Truth Always Prevails

Key staff from Al Jazeera quit. The reason is that the network is making a pro-regime change attitude in their new coverage of Syria. Some of the staff quit from Al Jazeera's Beirut Bureau. They resigned, because of the bias coverage in the stance of the Syrian conflict. One of the folks that resigned is named Hassan Shaaban (or the Bureau Managing Director). His correspondent and producer had walked out in protest. One source told the Lebanese paper called "Al Akhbar" that Al Jazeera's Beirut correspondent Ali Hashem had quit over the channel's stance on covering events in Syria. “… his position [which] changed after the station refused to show photos he had taken of armed fighters clashing with the Syrian Army in Wadi Khaled. Instead [Al Jazeera] lambasted him as a shabeeh [implying a regime loyalist],” a source told Lebanese press. Ali Hashem was mad by Al Jazeera's refusal to cover a crackdown by the King of Bahrain while twisting its Syria angle. “[In Bahrain], we were seeing pictures of a people being butchered by the ‘Gulf’s oppression machine’, and for Al Jazeera, silence was the name of the game,” he said. The Beirut bureau’s producer also quit claiming Al Jazeera had totally ignored Syria’s constitutional reform referendum, which saw a 57% turnout with 90% voting for change. Ghassan Ben Jeddo, who had been the head of the Beirut Bureau before resigning almost a year ago, said that Al Jazeera was biased in covering the Arab Spring, especially in Syria and Bahrain. Ghassan said that Al Jazeera isn't balanced in covering teh events. They are reporting events in Syria and Bahrain from only the viewpoint of a pro-Western point of view. They support NATO intervention. Journalist and author Afshin Rattansi worked for Al Jazeera. He told RT that the channel has been a one side voice for the Qatari's government's stance against Bashar al-Assad having begun as the region's revolutionary broadcaster. Al Jazeera is changing its coverage to promote a pro-war stance. There is the courage of these journalists, however, in saying ‘Look, this is not the way we should be covering this. There are elements of Al-Qaeda in there,’” Rattansi concluded. “The way Al Jazeera Arabic has covered the story of Syria is completely one-sided.” Journalists and anti-war activist Don Debar, who has also had Al Jazeera experience, confirmed that the station has been heavily guided by the Qatari government in its policies. “That has been ongoing since last April of 2011,” Debar told RT. “The head of the bureau in Beirut quit, many other people quit because of the biased coverage and outright hand of the government in dictating editorial policy over Libya, and now Syria.” Even Al Jazeera Englith language blogger Ted Rall resigned when his blogs and columns were being rejected on a regular basis. His progressive voice was highly restricted from Al Jazeera. He felt that since September 11 (until a year or so ago), Al-Jazeera was more active to advance transparency, openness, and non-corporate. Now, there is a chilll. When Rall first went to work at Al Jazeera, he says he was surprised that it was actually owned by the Qatari government. He compared their past hands-off policy to that of Rupert Murdoch when he owned the Village Voice of New York City. But now, the “Qataris have decided to shape the picture of the news a little more than they used to.”
While he rejected the notion of objectivity, Rall did note that the media could try to present a more balanced view. “What you really want to see is a broad marketplace of ideas, where lots of different ideas and stories are being told,” he summed up.

The reactionaries are slick in our generation, but real human beings are wiser than the lies from the status quo. Now, the social safety net isn’t a fantasy. That’s reality. All human beings need assistance and the social safety net was created in America to not only help Americans. It was used to maintain social prosperity and prevent the oligarchy from having too much extreme power over the populace. Now, the corporate elitists are angry at the social safety net since it strips away a lot of their power. That is why they use Foundations (including puppets like Peter Peterson) to advocate the elimination of the social safety net, especially Social Security. Social Security presently has trillions of dollars in a surplus. Some of the money has been spent heavily during the Bush administration years. Bush isn’t a far left liberal man at all. Future generations can witness a dime of Social Security via wise policies and economic preservation without austerity & unjust wars. Some adults can survive with a job and set their own money alone. Yet, some adults are extremely poor and some are living in extreme circumstances. These incidents permit some public services. Now, Social Security once again is earned not gotten for free, so it isn’t some entitlement. Some reactionaries don’t know what a real entitlement. If you earn a benefit via work, it is no shame. Intelligent men from across the political spectrum lost funds and even went into poverty not because of ignorance or laziness, but by corporate corruption, unfair firing, and other things being not the fault of some people. Social Security is an effective program with tons of benefits to people. The problem is that the Big Money Fat Cats and their Congressional lackeys in 2010 cut payroll contributions to Social Security from 6.2% to 4.2%, representing a loss to the Social Security Fund of $140 billion the first year! Forty-two percent of American senior citizens are kept from living in poverty by their Social Security payments. Nearly one in five Americans receives Social Security benefits and ninety-five percent of Americans have the Social Security benefit protection program. The poverty rate of the elderly was 35% as late as 1959. Now it's about 10%, because of the reliable Social Security program they have paid into. The Social Security Administration is an independent federal agency with its own revenue stream and depository fund: IT IS NOT A PART OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET! On March 31, 1995, the Social Security Administration was officially designatedas an independent agency. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund was established on January 1, 1940 as a separate account in the United States Treasury. This Social Security trust fund system is one of the few programs set up by the federal government that continues to operate successfully. To take a sample year, in 2002, the SSS received $627 billion in checks, $453.8 billion in taxes, and an additional $49 billion in interest. Instead of red ink, Social Security made almost $102 billion in profit, to add to the trillions it has in surplus from previous years. Now, printing more money is fine if it is debt free. Debt filled money has been a problem, so populists want the government to cut money from the military industrial complex and spend money in our infrastructure. The government should keep their hands of Social Security. ON the other hand, I am more concerned about people’s lives than budgetary deficits. We can grow the economy and handle the debt and deficit long term. I talk of helpful government since on many occasions throughout human history government can be helpful. Government has been corrupted by corporate influence, oligarchy, or even undisciplined, corrupt human beings control the power base of the government.

Other people have talked about responsible fiscal choices all of the time. Yet, true fiscal growth doesn’t involve more massive tax cuts for the super rich when they don’t need them. The extremely wealthy receive record profits and there is record economic inequality in the world that’s undeniable. Now, some have called for infrastructure development. Some want the private and public sectors to have investments to grow state of the art transport, energy, and water system. A real pro-growth tax policy is necessary to give incentives to companies that grow jobs here in America, get rid of corporate welfare, make higher tax brackets for billionaires, and end the war on terror (that drains our economy in an oppressive fashion). There ought to be more of a resurrection of manufacturing and technological jobs in America. That is why I agree with a lot of the economic agenda from the 99 percent, not the 1 percent. The promotion of workers’ rights, strong financial reform, and efforts to preserve the social safety net is purely essential in prodigiously maintaining the essence of the American dream. Extreme privatization has caused tons of complications from the prison industrial complex to the commonly known corporate scandals. Also, helping your neighbor isn’t cheating, it’s a commandment. See, some view helping your neighbor as embracing hatred of success or hatred of the rich (some even falsely call folks socialist if they want the government to help their neighbors). I don’t hate the rich and I don’t hate success, yet even Jesus Christ (that some Republicans claim to love so much) exposed greed. He said that the rich will have a harder time going into Heaven than the poor. We know the reason about why that is. I don’t want the government to dictate every aspect of my life. I want the government to constitutionally protect the borders, protect my life, protect my property, and promote the general welfare of society. Therefore, the general welfare includes things like infrastructure, Social Security, and more social services to those that need it. I don’t need welfare, so I don’t utilize it. Others need it and it’s their right to use it. Rugged individualism was heavily responsible for the Maafa and extermination of the vast majority of Native Americans. This rugged individualism is a lie anyway since the Homestead Act was about federal dollars funding Western settlers in a multitude of ways. Not all liberals hate so-called successful people. People from across the political spectrum hate corruption, hate greed, hate tax cuts for the very rich, and hate an archaic economic system of Austrian Economics. People have the right to seek individualism and receive no governmental help. Other people have the right to get governmental help if they need it. There is nothing wrong with individual liberty and individual initiative. Although, there is something wrong with denying individual people their general welfare though.

The reality is that markets should be transparent. Rockefeller Foundation types perverted economic freedom into Austrian economics (or monetarism that is related to monopolistic capitalism). The Milton Freidman gang at the University of Chicago with agents like Lew Rockwell continues on with their propaganda. Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Ayn Rand’s views have been discredited, because selflessness (not selfishness) is needed to improve the conditions of humanity. Ironically, Lew Rockwell or the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute claimed that the Spanish Jesuits (associated with the University of Salamanca as the founders of modern “free-market” thinking. Ignatius Loyola was the founder of the Jesuits and he was a student at Salamanca (he was linked to the mystical Alumbrados group, which was a precursor to the Bavarian Illuminati). Even Carl Menger or the founder of the Austrian School was strongly influenced by the Salamancan Jesuits as he quoted them in his book entitled, “Principles of Economics.” The House of Habsburg, one of the most powerful Black Nobility families, was closely associated with Austrian economists. Carl Menger was the personal tutor of Archduke Rudolf von Habsburg and accompanied him in his travels for three years. Even libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul is sponsored by business magnate Peter Thiel. Peter Thield is a member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group. So, the establishment just loves anarcho-capitalism. History and reality prove it. Now, libertarianism is right to emphasize individual freedom, but it fails to recognize many of the imperfections of human nature. Humans are social beings, not just individually working human beings. For life is social and individual, not just individual. Self interest is promoted in libertarianism, but not social justice. You have to have social justice to have true freedom among everybody irrespective of race, gender, socioeconomic factor, background, creed, etc. Usury is even condemned in the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc. Austrians blame everything on the state, but they ignore money power or corporate corruption. We can live without libertarianism and communism. We can live with a mixed economy. Getting back money from the government via legitimate means is one thing, but eliminating all money from helping those less fortunate is evil in my opinion. I am not a liberal, regardless of what some say. I am an Independent. I love fair government. I don’t love tyrannical government.

KONY 2012 is a corporate style PR and military psy-ops campaign that is designed for the Western to control the mineral rich areas of Africa. Africa has a lot of water, oil, and other resources to. Some believe that KONY 2012 promotes ignorance and smug racism. Invisible Children promotes this agenda. This group including the Discovery Institution are reactionary groups. Invisible Children co-founder hints that his agenda is about Jesus and evangelizing. There is nothing wrong with voluntary evangelism and religious expression, but it’s wrong to use religion as an excuse to dominate Africa via an imperialist fashion. Even great African journalists like Keith Harmon Snow believe that Invisible Children white male leaders have direct link to U.S. intelligence agencies. KONY 2012 claim that Yoweri Museveni was good when he used terror against his own people to gain power in Uganda (including he used child soldiers). So Museveni was a war criminal and he killed from 5 to 6 million Congolese in the late 1990’s and the early 2000’s. Uganda needs an end violence and means to rebuild their society without military aid (because sometimes military foreign intervention can cause more problems than solving them). Both major political parties, the corporate media world, worldly celebrities, movie stars, and the religious elite support this KONY 2012 militarist foreign policy. It tells me that both parties are more similar than people assume. Back in the day, both parties voted to send troops into Vietnam and a single Congresswoman voted against the war in Afghanistan.

By Timothy