“No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

Fifth Amendment, US Constitution

Notice that quote. Notice what it says. “Due process”, “life”, “Liberty”… “LAW”Also notice what that quote does not say… “citizen”… instead they chose to use the word “PERSON”. There is a lesson somewhere in that choice.

Why is the drone industry so important to the globalist agenda? What does drone warfare represent to us, to the President, and to the rest of the world? Does drone warfare do something other than simply kill “the terrorists” and is that other purpose in fact more important to people like Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton?

Recently, Leon Panetta and President Obama made some interesting claims about drone warfare and collateral damage in separate interviews. They should shed some light on these questions.

Leon Panetta on 60 Minutes-

Interviewer: You killed Awlaki. American citizen. No trial. No due process. You just executed the death penalty. What’s the legal justification for that?

Panetta: Well, you know, without getting into the specifics of the operation, if, if someone is a citizen of the United States and is a (1) terrorist (nods his head up and down) who wants to attack our people and kill Americans, in my book that person is a (2) terrorist.

Let me get this straight: if you are a terrorist, then according to Leon Panetta, you are a terrorist. Hmm. Well, part of the problem here is the fact that Anwar Awlaki never attacked anyone, never had a weapon in his hands as far as I know and he was in Yemen, not America. In fact Awlaki was invited to the White House after 9/11 to take part in some kind of meeting with officials as a representative of what they called “moderate Muslims”.He later became a harsh critic of American policy but that is far from wanting to “attack our people and kill Americans” as Mr. Panetta said. But let’s continue…

Panetta: And the reality is that under our laws, that person is a (3) terrorist.

Yeah, I think you mentioned that word before.

Panetta: And we are required under process of law to be able to justify that despite the fact that this person may be a citizen he is first and foremost a (4) terrorist who threatens our people. And for that reason we can establish a legal basis on which we can go after that person just as we go after bin Laden just as we go after other (5) terrorists. Why? Because their goal is to kill our people (smiles)

Notice that he says they are ABLE to JUSTIFY their actions, that they CAN establish a legal basis so they CAN murder him (them). “Justify“? “Can establish“? “Can go after“? Who exactly does it sound like has the goal to “kill our people”? It sounds like Leon Panetta to me.

Yemen Governor: No Indication US Cleric Affiliated With al-Qaeda

Also notice he never addresses the huge issue of evidence. Never. Because in his little CIA drone death squad world, evidence is super secret and to disclose evidence would be to risk “national security”

The State Secrets of a Policital Question: The Anwar Al-Aulaqi Story

In the first 60 seconds of that interview Leon Panetta used the word “terrorist” 5 times and made reference to “bin Laden” once.

The implication here is obvious: as long as Panetta CLAIMS you are a TERRORIST, he CAN JUSTIFY murdering you in cold blood.

The interviewer failed to mention that Awlaki wasn’t the only U.S. citizen Panetta murdered in cold blood. He also killed Awlaki’s 16 year old son a few days later, again with one of his “Death From Above” drone strikes.

When U.S. citizen Awlaki was murdered, 3 other men died with him.

When U.S. citizen Abdulrahman bin Anwar Al Awlaki (16) was murdered, 3 other kids died with him. One of those was 17.

Awlaki was in Yemen helping with an Arab Spring type uprising (one of the real ones, not the destabilization campaign type paid for by Panetta and the CIA/State department) and he died for it as the United States has been there for quite sometime helping keep their brutal dictator Saleh in place.

Dancing With Snakes

Remember, Obama authorized the use of cruise missiles in Dec. of 2009 to try to quell that uprising back then resulting in the outright murder of 23 children and several innocent people.

Peace Prize President Kills 23 Children and 17 Women in Order to Protect the Assets of the IMF and World Bank

US used cluster bombs on Yemen civilians: Amnesty

But none of that is brought up in the 60 Minutes PR infomercial for salvaging Panetta’s reputation.

Coincidentally, Barack Obama recently gave an interview in which he talked about the drone strikes as well. Here is one of the things he said about them. Remember, under Obama, the use of these cowardly instruments of mass (and indiscriminate) destruction has VASTLY increased since he took office.

President Peace Prize Obama: I want to make sure people understand actually drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties. … For the most part, they’ve been very precise, precision strikes against against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.

Really?

Let’s take a look at the facts.

From Aug 2011, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study of CIA drone attacks in Pakistan (keep in mind these numbers are JUST Pakistan and have nothing to do with the MANY other countries in which Panetta is using these weapons to suppress popular uprisings)

The Bureau’s key findings

• 305 CIA attacks have taken place in Pakistan – 8% more than previously reported. Under President Obama alone there have been 253 strikes – one every four days.
• Between 2,347 and 2,956 people are reported to have died in the attacks – most of them militants
• The minimum number of reported deaths is far higher than previously believed – with 40% more recorded casualties. Most of those killed are likely to be low-ranking militants.
• Up to 150 named militants have so far been killed.
• The Bureau has collated credible news reports of 392-781 civilians being killed in the attacks.
• The Bureau has identified credible reports of 175 children killed in the drone strikes. Under President Bush, one in three of all attacks is reported to have killed a child.
• For the first time the Bureau has compiled accurate details of recorded injuries in drone strikes, revealing that at least 1,158 people have been wounded.

There are only 150 NAMED “militants” killed out of as many as 3,000 deaths. This bureau report allows for WAY to many assumptions in my book as to who those “other” people are, whether or not they are “militants” or just innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. BUT as you can see, there is still up to 781 civilians they know are innocent and up to 175 CHILDREN who more than likely didn’t want to kill Americans in Miami like Mr. Panetta suggests.

The most recently reported civilian fatalities were on October 31. Tariq Khan, aged 16 and his 12-year old cousin Wahid were killed in a strike on North Waziristan. Drone War Exposed

The drone programs is a brutal blunt instrument designed to inflict collateral damage which will promote shock and awe throughout the targeted communities.

Do you remember that scene in Platoon when Barnes is trying to interrogate the village elder about the whereabouts of fighters who killed Manny? He kills the man’s wife then takes his daughter holding a gun to her head because she is next if he doesn’t cooperate; if he doesn’t give up the resistance fighters.

That’s what the drone program does. It makes it easier to kill opponents to our colonial rule without risking the lives of Special Ops soldiers in midnight raids and to make those deaths as depersonalized and detached as possible.

But it also sends a very clear message: if you resist, there will be collateral damage.

This message is designed to induce the rebellious masses to submit and to encourage others around them, the ordinary civilians just trying to survive, to ostracize the resistance for the sake of their own safety.

This message is clearly part of our new Global War on Terror. Look at what Hillary Clinton said to Gadhafi and President Assad of Syria: If you don’t leave there will be civilian casualties. Clinton’s deplorable giggling interview after Gadhafi was murdered is eerily similar to Panetta’s constant smirking and laughing during the rest of the 60 Minutes infomercial.

Aside from Panetta’s justification hypothesis based on simply calling someone a terrorist over and over again, and Obama’s complete lack of factual statements regarding the use of drones over the course of his presidency, there stands a striking lesson in all of this:

When they use these weapons to inflict terror and shock and awe on a population in order to facilitate the political and economic agendas in the occupied country (by the way, that is the definition of terrorism) what they are expecting is a more humane reaction from the targeted people than they themselves are willing to exhibit.

They are expecting “the terrorists” to be better than they are.

They are saying they are more brutal and ruthless than anyone else therefore they must be obeyed no matter what. This is a message that the CIA and others have been sending for decades now, but it’s only recently been as exposed as it was happening, in real time. It’s also a message used by our favorite dictators in the past and the present.

How far we have come from these words astonishes me sometimes: “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

“The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.”

“… Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.” Daily Mail

The Global Warming scam was never about saving the planet from anthropomorphic climate change. It was always about setting up a global authority to dictate which nations could manufacture and develop their industries and which couldn’t. It was about setting in place a global taxation scheme which would tax individuals as well as unfavored businesses unfairly. It was about creating Carbon Markets like the failed examples in Europe and Chicago which would buy and sell carbon credits and then create the next massive derivative bubble behind them. And ultimately, Global Warming was about regulating carbon, the basic building block of all life (and most matter) on this planet. It was about money, power, and control. Just another day at the office for the globalist set.

I have been writing about the Global Warming scam since early 2009. I never bought into it because I didn’t listen to people like Al Gore when he arrogantly claimed to congress that “the science was in” and there would be no more debate allowed on the subject. When someone tells me something like that, I tend to do a little research. Usually there is a reason people don’t want you looking up subjects on your own.

I found out pretty quickly that the research from the Climate Research Unit showed there had been no global warming since the late 1990′s and in fact we were in a cooling trend. I also found out that they had a tenancy to drop monitoring stations from their sample sets in order to conclude a global warming consensus. They are apparently still trying the same thing.

Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit admitted back in Feb. of 2010 that the cooling trend was observed and that there had been “no significant” warming since 1995.

“Question: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

Jones: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant”  BBC

The recent announcement by the Met office and the Climate Research Unit is therefore nothing new. It got little attention but it is consistent with Phil Jones’ earlier statements. Keep these things in mind as well.

1. IPCC admits “flaw” in sea levels study – “A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.”

2. Former IPCC author says the data they relied on was “flawed” – “The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.”

3. IPCC admits melting glacier statement was “Flawed” – “The assertion, now discredited, was included in the most recent IPCC report assessing climate change science, ­published in 2007. Those reports are widely credited with convincing the world that human activity was causing global warming.”

NASA just put out a study claiming that 2011 was the 9th hottest year on record. That little gem of a news story got a lot of attention from all around the political spectrum, but this story doesn’t seem to be getting much traction. Go figure.

If you take a second and look at what NASA did, it becomes clear how they came to their conclusion.

“The temperature analysis produced at GISS is compiled from weather data from more than 1,000 meteorological stations around the world, satellite observations of sea surface temperature and Antarctic research station measurements.”  NASA

The latest Met Office and Climate Research Unit conclusion was based on “readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations” .  NASA’s Goddard Institute just had to drop out somewhere around 29,000 inconvenient meteorological stations from around the globe and bingo-dingo… you get one of the hottest years on record.

If this seems like they are still trying to massage the data like the Climategate scandal showed us they were more than capable of doing, that would be a rational conclusion to come to.

They have tried to rush legislation through congress by fabricating an emotion based appeal to urgency on this topic for years. Remember the Photoshopped Polar bear on the iceberg?  How about the doom and gloom rising sea level studies and the disappearing glaciers that were going to crack off and drop into the ocean creating 1,000 foot tidal waves to wipe us all out?

They even tried to change the name of the threat from Global Warming to Climate Change once they understood that we were finding out the climate had been cooling for years. Some piece of crap propaganda movie came out trying to make the case that Global Warming was causing Global Cooling and that we were all still doomed.

In the end, you can’t believe anything these guys say… ever. There is WAY too much money at stake and WAY too much money being pumped into the “research” to support the globalist’s agenda.

Suffice to say this information has been out there for a while and many leading climate researchers like Phil Jones have already had to acknowledge it. But again, it won’t do any good if it doesn’t get out to the general population. They will go on regurgitating the lies of people like Hanson at the Goddard Institute till Wall Street has their new derivatives market and the carbon police are inspecting our trashcans on a daily basis.

UPDATE: Russia opposes ‘Libyan scenario’ in Syria and will block resolution

Syrian government accepted Russian brokered peace talks with opposition

The Syrian “rebels/activists” rejected a Russian brokered peace talks

The Syrian “rebels/activists” sabotage state run natural gas pipeline and murdered a doctor

——

“So, I came back to see him (in the Pentagon) a few weeks later (October of 2001) and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan and I said “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” and he said “It’s worse than that.” He said.. he reached over on his desk and he picked up a piece of paper and he said “I just got this down from upstairs today..” meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office… and he said “this is a memo that describes how we are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years.. starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran.” Gen. Westley Clark

When every single MSM “news” outlet is on the same page, reporting “activist said” unsubstantiated propaganda pertaining to Libya, Somalia and Syria as unquestionable fact, the current administration is free to do whatever they want with no fear of reprisal from their so-called “progressive” supporters. That means the Obama administration of “CHANGE” is able to openly continue yet another horrendous and illegal policy of the Bush administration, the neoliberalization of several state centered nations, unencumbered by the inherent restrictions of democracy ie the “will of the people” who would never support premeditated invasions and occupations of other nations for the express interests of multinational corporations and financial institutions.

Just as the complicit corporatist media assisted the Bush regime in manufacturing consent for the illegal invasion of Iraq, they are doing the exact same thing now under the Obama administration as they openly continue to fulfill the “7 countries in 5 years” agenda set so long ago.

What was once “weapons of mass destruction” is now “the right to protect” but notice the similarities between those two justifications: neither actually requires anything to have happened: no real threat to exist. They are both preemptive in nature, expressing a perceived threat supported by a carefully contrived MSM consensus, therefore they are both justifying all out war as an answer to “atrocities” that have yet to happen. As in the case with Iraq we all know there were no WMDs and in the case of Libya we also know Gadhafi’s airstrikes on the demonstrators in Benghazi never happened nor did he provide Viagra to his soldiers so they could rape the women of his country. These things never existed except in the minds of the propagandists who lusted for war and the pages of the complicit media who repeated these claims no matter how ridiculous.

“However, the success “The Libyan Model” will have the unintentional effect—certainly no fault of the Libyan people—of increasing the momentum for more overt and covert interventions utilizing a combination of drones, missile strikes, special forces and the CIA. Indeed, Libya represents a confluence of (predominantly but not exclusively) neo-liberal foreign policy, the CIA’s increased war-fighting capabilities and liberal hawks pushing for the U.S. and the U.N. to formally adopt the “Responsibility to Protect” (RtoP) norm.

The effects of neoliberalism on foreign policy under George W. Bush have been well-documented and I will not address them here. But the militarization of the CIA is relatively new” In These Times

I first started writing about the trending “activist said” “journalism” regarding Syria back in June of 2011. The trend continues and even increases in frequency because it’s a crucial part of the new “successful” model of forced regime change that people like Leon Panetta and Samantha Powers wholeheartedly support. Notice that most of these stories are usually accompanied by a legal disclaimer stating that the news agency cannot verify their own reports.

“… activists said… Activists said… said one activist who declined to be named…  Activists say… The activist who declined to be named said… whom activists say…” Reuters June 3 2011

“…. activists said… an activist named Kamal told Reuters… Activists said earlier on Sunday…” MSNBC Jan 30th 2012

“CNN cannot verify reports from Syria… ” CNN

“Al Jazeera cannot independently verify reports from Syria…” Al Jazeera

“Reuters is unable to verify the accuracy of these reports…” Reuters

“Samantha Power, President Obama’s Senior Director and Special Assistant for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights and major supporter for the “Responsibility to Protect” (RtoP) norm.” ITT

“… Leon Panetta described the Libya coalition as “the kind of partnership and alliances that we need to have for the future.” Foreign Policy

Think of the circular nature of this new model they have created. These “activists” in Libya, Iran, and Syria are run by the CIA and the State Department as targeted destabilization campaigns. They commit acts of terrorism targeting civilians and police in order to cause chaos and fear among the population and then they give “unconfirmed” reports to our media about the crimes of regimes the West wants to replace. Then the media uses those reports to manufacture consent of the governed to allow the CIA and the State Department to invade and overthrow those countries.

It’s kinda funny when you think about it. The CIA hands the script to the terrorists who then hand it to the media who then hands it to us and we hand over our unquestioning support to the CIA.

"We told them we had the "right to protect" and they bought it!"

Under the Obama administration the lines between the CIA, State Department, and the military have become more than just blurred, they have been completely erased. Hillary has her own little private army of mercenaries, the former CIA director now runs the Defense Department, and an “ass kissing little chicken-shit” who sucked ass all the way to the upper command heights of the U.S. military has been installed as the CIA director.

The CIA is running the cowardly and immoral drone campaign in various countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya) like they used to help 3rd world dictators set up their death squads. The purpose is to remove the kinds of people who will oppose their efforts to remake the targeted country in their neoliberal model.

They shuffle around members of terrorist organizations like marbles in a game of Chinese checkers, attacking different sections of the board from the same angle all at once. They arm al Qaeda, Bokop Harem,  and the MEK with no regard for political or physical blow-back from these proven monsters and murderers.

When Obama put CIA director Panetta in charge of the Pentagon, what he was doing was effectively merging the two departments under one director and propping up the sycophant Petraeus (Betrayus) as the empty suit puppet to Penetta’s invisible hand.

After that merger all they needed was a complicit media made up of career minded stenographers who possessed naturally incurious natures who would never dream of putting something as outdated as journalistic integrity ahead of their own materialistic ambitions.

And thus the new model of “activists said” journalism was created and continues to this day. As a result, Libya has fallen to the propagandists, the CIA backed terrorists, the neoliberal Chicago School economists, and a barrage of multi-ton high explosive bombs dropped by Obama’s “coalition of the willing”, NATO.

Syria is next on the list with Iran already targeted for a similar project in the near future.

This successful model of theirs, this highly profitable formula of manufactured consent (Yellow Journalism) for neo-liberal regime change, can only be challenged by the citizen journalists but there are far too few of us left to make a dent it seems.

As the CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the media blend into one imperialist weapon of mass distortion and the Obama administration and congress pass a bill that includes the United States as part of the new combat zone for their Global War on Terror, one has to wonder just how long it will be before CNN’s “activist said” journalistic standards are used to target and destabilize us as well.

If they continue to get away with it, it’s only a matter of time. The absence of accountability has a certain gallows predictability to it. The more they get, the more they want.

UPDATE: See update at the end of this article about how Sean Penn went on Tavis Smiley’s show to whitewash Bill Clinton’s behavior in Haiti to the American public. Sean Penn is bought and paid for. What a sellout.

——–

monster meet monster

This is a picture of Bill Clinton smiling and shaking the hand of Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier in Titanyen….on January 12, 2012, a week ago.

Baby Doc is possibly the most sadistic and brutal dictator Washington has ever created. He is by almost any definition of the term, evil. And I don’t use that word often. In fact, I don’t think I ever have on this site. But Baby Doc fits the bill.

His secret police were called the Tonton Macoutes and they ruled by a unique blend of mixing murder, torture, and fanatical voodoo ritual which left Haitians not only afraid for their lives, but for their souls as well. Many of the leaders of the Tonton Macoutes were local voodoo priests who were said to be zombies out for nothing more than stealing the blood and the souls of their victims.  They reveled in their evil reputation and took steps to ensure it grew into legend.

“Those who spoke out against Duvalier would disappear at night, or were sometimes attacked in broad daylight. Tonton Macoutes often stoned and burned people alive. Many times the corpses were put on display, often hung in trees for everyone to see. Family members who tried to remove the bodies for proper burial often disappeared themselves, never to be seen again.”

“These merciless killers murdered over 60,000 Haitians and many more were forced to flee their homes.” COHA

Described by Jean Saint-Vil, Titanyen is the site where “mass graves were dug to pack hundreds of bodies of men, women and children who were murdered by Jean-Claude Duvalier and his infamous Tonton Macoutes – over the course of 3 decades of a notoriously brutal dictatorship.” and that is where the humanitarian globalist Bill Clinton is standing with the Butcher of Haiti.

Talk about the power of left cover. Imagine the outrage if Dick Cheney were in that picture literally standing on the bodies of thousands of Haitian people shaking the hand of the man responsible for putting them there. But when globalist poster-boy Bill Clinton does it… nothing. Not a peep.

That, my friends, is the definition of “left cover” and I guess that’s what you’re buying when you get the likes of Sean Penn, Jack Black, and Matt Damon to do cutesy little PR videos for your globalist institutions and “business oriented solutions”

All the spin, the not so subtle distancing, and the high priced PR not withstanding, Bill Clinton is now a merchant banker. Bill has made the final transition from “consultant” (selling his political connections to big business (the 63 billion dollar Clinton Global(ist) Initiative)), to full blown merchant banker with an organization set up by: 1. a former adviser to Hillary Clinton’s state department, Declan Kelly 2. his closet personal adviser for the past 16 years, Doug Band.

He “consults” with Tony Blair for Teneo Capital, a merchant banking company formed by Declan Kelly, a one-time economic adviser working in Hillary Clinton’s state department. Teneo’s leadership has ties to Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs. In the true globalist fashion they have offices in London, Toronto, New York, and Washington D.C. Doug Band is also one of the founding members of Teneo. He has served as Clinton’s most trusted globalist adviser for the past 16 years and actually brags on Teneo’s website about all of the work he has done after natural disasters in places like Indonesia, New Orleans, and Haiti.

Now keep in mind, Band is on the board of directors of Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola has turned a niffty little profit in Haiti thanks to Band’s connections to Bill Clinton and all that relief money he isn’t using to help the people of Haiti, but rather the favored businesses that look to go there to set up sweat-shops and take advantage of the cheap labor and deregulation. Remember Haitian Hope, that mango flavored drink that Coca-Cola makes from the plantations seized by the Haitian government after the earthquake and then handed over to Coke for nothing?

Nifty how that works huh? Doug Band sits on the board for Coca-Cola, he advises Bill Clinton, Clinton’s wife puts Bill in charge of all that relief money given to help the PEOPLE of Haiti, and Coca-Cola gets massive plantations in Haiti for free and all the slaves they need to work the fields.

It’s the mantra of former President Clinton, the special United Nations envoy to Haiti: jobs, not charity.CNN

Clinton never had any intention of using the money that was given to help the people of Haiti to actually help the people of Haiti. He was from the beginning only interested in letting the situation get as bad as possible so he and his crony friends like Doug Band could push for draconian reforms and deregulation that would once again rise Haiti to the prominence of the globalist economy that it once enjoyed. In fact, it might be interesting to see if all that relief money is now parked in Teneo Capital’s coffers.

Clinton talked in the beginning about bringing back to Haiti some 80,000 “jobs”, sweat-shop jobs, so that Haiti could once again rank up their with exploitative globalist 3rd world countries like Mexico, India, Indonesia, and South Korea. All those sweat-shops and corporate plantations would bring Haiti back to the glory days of the Duvalier family.

There’s an interesting story about the Duvalier family that bears an unnerving similarity to recent events in D.C. and considering the picture above, it deserves to be told.

The Duvalier family was notorious for flaunting their massive wealth in the faces of their own people. They held a costume party one time where Baby Doc dressed up as a Turkish sultan and handed out jewels worth a reported $10,000 as door prizes to their influential business elite guests. They set up closed circuit televisions in the parks where the homeless slept in mass so the poorest of their country could watch.

After being exiled to France on a U.S. supplied plane which saved them from their people, the French authorities decided to raid Baby Doc’s home and they found his wife trying to flush a ledger down the toilet. In the ledger they found expenses listing “US$168,780 for clothes at Givenchy, US$270,200 for jewellery at Boucheron, US$9,752 for two children’s horse saddles at Hermès, US$68,500 for a clock, US$13,000 for a week’s stay at a Paris hotel” Wall street Journal

They found another bank account of the Duvalier’s with $20 million dollars in it but it was removed before they could confiscate it.

I wonder what they would find in the Clinton’s bank accounts were they ever to look. Would they find the missing funds from the Haitian Relief Fund? Would they find some of the missing 30 billion dollars that was taken from the people of Libya prior to the NATO backed aggression and regime change there? Hard to say since there will never be an investigation like that in America.

But here’s a little interesting note: two years ago, during the height of the still ongoing Great Recession in America, the Obama’s threw a little costume party in the White House and they made sure that the photos of that closed event finally made it out into the public sphere so that the poorest of us could marvel at the opulence in which the other 1% lives.

Remember Chelsea Clinton’s 5 million dollar wedding to the ex-Goldman Sachs banker Marc Mezvinsky? Marc is the son of a former democratic congressman who served several years in prison for tons of fraud charges.

Like his father-in-law, Marc is now a banker. He has a hedge fund set up with 2 partners from … Goldman Sachs…

Yes, America is a kleptocracy just like Haiti was and is under their new post-earthquake regime.

And yes, Clinton seems to be smoothing the way for Baby Doc to play some role or another in Haiti once again. I would imagine that they would need something like a revised Tonton Macoutes to keep the peasants in line and working hard at the Coca-Cola plantations after all, Coke can’t expect their henchmen from Colombia to fly over and kill the union trouble makers in Haiti.

Whenever I see someone still talking about “HOPE” and “CHANGE” I think back to those homeless peasants in Haiti watching Baby Doc handing out thousands of their dollars to businessmen from France and America.

Whenever I hear some fake populist jackass like Cornell West saying we have to get behind re-electing Barack Obama because Newt Gingrich is crazy, I see Bill Clinton shaking the hand of Baby Doc Duvalier and I think about the brutally effective power and privilege of left-cover.

I think about Obama being the first president to claim he has the right to murder U.S. citizens without due process in combat zones and I think about Obama signing NDAA which states all the world is a combat zone, including the United States.

Then I think about the Tonton Macoutes and how the police in places like New York and L.A. are being trained in the “Israeli” model.

Yeah, we’re still in bed with butchers and they’re even importing them from places like Yemen while “progressives” shake their hands on mass grave sites in Haiti. The salad says of the internet are behind us, my friends, voodoo politics is on the rise in America.

Politicians are becoming bankers and bankers are becoming politicians. The New World Order is officially upon us and all we have to look forward to is the Haitification of America. Enter the Chicago School of Economics advisers and the Ayn Rand zealots to dictate to us about the evils of altruism.

UPDATE: Watch Sean Penn go to bat for the Clinton regime on the Tavis Smiley show by trying to provide “left cover” for this mockery of justice that Bill made by warmly receiving the Butcher Baby Doc in Haiti. Penn remarkably compares the horrendous crimes of Baby Doc Duvalier to Don King’s stealing of his fighter’s money as if these two crimes are in any way comparable.

Go here to watch a video Sean Penn made at the Clinton Foundation with Ben Stiller, Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen, Jack Black and Kevin Spacey. The video was made as a spoof for Bill Clinton’s celebrity packed 65th birthday party. The video features the celebrities trying to come up with ideas for the Clinton Foundation while Bill Clinton steals Sean Penn’s bag lunch. In the end of the video Jack Black sings “The Clinton Foundation fighting global issues through business oriented solutions. The Clinton Foundation is the best world in the world.”

Penn’s NGO was given a half a million dollars by the Clinton Foundation and also received “advice” from them on how to use it.

During Penn’s discussion with Tavis Smiley he:

• supported the recent fraudulent elections in Haiti that excluded the most popular political party
• supported the new president who was “elected” in those U.S. backed fraudulent elections
• he called for a “reconciliation” with Baby Doc Duvalier
• he completely ignored the on-going crimes of the UN “peace keeping” mission in Haiti
• he defended Clinton’s neo-colonial order in Haiti
• he dismissed Aristide, the rightful president of Haiti
• “Unfortunately, Sean Penn is as smitten with Clinton as he is with Martelly. So he concludes that NGOs are now doing a good job and “beginning to align in a way” that is effective,“largely because of the leadership of President Clinton.””  Pacific Free Press

Go here to watch Sean Penn accuse Wycliff Jean of serving corporate interests by trying to run for office in Haiti 6 months after the earthquake. He says that Jean may in fact be running simply to help the corporate manufacturers bring sweat-shops back to Haiti.

Curious isn’t it? Sean Penn accuses Wycliff Jean of doing exactly what Bill Clinton did and is still doing in Haiti and all across the world with his Clinton Foundation. Jean stole millions of dollars worth of donations from his own Haitian relief NGO.

“If we go to fix this house, a house that had a leak before, it doesn’t make sense to rebuild it with the leak again.” Sean Penn

But that is exactly what Sean Penn is doing with Bill Clinton. In fact, Clinton helped put the leak there in the first place.

by Muriel Kane, Raw Story

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has consistently denied having written — or even read — the inflammatory racist and anti-gay remarks that went out under his name in newsletters he published in the early 1990s. Although numerous associates agree that Paul does not hold racist views, however, it appears that he may have known more about the racist articles than he has been willing to admit.

The Washington Post reported on Friday that three people with first-hand knowledge of Paul’s operations say “he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.”

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. … He would proof it,’’ former company secretary Renae Hathway told the Post.

According to these sources, the main author of the racist passages was Lew Rockwell, who was then the vice president of Paul’s company.

[read the rest, here]

SOPA and PIPA are two of the most widely misunderstood pieces of legislation to recently come down the D.C. corporatist pipeline as of late (later I will write about that and the new pending legislation submitted by the same senator). Meanwhile, the recent shuttering of Megaupload and the subsequent arrest of Kim Dotcom is being portrayed as something that it clearly isn’t.

But what it is, is much worse.

The point is, you aren’t getting the full story on any of these matters even on so-called dissident conservative, libertarian, or “progressive” sites. So the question becomes, “why?”

Fascism is the seamless melding of the corporation and the state to the advantage of the owners, stockholders, and their puppet lawmakers at the direct cost of the citizen. Government’s role as protector and defender of civil liberties is replaced by that of defender of corporate control/profits and collector of tax revenue which is directly handed over to the corporations in just as fast as humanly possible.

Think of the for-profit Federal Reserve system being implemented on every facet of government responsibility (federal, state, and local) and you start to get the picture.

We think the privatized fed should be ended and they envision a world where it is expanded into every aspect of our lives.

Deregulation, smaller government, and privatization. These are the ingredients, the prerequisites of fascism.

But it all has to be codified into law. The corporation has to replace the state in the traditional roles of government by the rule of law, in order for this neoliberal coup to withstand future challenges.

SOPA and PIPA were not about allowing “big guberment” to shutter websites and arrest copy-write infringing people. They were not about letting “socialist government” stooges infringe on your first amendment rights.

They were about allowing corporations to do it. They were (are) further examples of legislating fascism under the administration of “CHANGE”. Pure and simple.

This next bill they have on tap, the cynically named “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act“, is almost the same thing with a slight difference; it gives corporations the ability to collect data on you personally, your complete internet and keystroke history (along with passwords, checking account info, emails, ect.), and then to take action against you on their own say so. To essentially block individual users from the internet based solely on a corporation’s decision because of what they claim to be your internet history.

SOPA and PIPA would have allowed the corporate state to make charges against various websites and without evidence or due process, they could shutter any site on the web.

SOPA /PIPA would have removed inconvenient websites while “Protecting Children” H.R. 1981 will remove inconvenient users all the while putting the power to strip you of constitutional rights not in the hands of “big guberment”…

… but instead in the control of the newly developing Corporate States of America.

Let’s also not forget that when combined with the NDAA of 2012 which declares all the world to be a combat zone, whatever they claim you did online could also provide just enough “evidence” to not only remove your footprint entirely from the web, but it could also justify your indefinite detention for providing aid to the enemy under NDAA.

Starting to get the picture?

They’re legislating the last stages of the fascist coup right in front of our eyes. These major steps are taking place under the cover of the presidential primary season when every single “progressive” and conservative outlet is arguing about Romney’s cash or Newt’s trash.

“Nothing to see here folks. Isn’t Santorum crazy?”

Then you have the arrest of Kim Dotcom and the shuttering of his site, Megaupload.

The MegaUpload story is important for a different reason than has been pointed out all over the web.

Glenn Greenwald recently covered this issue. He rightly explains that the federal government already has the power to shutter websites and make arrests due to copy-write violations thanks to the the 2008  PRO-IP Act but then he fails to explain why SOPA/PIPA were so important to the corporate community. He fails to mention that the reason for the new legislation is to hand over those unconstitutional powers to the corporate state.

Greenwald then goes on to bring up the MegaUpload story in reference as simply an example of how the government is going ahead with these “new powers” regardless of the SOPA/PIPA defeat. In making that claim, Greenwald misses the point completely and even contradicts himself in the process.

If the powers to shutter and arrest members of a website are already the law of the land, what point is there in writing another series of laws that do the same thing? Greenwald acknowledges the existing law and then ignores it’s relevance in his summation.

“But it nonetheless sends a very clear message when citizens celebrate a rare victory in denying the Government a power it seeks — the power to shut down websites without a trial — only for the Government to turn around the very next day and shut down one of the world’s largest and best-known sites. Whether intended or not, the message is unmistakable: Congratulations, citizens, on your cute little “democracy” victory in denying us the power to shut down websites without a trial: we’re now going to shut down one of your most popular websites without a trial.” Glenn Greenwald

So why did they shut down MegaUpload?

Money. and LOTS of it.

The owners of MegaUpload had announced back in Dec. 2011 that they were going to offer a new kind of music label to artists, one that allowed them to store their music on a cloud and directly market their art to customers, to their computers, I-Phones, smart phones, I-pods, ect. via a digital system which would provide for the artists 90% of their revenue. They were going to do that and also create a system by which artists would receive revenue for file-sharing of their music through MegaUpload via a system called MegaKey.

The system they created was called MegaBox and they had a press release and the website and software and the cloud was already up and ready to go. They had even already been through beta testing and several partners were on-board including Amazon MP3.

 ”UMG knows that we are going to compete with them via our own music venture called Megabox.com, a site that will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings,”

“We have a solution called the Megakeythat will allow artists to earn income from users who download music for free, Yes that’s right, we will pay artists even for free downloads.  The Megakey business model has been tested with over a million users and it works.”

“You can expect several Megabox announcements next year including exclusive deals with artists who are eager to depart from outdated business models.” Kim Dotcom, MegaUpload

MegaUpload was taken out because their new innovative system was going to radically change the way the music industry did business. This was going to cost companies like UMG billions of dollars while putting more of that money in the hands of the artists, making music cheaper to buy for the consumer, and provide a more level playing field for new artists just starting out.

And the Justice Department crushed it in service to the mega-corporations which they serve.

Not a word about this from Greenwald and not a word about the state handing unconstitutional powers to the corporations from him either. Why do you think that is?

Do you think Saloon will be targeted by SOPA/PIPA? Do you think Greenwald really worries about the provisions of the “Protecting Children” Act?

Well, he certainly won’t have to worry about such things if he keeps missing obvious points like these.

What we have witnessed over the past few weeks is the beginnings of the last stages of the legislation of the fascist state and the Megaupload story is just another example of how that state, the government working on behalf of the corporations, is dedicated to the service of corporate persons rather than us.

One might ask Mr. Greenwald how he missed all of this in his insightful analysis of the current events. But then again, he did support the Supreme Court ruling in Citizen’s United, didn’t he?

Russia Today is reporting (without providing a link or a direct quote) that the Fars News Agency, a so-called “semi-official” news agency in Iran, has stated that a senior Iranian official has made the statement that Iran “would definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupts their oil exports.

“Tensions in the Gulf could reach a breaking point as a senior Iranian official said Iran would “definitely” close the Strait of Hormuz if an EU oil embargo disrupted the export of crude oil, the semi-official Fars news agency reports.” Russia Today

This statement by Russia Today is misleading on several fronts.

Fars is not a semi-official news agency in Iran. Fars makes this statement on their own website: “Fars News Agency (FNA) is Iran’s leading independent news agency…” Fars was created in 2003 and the English version in late 2005, a time when the Bush administration was pumping millions into subversion and destabilization programs in Iran.

This story comes on the same day that the EU announced it will adhere to the US led Iranian sanctions based on the discredited propaganda that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. The 27 nations of the EU will honor and continue with their Iranian contracts until July of this year. As I reported earlier, this gives them approximately 6 months before they go into effect.

Curiously, an MSNBC report on this story has a slightly different take on the Fars News Agency report on Iran’s response to this development:

“The best way (to respond to the EU decision)  is to stop exporting oil ourselves before the end of this six months and before the implementation of the plan,” the semi-official Fars news agency quoted him as saying, Reuters reports.” MSNBC

Given the different takes on the article, I decided to look it up and here’s the full quote from the Fars article:

“The best way for us is to stop oil exports before the 6-month deadline (announced by the EU) comes to an end and the oil embargo plan comes into effect so that crude prices go up and Europeans’ US-driven plans for sanctioning our country’s oil fall flat,” Former Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Falahian

The Fars article goes on to mention an older warning from Iran that they would close the Strait if the West sanctioned all of their oil exports, but does not tie that into what Ali Falahian said about how to deal with the EU announcement.

Other Fars articles reflect the almost casual reaction the Iranians are having to the announcement of EU’s embargo plans:

“The oil embargo against Iran is just a propaganda by a number of the US and European politicians and will have no effect on Iran’s economy,” member of the parliament’s Energy Commission

So it looks as if Iran is sending a clear message that the EU sanctions will have little effect on them and that they intend to impose the sanctions earlier than the EU time frame. Seems as if they are going to let the market dictate their retaliation as opposed to violence.

But Russia Today’s article makes it seem as if they are “definitely” going to attack someone, probably the U.S., closing down the Strait.

That’s curious, isn’t it?

Remember this?

“After all attempts to frame Iran have failed thus far, a Jerusalem Post article (written by a former Israeli intelligence officer turned Operation Mockingbird style “journalist“) suggests Iran will provide the needed pretext for the war themselves by attacking a U.S. warship.” Scott Creighton

And let’s also keep this in mind…

We are sending the oldest carrier in our fleet, one already scheduled for deactivation in a year, into the Middle East (the Gulf) in MARCH of this year.

The controversial NDAA bill which Obama signed Dec. 31st is scheduled to go into effect in MARCH of this year as well.

Wouldn’t it be a coincidence if after all of this posturing for war against Iran, they were to torpedo a U.S. ship that was old and outdated and already slated to be decommissioned?

Four days ago Russia Today published an article that claimed an Iranian sub could torpedo a US vessel “especially US aircraft carriers” without being detected. This claim also came from the “semi-official” Fars News Agency.

“An Iranian commander has warned that Tehran is on full alert in case of enemy threats, and has the best submarines in the world ready to “ambush and hit enemy vessels, especially US Aircraft carriers, from the seabed throughout the Persian Gulf.”

­Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army’s Self-Sufficiency Jihad Rear Admiral Farhad Amiri hailed the Iranian submarines as “the best electronic diesel vessels in the world, noiseless and able to easily evade detection as they are equipped with sonar-evading technology,” the country’s semi-state Fars news agency reported” Russia Today

This sets up a situation where a US vessel (perhaps one ready to be decommissioned?) gets hit in the Strait by a torpedo fired from a sub that never appears on any radar or other detection equipment.

With all of this misinformation readily in place, who is going to be the presumptive aggressor in this seemingly unavoidable conflict? Is this simply a way to continue the game of brinksmanship over regime change in Syria and Iran? Is the US sending a not so subtle message to Russia and Iran that they are willing to stage a false flag event and light the fuse for WWIII if they don’t get what they want?

“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”  Mathew 20:16

How are selected presidents currently marketed to the U.S. population through the artifice of the election process in a way that leaves most with the comfortable illusion that we still have a democratic process that still answers to the will of the people?

What history shows us is that Newt Gingrich did not win South Carolina as much as Barack Obama has been selected to occupy the White House for 4 more years. So who was the big winner in South Carolina yesterday? Barack Obama and his neoliberal bosses who apparently need his special brand of left cover for 4 more years.

Newt Gingrich will win the Republican nomination after a close race with either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney and then he will lose to Barack Obama in the general election of 2012. How do I know this? It’s already happened. Twice.

Allow me to explain.

1. John McCain 2008:

“So the last will be first“

Here’s the scheme, it’s pretty simple: if you want candidate “A” to win, make sure he’s running against an extremely unpopular candidate “B“, rig the secretive opaque electronic vote counting system in candidate “A“‘s favor, and then point to how unpopular candidate “B” was to his own party to justify the general election voting results.

It worked in 2008 and it will work again in 2012.

Prior to 2008, when John McCain was the designated loser in that contrived WWE style “election” show, electronic voting machines played an integral role in hijacking the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections mainly by directly subverting the general election votes through super-secret protected software that counted the votes we supposedly cast. We have courageous people like Bev Harris and Brad Friedman to thank for bringing to light major vote counting irregularities from those elections and others over the course of the last 11 years.

But in 2008, largely because their scheme had already been exposed, they decided to make a slight change in their modus operandi for the next presidential “election”. What they decided to do was to run their anointed puppet against a person who no one wanted in the White House, John McCain and his bimbo VP candidate Sarah Palin.

How did they chose McCain? The let the voters pick their own loser. Think of it like a nationwide focus group.

“I’ll Suck my way to safety” McCain campaign co-chair

Back in June of 2007, John McCain’s candidacy was falling apart. He was polling next to dead last and he couldn’t get campaign contributions to save his life. Two of his teams top leaders, campaign manager Terry Nelson and campaign chief strategist John Weaver, resigned.

On July 11th,  a co-chair of McCain’s Florida campaign State Rep Bob Allen, was arrested for offering to pay a Florida cop $20 bucks to let him suck his weenie.  Five days later 9 more leading McCain campaign staff members quit as well. The campaign was falling apart but for some reason, John McCain stayed in the race.

McCain consistently polled last or near last from then until mid-December 2007 at which time he enjoyed an unexpected resurgence in the media which was reflected a little in the polls but not at first in the early primaries.

But then something remarkable happened: John McCain, whose campaign shouldn’t have survived past July 2007, came from near dead last, secured the nomination in record time and he won by a landslide to boot.

McCain even “won” the Florida primary, the state where his campaign co-chair had just been convicted in November of trying to give a police officer a blow-job in a public bathroom in a park. Allen claimed that he was so scared of the “stocky black man” and all the other “black guys” in the park, that he only offered to pay him $20 and give him head because he was “intimidated”. He was going to suck his way through that crowd of scary black men. He was going to suck himself to safety. That was his story. How do you think that went over in a state like Florida less than 2 months prior to the primary?

Over at CNN’s 2008 election center website, you can look up all the Republican Party primary results and even use a little slider interactive graphic to see how the candidates were doing day to day during the primary season. What you will see is a remarkable turnaround in McCain’s campaign which happens practically overnight (Jan 15th to Feb 5th) so that by time Super Tuesday was over, John McCain was the presumptive winner. The campaign for the most part was over.

Once he miraculously secured the party nomination, John McCain went on to make some rather idiotic campaign choices that would further marginalize him in from the voters of his own party.

He had Joe Lieberman follow him around his campaign stops literally whispering answers in his ear in plain sight of the republican voters. Lieberman was considered at the time to be the most liberal congressman in Washington (another ridiculous claim) being seen as taking his marching orders from Joe certainly wasn’t good for his conservative street cred.

McCain then picked a tremendously weak Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. Palin didn’t miss an opportunity to show the people just how stupid she could act, even sitting on the set during a Saturday Night Live episode letting the cast make fun of her without doing anything about it, right before the election. Two weeks later, McCain did the same thing.

And then there was this.

John McCain was picked to lose. They carefully took the candidate least liked by the republican voters and served him up as the loser platter so that the anointed Barack Obama would win the “election” and serve the system by providing much needed left cover, continuity of corruption, and a consensus stamp of approval on the Bush/Cheney criminality.

2. Alvin Greene 2010:

Picked to Lose

South Carolina was John McCain’s first major victory in the primary season of 2008 and it just so happens that it is also the first victory of Newt Gingrich here in 2012. McCain came from out of nowhere to win South Carolina just like Newt Gingrich came from a double digit deficit less than two weeks ago to win yesterday. Surprise!

Well, you shouldn’t be because South Carolina seems to have even more of a history of nobodies popping up out of nowhere to “win” elections run on these electronic voting machines. Remember Alvin Greene?

I wrote a great deal about Alvin Greene during and just after the 2010 elections. There no question that Greene was hand selected to beat Vic Rawls, a genuinely progressive Democratic candidate, so that he could then lose to the republican incumbent Jim DeMint. I’m not the only one.

Alvin Greene was a college graduate from the University of South Carolina with a Political Science degree and an intelligence specialist during his military career. But for his election campaign Greene played the role of village idiot, going “full retard” on more than one occasion.

To win the primary, he didn’t campaign, he didn’t make speeches, he took out no ads, he barely had a platform.

Oh yeah, and he was a sex offender. Alvin Greene was facing criminal charges for going down to a college and walking into a residence hall and sitting down next to a young student he had never met before in the computer lab showing her some demented porn that she clearly didn’t want to see. He did that then sat there waiting for the cops to show up and arrest him around the same time he filed to run for office.

At one point when asked about his case, Greene, a USC graduate and a guy holding a degree in Political Science, claimed he didn’t know what the word “indictment” meant.

Vic Rawls was not going down without a fight so he gathered his evidence, several hours worth to be presented, and he petitioned the South Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee to hear his case for a recount of the primary totals. Alvin Greene, like he did in his primary campaign, didn’t show up to the hearing. Statisticians, professors, and voting machine experts testified that there was a 95% chance that the electronic voting machines stole the election for Greene. 14 witnesses in all testified on behalf of Vic Rawls in a case that is as obvious as the nose on your face. That primary was hacked. And Greene didn’t even bother to show up.

But the fix was in and the National Democratic Party pushed the South Carolina executive committee and Vic Rawls lost his bid to examine the evidence of the primary election and retarded acting Greene took his one man show to the general election and neoliberal Jim DeMint won his seat back.

3. Newt Gingrich 2012:

We’ve been SCYTLed

Like McCain in 2008, Newt Gingrich’s campaign was damn near over in June and July this past year. His senior campaign staff resigned in June and as the graphic below shows (from Gallup) Gingrich was losing ground steadily from there on out. It was no where but down for the Gingrich campaign. (click on image for larger view)

After losing the first two primary contests, Iowa he came in 4th with 13% of the vote and New Hampshire he came in 4th again with only 9%, Gingrich suddenly turned his fates around surprising everyone with a miraculous statement making victory which will certainly turn the tides for his faltering campaign.

Those votes were counted on electronic voting machines just like John McCain’s in 2008 and Alvin Greene’s in 2010.

But this year the votes were processed, each and every vote, by a software called SCYTL which is owned and operated by a Spanish company out of Barcelona. The SCYTL software had some rather curious vote counting issues over the years. This is what Bev Harris has to say about that:

In Broward County FL, the results reported by Scytl-owned SOE Software in 2008 showed an entire candidate, who was winning, disappear into vapor in the middle of the count, and in Hillsborough County FL and Dallas County TX, votes that had been reported began to disappear. Bev Harris

Newt Gingrich is corrupt. His congressional check writing scandal and his 1.7 million or so he took from Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae should go to prove that.

He’s now laughably playing the role of the populist republican candidate, calling out Mitt Romney for his vulture capitalist career at Bain but the whole time Newt’s $500,000 Tiffany’s account is just waiting to re-emerge.

He was the first Speaker of the House to be disciplined for ethical wrong-doing after 84 ethics charges were leveled against him.

In short there are tons of reasons for Newt to lose this election and he’s already adding to that list by alienating members of his own party and throwing around racist innuendo like suggesting poor kids should work as “janitors” while in school. This is all designed to “get out the vote” for Obama, of course.

Yes, the South Carolina primary was probably hacked so that picked to lose Gingrich would come from behind and “win” the 2012 Republican Primary which unfortunately means Barack Obama is slated for another 4 years of keeping the anti-war movement and the peace movement sitting on their hands rather than waving them angrily at the White House in protest.

We have to wait and see, but if history is any indication, it looks like Newt “Alvin Greene” Gingrich is set-up to fail.

A publisher in Atlanta, Andrew Adler of the Atlanta Jewish Times, recently wrote an opinion piece in his paper (What Would You Do?) which proposed the Israeli assassination of a seated U.S. president in order to defend Israel from nuclear weapons that Iran does not currently have and is not currently developing (according to the NIEs of 2007 and 2010)

Adler’s Jan. 13th 2012 article puts his 3,500 or so readers in the unenviable position of Israel’s Prime Minister facing what he seems to think is the inevitable destruction of Israel at the hands of the Syrians, Hezbollah, and Iran and asked them “What Would They Do?”: strike Hezbollah (killing civilians), strike Syria (killing civilians), or have Mossad agents already in the U.S.(his words, not mine) kill the president of the United States because he backed off a provocative missile defense drill, Austere Challenge 12,with Israel off Iran’s coastline?

“Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.” Andrew Adler

(Notice that he thinks the vice president would be more inclined to do Israel’s bidding than Obama is? That’s because Biden once famously claimed “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist“.)

Once Gawker got this story out to the internet, it’s taken off a bit and Adler has issued an apology of sorts but only after all the negative response following the Gawker story.

This story ties in directly with a growing push to force out those who might stand opposed to Israeli foreign policy directives as is exemplified by the current “anti-Semitism” smear campaign being leveled at “progressive” and left wing writers and bloggers across the country.

Aside from suggesting that neo-con writers attack progressive and left-wing bloggers as “anti-Semites” for questioning whether certain AIPAC advocates have our interests or the interests of Israel at heart as their primary considerations, Josh Block went on to suggest that merely reporting the facts about the non-existent Iranian nuclear program was enough to earn writers the same “anti-Semite” distinction and thus they should not be “tolerated”. This is part of what Block said in a recent Politico interview:

“As a progressive Democrat, I am convinced that on issues as important as the US-Israel alliance and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, there is no room for uncivil discourse or name calling, like ‘Israel Firster or ‘Likudnik’, and policy or political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse. I also believe that when it occurs, progressive institutions, have a responsibility not to tolerate such speech or arguments.” Josh Block

Glenn Greenwald did a very good job covering the Josh Block story and Yossi Gurvitz did a great job in pointing out the fact that this proves that there are in fact such a thing in America as “Israel-firsters”, American citizens who put the supposed needs of a foreign country ahead of those of their own.

“However, Adler did prove a point, albeit not one he intended: He showed us that there are, in fact, American Jews who are “Israel-firsters”, that is, people who put the interests of Israel ahead of their own country. In Adler’s case, to the point of supporting the assassination of his own duly-elected president – which skirts very closely to treason.” Yossi Gurvitz

There are many Israel-firsters in this country and one doesn’t have to go so far as to suggest the treasonous act of murdering a president to qualify for the title. Just read “The Israel Lobby” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt to start to get an understanding of what I am talking about.

As Greenwald pointed out in his article on the Josh Block “anti-Semitism” smear campaign, one of the most troubling aspects of this new push to silence dissent is just how far removed from reality Block’s criteria seems to be. He’s using the label “anti-Semitism” as a bludgeon to try to keep writers, bloggers, even people simply leaving comments on websites from mentioning well documented facts about Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons programs.

“Yet Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Jr., Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in early 2010 that: “The bottom line assessments of the NIE still hold true. We have not seen indication that the (Iranian) government has made the decision to move ahead with the program.”3 The State Department’s July 2010 Compliance Report stated flatly that: “Iran had a comprehensive nuclear weapons development program that was ordered halted in fall 2003” Arms Control Association

According to Block’s new rules, the entire NIE would have to be labeled as an “anti-Semitic” organization along with the current head of the Pentagon.

Panetta says: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” Global Research

Both Block and Adler are displaying a desperation of sorts. Either they have bought into the “Israel as perpetual victim” dementia or they are well aware that what they are doing is simply trying in their own way to help promote Israeli/neo-con propaganda and stamp out any and all dissenting viewpoints.

Either way their desperation levels have seemingly reached a fevered pitch.

Obama didn’t back off of the oil embargo and the military drill because he wanted to, he did it because Russia stated that any aggression toward Iran would be considered aggression toward Moscow and because so many of the U.S.’s global partners delayed or simply refused to participate in the Iran oil sanctions. He simply got out positioned by Iran’s global network of supporters who couldn’t find any justification for setting WWIII in motion because of an Iranian nuclear program that doesn’t exist.

Israel has been running a high priced PR campaign since they slaughtered 1,400 Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead and since they killed peaceful activists on the Mavi Marmara just over a year or so ago. Now they’ve murdered yet another Iranian nuclear scientist in an obvious effort to either create some Iranian blow-back which could be used to justify a U.S. attack or used as pre-text to finger Iran for another U.S.S. Liberty type false flag event.

Either way, Israel’s reputation is suffering again and their PR megaphonies are busy doing damage control spin at every opportunity they get.

Josh Block’s smear campaign looks like an example of Adler’s preemptive strike suggestion, only this time, rather than being leveled at Hezbollah or Syria, they are taking aim at those who would tell the truth to other Americans about the nature of Israeli foreign policy.

Let’s hope Adler’s other little proposal (Mossad assassinations) isn’t suggested next by Mr. Block as a way of dealing with those pesky little “anti-Semite” truth tellers out here in internet land. Be extra careful driving and look out for two guys on a motorcycle carrying a little metal box with an antenna sticking out of the top.

I mean, to put it in Adler’s own words: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike? You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table“

UPDATE: Questions that this brings to mind:

Why hadn’t the Secret Service already arrested this guy for proposing the Mossad kill the president? It had been sitting there since the 13th of January.

After the attack on the Iranian nuclear scientist and teacher, is anyone at all alarmed about the fact that this writer says that Mossad agents are already active in the U.S.?