely interested in trying to understand why people like us were so apoplectic," Senor says of their two-hour encounter. "He wanted to get educated about our problem with him. He wasn't confrontational, and he wasn't disagreeable. He didn't seem cemented in his views. He was really in absorption mode."
The following month, he met with officials from the powerful lobbying group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which has frequently clashed with Ron Paul over what the group views as his insufficient support of Israel. Paul, according to one person familiar with the AIPAC meeting, "told them what they wanted to hear: 'I'm more reasonable than my father on the things you care about.' He was very solicitous."
But some neocons still remain highly wary of Rand. Michael Goldfarb, who still works closely with Kristol, tells me that Rand's summit with the neocons has "dampened some of the concern" but that neocons remain split over whether Rand can be trusted.
"While there was once pretty much universal hostility to Paul among neoconservatives, there's now a split, with some folks inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and others still convinced he's his father's son," Goldfarb says. "Those folks aren't likely to change their minds until he starts casting votes on national security and defense issues."
It's the latest chapter in Rand Paul's extreme makeover: From neo-isolationist to neocon in 60 seconds!