Trillions Taxpayer Money Sitting in Unpublicized Government Investment Funds

Okay, this sounds a little too good to be true, but, Foster Gamble, heir to the Procter and Gamble conglomerate, who hosts the documentary, Thrive created by Clear Compass Media LLC (making every attempt to censor Thrive Exposed), brings to light the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), that Walter Burien and Clint Richardson are working so hard to expose. I guess time will tell if Mr. Gamble's efforts are genuine, or, more than likely, another attempt to hijack the truth by our corporate rulers by spreading disinformation.

As cities and states struggle to balance their budgets, folks everywhere are losing their jobs, parks are closing and people most in need are getting left in the dust... Trillions of dollars of taxpayer money is currently sitting in unpublicized government investment funds and people are organizing to get it back.

This much is true, but, never underestimate the cunning and ingenious Machiavellian methods of the ruling class.

Read more...

Is the Mainstream Media Fabricating Events in Syria?

Well, someone is censoring Syrian websites trying to get the truth out. That's for sure.

The Syrian Youth states "Our country has been targeted by the media. Our views have been distorted and manipulated to fit "what sells best". We are the Syrian youth. This is our country. This is our story."  There is only one problem.  The links that take you to the information are censored.

Lizzie Phelan deconstructs the fabrications put forth by the global media about Syria.



Related Links:


Iran, Iraq, Syria will sign the largest gas pipeline project in Middle East

The Israel Lobby’s Role in Pushing for Regime Change in Syria

An Offer You Can’t Refuse—Israel’s Latest Veiled Thermo-nuclear Threat against a War-Weary West

Read more...

The Truth Does Not Fear Investigation

Question the authorities today, and you are labeled a conspiracy theorist...too mentally ill to function, as is stated in the CBC's documentary, Conspiracy Rising (it appears Stephen Harper has made great inroads in co-opting the Canadian mainstream media).

Here's the thing. There is no need to theorize about conspiracy. Given the available data - even from the mainstream news media - it's very simple to formulate very reasonable opinions by asking a few simple questions. For instance, President Obama's Cabinet appointments.  He plucked them from straight from the crew who caused the economic crash! Hello? Is the fox guarding the hen house, or what?

Here's another one. As economic circumstances progressively worsen for the masses,economic circumstances progressively improve for the elite - the perpetrators. Hello? Happy coincidence? I think not. Not to mention, the convergence of an unprecedented era of legal immunity for the elite, during the four decades that the incarceration rate for ordinary Americans - especially, the underclass - increased five-fold, from 93 per 100,000 in 1972 to 491 per 100,000 in 2007. Basically, the destruction of the rule of law, according to Glenn Greenwald, in his new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

“Not all ‘conspiracies’ are created equal. The government did kill JFK, and they lied about it. That does not mean there was never a Holocaust, or that the world is run by the Illuminati.” - John Judge

The lawful definition of conspiracy is the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. How can anyone make the claim, in this era of rampant corruption, that this never happens?

So, let's forget about the word, conspiracy, as we've been programmed to associate lunacy with that term. Let's talk about deep politics, the political practices, habits, customs, undertakings, in which every effort is made to prevent publication.

Read more...

9/11: Indifference to What's Real and the Murder of Reality.

I distinctly remember the weather on Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001: beautiful crystal clear skies as far as the eye could see. No one could've predicted what was to come...well, none of us regular people, anyway. However, things aren't always as they appear. In the background, on that beautiful morning, a category three Hurricane -Hurricane Erin- was headed toward New York City! At a whopping 500 miles in diameter, with more cyclonic energy than Hurricane Katrina! One would think the "hype every storm to the empth degree" mainstream media would've, at the very least, mentioned it. But, not a peep.

Now, as it happened, this huge hurricane spared Manhattan, by making a sharp right hand turn out toward sea. But did the national weather service know this would occur? No, not really. According to Dr. Judy Wood, author of "Where did the Towers Go", Erin was a high pressure system moving from the west, so, yes, it was predicted that it would turn; however, considering the system had already carved its path for four days without reversing position, it was clear that meteorologists didn't know when this would occur. And if the system did not turn exactly when it did, it would've "caused all sorts of storm surges" that would've undoubtedly caused flooding, as Manhattan is at sea level. Dr. Wood also said, "there were air craft carriers and other ships that were docked around Newark, and they took those out to sea because you don't want those docked when horrendous storms are hitting land."  

Here's the thing: the conditions inside the hurricane held constant for 24 hours. The air pressure, wind speed, and distance remained the same. This is an anomaly.  There are no hurricanes in recorded history that have held constant air conditions for 24 hours.

The disconnect between what really happened that day and what people believe to be true, is astonishing. In June, I blogged about the 1975 World Trade Center Fire that Burned for 3 Hours. One would think that the television talking heads who droned on and on, day after day about 9/11 would've mentioned this fire. Asked the question, why didn't the towers fall back then? After all, they are the very first skyscrapers that have disintegrated collapsed due to fire.

Questions:

Why were all the recordings of the building's demise so quiet?

It should've sounded like, as Dr. Wood said, "like it was raining dump trucks".

Where was the what should've been 210 stories of rubble?

Why did the Earth’s magnetic field dip at 8:46 a.m.?

From a set of magnetometers monitored by the University of Alaska, several instruments showed significant deviations from normal readings as the events of 9/11 were unfolding.
Where's the flood? Both towers are built into a "bathtub" on bedrock that plunges 70 feet below the water table.
Where was the seismic signal that would've reflected two 500,000 ton buildings crashing to the ground? The seismic signal was equivalent to the bottom 20 stories of Tower 1 and the bottom 16 stories of Tower 2.

Why did the ground shake for only 8 seconds once the north tower "fell", when dropping a bowling bowl from the top of one of the buildings would've shook the ground for 9.5 seconds?

Why were there no traces of toilets, filing cabinets, yet, office paper was flying everywhere? Hello? Uh..doesn't paper burn up before porcelin and steel?

What's with the bizarre toasting (totaled, not necessarily cooked) and flipping (it was the upside down cars that were in good shape, and the cars that were right side up were toasted) of 1,400 vehichles, often times in close proximity to trees, where not one leaf was disturbed? Windshields, engines, and door handles completely disappeared, leaving the shell of the car in tact.

Why do we have falling debris hitting other buildings only up to the eighteenth floor, when there were 110 stories?

Why was there instant rusting of nearby steel? That is evidence of molecular disassociation and transmutation.

Why, when the dust fell, was it coarse, and then, once, it landed, began breaking down further, becoming so fine that it started wafting up?

What caused the presence of uranium, tritium, and the presence of deuterium in the air that Dr. Thomas Cahill found after monitoring the air for 5 months after 911 at the WTC - which began after Oct. 5?
Where was the heat?  From most reports, the dust clouds were cool. No one claimed they were hot or that they were burned. Yes, things glowed, but not everything that glows is hot.
We finally saw the demise of WTC #7, but what happened to WTC buildings #3 and #6? Building #3 nano-particalized, while in WTC #6, half the building nano-particalized from the inside out!

Finally, what can transform two quarter mile tall buildings into nano-particles(invisible and permanently suspended in the atmosphere)?

Former Governor Jesse Ventura used the example of microwaving chicken on a paper plate. The chicken cooks, while the paper plate doesn't. That's the effect seen all around the WTC towers on 9/11.

Thermite?

Thermite is powdered aluminum and powdered iron rust. The buildings were steel (composed of over 98% iron) structures with aluminum cladding. If the buildings were reduced to nano particles (molecular dissociation), obviously, one would find particles of iron rust, and aluminum. Thermite cannot transform buildings into dust. So, where is the proof of thermite?

The so-called "truth" movement does not address any of these issues, yet, Dr. Wood is the only person who has conducted a thorough forensic investigation...the only one!

Mel Fabregas, the host of Veritas, quoted Vicent Bugliosi, regarding the division between what's real and what we perceive:

"We're talking about people who see what they expect to see, what they want to see, what they've been told to see, what conventional wisdom tells them to see, not what is right in front of them in its pristine condition."

This quote sums it up. This disconnect is not a matter of intelligence. Not at all. Some of the most intelligent people in the world disregard the facts in order to maintain the comfortable illusion that substitutes for reality. The vanishing point of reality (horizon) is vanishing altogether, as the silhouettes on the walls of the cave that Plato referred to in his allegory of the cave are increasingly being forced down our throats...24/7. When everything is bestowed upon us to see, what is left to be seen?

Source: Veritas with Mel Fabregas interview with Dr. Judy Wood



Link to everything you want to know about Dr. Judy Wood's Qui Tam cases JUDY WOOD on behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Relator, vs. Defendants.

DC Docket Number: (07-cv-3314)
Docket Number: (08-3799-cv)
Supreme Court Docket Number: (09-548)

APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA),
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP.(SAIC),
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC.,
WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES, INC. (WJE),
ROLF JENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.(RJA),
COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
SIMPSON GUMPERTZ & HEGER, INC. (SGH),
SKIDMORE, OWINGS & MERRILL, LLP (SOM),
GILSANZ MURRAY STEFICEK LLP (GMS),
HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. (HA),
ROSENWASSER/GROSSMAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, P.C.,
S. K. GHOSH ASSOCIATES, INC. (GA),
TENG & ASSOCIATES, INC. (TA),
AJMAL ABBASI,
EDUARDO KAUSEL,
DAVID PARKS,
DAVID SHARP,
JOSEF VAN DYCK,
KASPAR WILLIAM,
DANIELE VENEZANO,
DATASOURCE, INC.,
GEOSTAATS, INC.,
NuSTATS,

Read more...

Watch Out for the "Obama Donates $100 Billion to UN" Rumor.

I know that when I heard it on the radio, and then read the article, my emotional response - considering that an increasing number of Americans are falling into poverty everyday, and the continuous military operations around the world that the US insists are important - blinded me to the date that this article was published.    However, because I never post anything without confirming it from three independent credible sources, I discovered that what's being broadcast on talk radio, and circulating on the Internet as "verifiable truth" is nothing but back-fence talk, more than likely generated by foes of President Obama.

Therefore, if  you come across this "dispatch" that accuses President Obama of donating $100 billion to the United Nations, take note of the date, and the lack of links to any reliable source. In other words, it's not true.

Read more...

2 Days After 9/11 CIA Op Tells Dan Rather Myth of Osama Bin-Laden

Former CIA officer and veteran, Milt Bearden talks to Dan Rather (starts at 32:12), two days after 9/11 occurred, about the "myth of Osama Bin Laden." Bearden, who observed Bin-Laden in action, was not convinced he was capable of masterminding 9/11.

"I know we live in a country where we we're often told the first thing that comes to your mind, put it down...put the little mark in there. I feel slightly uncomfortable bec ause I spent so many years wondering how the myth of Osama Bin Laden got started.  We have the Osama Bin Laden who is the great war hero in Afghanistan; we have the Osama Bin Laden who was trained by the CIA, funded and supported by CIA, during three-years of war. I was there the same time Osama Bin Laden was there. He was not the great war hero that went in and fought the Soviet Union to a stand still. The CIA had nothing to do with him. I think that mythological Osama Bin Laden, never mind that he's an evil man...that there is another man out there.
[...]
This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States...more sophisticated than anything, anyone would ascribe to Osama Bin Laden. I think we need to do a little homework. We need to appoint a 'team b' that looks for somebody else. I'm just not convinced it was Bin-Laden." - Milt Bearden, former CIA officer, speaking to Dan Rather on 9/13/2001. 

Read more...

25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Nothing is more frustrating than discussing an issue with someone who insists upon focusing on the source, rather than whether or not the evidence or facts stand or fall on their own merit. A fact is fact, regardless of the source.

If I'm at the zoo, and someone yells at me to get out of the way of the tiger that's escaped, I'm not going to stand there and let the tiger eat me for lunch because the guy warning me is dressed in prison garb. NFW! His warning is based on verifiable information: the tiger lunging for my jugular. It matters
not that he's a notorious con man.

However, because so many of us are focused on the presenter of information (mainstream media v. alternative media, etc.), we're much more vulnerable to disinformation.

The disinformation artist's overall aim is to avoid discussing solid links in the chain of evidence; therefore he either creates clever deceptions or lies to make the links seem weaker than they are, or distracts any who are considering the chain in a number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter.

25 Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Read more...

Fukushima: What's Really Going On?

If you listen to the mainstream media, regarding anything, really, you will probably hear what you want to hear: everything will be fine as long as you listen to us, but, everything will not be fine, especially if you listen to them. If you don't think so,  research the 9/11 workers who are sick, dying or dead.  Research the  Gulf Coast residents and workers, that nearly a year after the oil disaster began,are sick, and dying from BP’s toxic chemicals.  Where was/is the mainstream media?

Take "safe levels of radiation", or event better, “at levels far below the levels that would pose a risk to humans” that self-interested parties like to claim, exist, without putting it into context.

"We all get between 1 to 10 millisieverts a year - an average 2 to 3 millisieverts - from background radiation," says Burns.

Air travel and CT scans are other common sources.

Official limits for radiation in food and water are set in the context of such exposures.

For example, the limit for nuclear workers is much higher than for the general public.

Ruff says it's important to remember radiation limits like this are not levels below which there is no effect.

"They're just a practical compromise between what's achievable and what's deemed an acceptable risk," he says.

Ruff says it's also important to remember the impact of radiation is greater on the unborn, infants and children, especially girls, compared to adults.

Now, Physicians for Social Responsibility say there are no safe thresholds for radiation.  However, once again, that means little without putting it into some sort of context.  Nevertheless, you can be sure of one thing.  Governments lie cover up. They always have and they always will...especially when profit is at stake. Moreover, every single government that has ever had a radiation problem covered up the extent of the danger.

There are no warning signs anywhere along the coast. People walk on this shoreline with their dogs and children. The dogs take the contaminated mud back home on their hair. The children carry it on their shoes. It then dries and can be breathed in. The deeper you dig down into the mud, the more poisonous the levels become because of the accumulation of waste over the years.

Fortunately, for us, we have the Internet, and the technology available to check them out. Unfortunately, the news is not good.

More signs of serious radiation contamination in and near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were detected Thursday, with the latest data finding groundwater containing radioactive iodine 10,000 times the legal threshold and the concentration of radioactive iodine-131 in nearby seawater rising to the highest level yet.

It appears that the core of No. 2 reactor - the one that Dr. Chris Busby said has a 5% of creating a nuclear explosion - "has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel and at least some of it is down on the concrete floor beneath".

One nuclear expert warned that it might be another 100 years before melting fuel rods can be safely removed.

Anaheim California registered highest radiation in US

Drifting radiation:



The following video took place in Stockholm, April 22, 2009. The recently resigned Scientific Secretary of the ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin (icrp.org), concedes to Pr. Chris Busby, ECRR (euradcom.org) , that the ICRP model cannot be used to predict the health effects of exposures and that for certain internal exposures it is insecure by up to two orders of magnitude. He also said that as he was no longer employed by ICRP he could agree that the ICRP and the United Nations committee on radiation protection (UNSCEAR) had been wrong in not examining the evidence from the Chernobyl accident, and other evidence outlined below, which shows large errors in the ICRP risk model.



Pr. Chris Busby, ECRR, versus Dr. Jack Valentin , ICRP, 1(2) from Radio Active on Vimeo.

Links:

The Low Level Radiation Campaign

European on Radiation Risk

Fallujah study finds epidemiological consequences worse than Hiroshima

Read more...

The Real Rosa Parks, A Radical Activist and Top NAACP Investigator.

1964-Black children integrate pool of
Monson Motel. To force them out, owner
pours acid into the water.

It's hard to imagine that the true story behind the American Civil Rights Movement could possibly be any darker and more sinister than what we've been told, but it is. It's hard to imagine that the bus boycott was anything more than the right to choose where to sit on a bus, but it is. It's hard to imagine that Rosa Parks was anyone other than the tired, dignified seamstress who “refused to give up her seat” on a Montgomery bus, whose random act served to help launch the Civil Rights Movement, but she is.

So, why don't we know this?  Could it be, the powers that be want us to believe the only way change occurs is through magical random acts of courage?  Not through non-violent mass organizing and the the hard work of regular individuals coming together to build the infrastructure necessary for an effective movement?

Well, thank goodness for people like Danielle L. McGuire, author of At the Dark End of the Street: Black Women, Rape, and Resistance--A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power, who, after researching the Recy Taylor case, discovered documentation that proved Rosa Parks was a top investigator into the routine and ritual rape of black women by white men in the mid-1940s. She worked on behalf of brutalized black women, helping to catalyze one of the more important, but wholly overlooked, building blocks for the American Civil Rights movement, for well over ten years before she “refused to give up her seat” on that  Montgomery bus on December 1,1955.

Integrating St. Augustine's "white only" beaches.

The bus boycott was so much more than what we've been led to believe. It was actually a well-thought out, well planned "woman's movement for dignity, respect and bodily integrity".  Prior to the bus boycott, there were more than a decade of cases shedding light on how black women were humiliated, assaulted, harassed and mistreated on the buses, as well as in the community at large.  As Ms. McGuire pointed out, it would take more than choice of seat to make so many walk to and from work, church, school, the store, etc., in all types of weather for 381 days .

The brutal sexual violence of black women by white men, occurring at the same time that black men risked lynching, if they even glanced at a white woman, demonstrates the role that weaponized sexuality played in maintaining white supremacy. This, of course, dates back to the end of the Civil War, where interlocking race and sex was used in an effort to undermine the postwar politics of non-racial citizenship.

It's no wonder we're so thoroughly conditioned to fear sexuality. What good is a weapon if it doesn't make the people tremble in fear?

Martin Luther King's Last Testimony

"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

— The final words from Martin Luther King's last speech, given in Memphis Tennessee the night before he was assasinated on April 4, 1968

Links:

Civil Rights Movement Veterans

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

Read more...

News Inc

Today, American journalism is replete with incestuous relationships between government, industry, and academia, thanks to a few of the largest Fortune 500 corporations that own and operate news organizations. What we call mainstream "news" is now a bottom-line serving propaganda machine, riddled with conflicts of interest. Moreover, mainstream "journalists" have morphed into strategic communication professionals.And authentic investigative journalism does not exist, if it ever really existed in the mainstream media when you take into account all that the Internet has unearthed from as far back as the 1930s. However, it seems, whatever the situation was, it may be far worse now.

Because of the incestuous "working relationship" government and corporate media enjoy, average Americans receive not only a censored version of reality, but also many times, a fabricated version of reality. The fourth estate, the press, rather than acting as watchdog of American democracy, is now an instrument of the growing corpocracy that is in the process of transforming America from a Constitutional Republic to an oligarchy.

Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional law and civil rights litigator and author of two New York Times Bestselling books: "How Would a Patriot Act?", "A Tragic Legacy" and most recently, "Great American Hypocrites", eloquently depicts the corporatized mainstream media as he analyzes and describes his own experience in his recent article: The merger of journalists and government officials

"...Over the last month, I've done many television and radio segments about WikiLeaks and what always strikes me is how indistinguishable -- identical -- are the political figures and the journalists. There's just no difference in how they think, what their values and priorities are, how completely they've ingested and how eagerly they recite the same anti-WikiLeaks, "Assange = Saddam" script. So absolute is the WikiLeaks-is-Evil bipartisan orthodoxy among the Beltway political and media class (forever cemented by the joint Biden/McConnell decree that Assange is a "high-tech Terrorist,") that you're viewed as being from another planet if you don't spout it. It's the equivalent of questioning Saddam's WMD stockpile in early 2003.

It's not news that establishment journalists identify with, are merged into, serve as spokespeople for, the political class: that's what makes them establishment journalists. But even knowing that, it's just amazing, to me at least, how so many of these "debates" I've done involving one anti-WikiLeaks political figure and one ostensibly "neutral" journalist -- on MSNBC with The Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart and former GOP Congresswoman Susan Molinari, on NPR with The New York Times' John Burns and former Clinton State Department official James Rubin, and last night on CNN with Yellin and Townsend -- entail no daylight at all between the "journalists" and the political figures. They don't even bother any longer with the pretense that they're distinct or play different assigned roles. I'm not complaining here -- Yellin was perfectly fair and gave me ample time -- but merely observing how inseparable are most American journalists from the political officials they "cover."

(2) From the start of the WikiLeaks controversy, the most striking aspect for me has been that the ones who are leading the crusade against the transparency brought about by WikiLeaks -- the ones most enraged about the leaks and the subversion of government secrecy -- have been . . . America's intrepid Watchdog journalists. What illustrates how warped our political and media culture is as potently as that? It just never seems to dawn on them -- even when you explain it -- that the transparency and undermining of the secrecy regime against which they are angrily railing is supposed to be . . . what they do.

What an astounding feat to train a nation's journalist class to despise above all else those who shine a light on what the most powerful factions do in the dark and who expose their corruption and deceit, and to have journalists -- of all people -- lead the way in calling for the head of anyone who exposes the secrets of the powerful. Most ruling classes -- from all eras and all cultures -- could only fantasize about having a journalist class that thinks that way, but most political leaders would have to dismiss that fantasy as too extreme, too implausible, to pursue. After all, how could you ever get journalists -- of all people -- to loathe those who bring about transparency and disclosure of secrets? But, with a few noble exceptions, that's exactly the journalist class we have.

There will always be a soft spot in my heart for Jessica Yellin because of that time when she unwittingly (though still bravely) admitted on air that -- when she worked at MSNBC -- NBC's corporate executives constantly pressured the network's journalists to make their reporting favorable to George Bush and the Iraq War (I say "unwittingly" because she quickly walked back that confession after I and others wrote about it and a controversy ensued). But, as Yellin herself revealed in that moment of rare TV self-exposure, that's the government-subservient corporate culture in which these journalists are trained and molded...."

Read more...

It's the American Dream, Stupid. Wake Up!

Fetch the smelling salts! It's time to revive the comatose. It's time to give President Obama a choice: We, the People? Or "Them" the Elitists?



From my understanding, our government is for the people, therefore, it is supposed to serve our interests, not the interests of Goldman Sachs or any other elitist entity.  So, President Obama, like it or not, is our servant, and he can't serve two masters ("no servant can be in bondage to two masters. For either he will hate one and love the other, or else he will cling fast to one and scorn the other. You cannot be bondservants both of God and of gold.") 

Smelling Salts:

Seven of the nation's 10 richest counties are in the D.C. area. 

The survey was based on 2009 data from the U.S. Census Bureau.  It names Virginia's Loudoun County as the top spot, with its median household income exceeding $114,000 per year. 17% of Loudoun households make more than $200,000, while only 16% earn less than the national average household income of $50,000.  Fairfax County takes the #2 spot in the country. It was the first county to  hit six figures with its median household income, and more than half its homes make more than that number now.

DOD Directive NUMBER 1404.10 -  What exactly is DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce?

(2) DoD civilian employees in E-E or NCE positions may be directed to accept deployment requirements of the position. However, whenever possible,DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce will be asked to serve expeditionary requirements voluntarily. Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

The United States is more Banana Republic than Banana Republics.

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana. C.E.O.'s of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent."

USA Today editorial staff breakdown: 27 reporters dedicated to entertainment

USA Today has only five reporters covering Congress, but 27 covering entertainment news, the Gannett Blog reported, after its editor Jim Hopkins obtained copies of newsroom flow charts dated October 21-22. Hopkins, a former USA Today reporter, believes that "this is the first time USAT's editorial staffing breakdown has been made public."

It's Official: The Economy Is Set To Starve

Read more...

9/11: Fact-Based Skepticism or Out of Control Conspiracy Theorism?

“There is a chance for the president of the United States to use this disaster to carry out a phrase his father used…and that is a New World Order.” -- Gary Hart, September 14, 2001

According to a 2007 Zogby poll, nearly one-third of Americans surveyed believed that the U.S. government either allowed the attacks to happen or actively participated in them. It's easy to lump the one-third who believe our government played a part in what occurred on 9/11 as delusional conspiracy theorists, however, more than likely, many of those people are pushing for verifiable, transparent, fact-based truth because of very convincing information they've seen and heard.

I'm very skeptical of murky sinister conspiracy theories that purport things such as: the offspring of ancient interbreeding bloodlines structure themselves into some kind of DNA hierarchy so that they can conspire to control world events.

Rather, I believe in a network of countless conspiracies, all with the same fortuitous ultimate goal -- acquisition of power, control, and wealth -- that, like individual threads, permanently weave themselves into the political/economic fabric of our society. Each thread consists of a group of powerful, moneyed people, who engage in behind-the-scenes networking that result in surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish various ends...various ends, without deliberate calculation, that will serve the same overriding agenda.

Our top-down society creates fertile ground for conspiracy theories to flourish.  The pyramid model is structured so that only the few at the very top of the organization, (government, banking, business, military, education, religious, etc.) are privy to the driving force of the institution, and the further down the pyramid, the greater the number of people, and the less they know about the game plan, blueprint, scheme...

This is not only true of individuals but individual organizations as well, who are also incorporated into bigger and bigger pyramids that  appear disconnected, maybe even conflicting, however culminate in one colossal pyramid comprised of very few individuals at the very top: the power elite.

Quotes relating to conspiracy or an elitist agenda:

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -US President James Madison

“The American people don’t read.” --CIA director Allen Dulles, when asked how the American people would respond to the inconsistencies of the JFK assassination/ Warren Commission report

“The past record of man is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots and betrayals in war. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have begun to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea merely as a Conspiratorial View.” -Political Commentator G. Edward Griffin

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” -FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

"Fifty men have run America and that's a high figure." - US Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy

“There is, it must be confessed, a psychological difficulty about a single world government. The chief source of social cohesion in the past, I repeat, has been war: the passions that inspire a feeling of unity are hate and fear. These depend upon the existence of an enemy, actual or potential. It seems to that a world government could only be kept in being by force, not by the spontaneous loyalty that now inspires a nation at war.” -Bertrand Russell

“It is possible nowadays for a government to be very much more oppressive than any government could be before there was scientific technique. Propaganda makes persuasion easier for the government; public ownership of halls and paper makes counter-propaganda more difficult; and the effectiveness of modern armaments makes popular risings impossible. No revolution can succeed in a modern country unless it has the support of at least a considerable section of the armed forces. But the armed forces can be kept loyal by being given a higher standard of life than that of the average worker, and this is made easier by every step in the degradation of ordinary labour. Thus the very evils of the system help to give it stability. Apart from external pressure, there is no reason why such a regime should not last for a very long time." -Bertrand Russell

“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorships without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel – by propaganda, brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods; and this seems to be the final revolution.” - Aldous Huxley

“The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work…most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” -Aldous Huxley

Batshit quote of the day:

“Today, the New World Order has brought in hundreds of thousands of foreign troops into the United States, they have brought in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of guillotines for executions, they have built a network of unused concentration camps across the U.S., they have built crematoriums next to these concentration camps, and yet most Americans appear to believe the lies of President Clinton and others.” --  Fritz Springmeier

Read more...

Was 9/11 a False Flag "Black" Operation?

I dismissed the 9/11 truther's contention that a lack of plane parts and a lack of damage to the Pentagon building and surrounding area proved that a 757 never struck the Pentagon.

However, after watching National Security Alert (video above), which incorporates evidence that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis -  part of the 2006 Citizen Investigation Team - gathered together that clearly establishes that the plane that was seen flying low over Arlington on 9/11 did not hit the Pentagon and discredits the directional approach and path of the aircraft claimed by the official report, along with lots of other evidence, I've reconsidered.

The physics of flight mathematically prove the official story impossible as most of the damage was at ground level indicating the massive 757 slid into the bottom floor on its belly  with its RB211 engines (see left for scale) digging into the concrete and yet there is no damage/charring to the foundation in all of the aftermath photos taken 9/21/2001 by FEMA.

Using the reported speed and other values from the released 2006 NTSB alleged black box data,  Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated the g-force required for the pilot to descend to the levels of the light poles and then pull up instantaneously to enter the building low and level enough as required by the physical damage would indicate. They found it aeronautically impossible for this aircraft to have pulled out of that dive instantaneously and be level with the lawn. It gets even worse when factoring in the NTSB reported altitude of 699 feet above sea level.

In addition, 13 eye-witnesses, many of whom were aviation professionals and police officers, independently and unanimously confirmed a north-side approach of the plane, when all official documents reported a south-side approach. And even though a few of these witnesses saw the plane start to pull up, none of these witnesses actually saw the plane fly away.  Why?  Aside from the fact that they were running, diving or ducking for cover, the explosion was timed exactly at the moment the plane started to pull up totally obscuring their view of the plane flying away.

Nevertheless, a few people saw the plane fly away who did not see it approach. One man ran out as soon as he heard the explosion and that's when he saw the plane fly away. Other witnesses were recorded by the Center for Military History soon after 9/11/2001 as saying that a bomb went off and that a jet kept on going.  And then there is Lloyde (above) the taxi -driver...well, you just have to watch.

Links:
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. We are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts -- since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today -- and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

Witness list broken down

The Pentagon Building Performance Report

Supplemental Presentations

Read more...

This is What is Real

Read more...

Who is the Hero to the Moral Relativist?.

I know I rant and rave about the lack of critical thinking skills and the over abundance of moral judgment in our culture, thus, it may seem
my condemnation of moral relativism might seem contradictory. However, it's equally destructive to assume there are no absolutes, because the act of critical thinking requires the existence of an objective reality, otherwise there isn't any foundation to base our thinking, and without the existence of universal moral truth, there is no foundation to base the value of our life.

Assuming you believe we are here, that life is... some type of objective reality must exist, right? Taking that one-step further, assuming life has inherent value, some type of object morality must also exist, right?

Well, ask people the first question and most will agree, that based on observable phenomena, an objective reality does indeed exist. Ask people the second question, and a good percentage of those who admit to an objective reality, will deny the existence of an objective morality. Why is that?

It could be because we can't see morality as clearly. We walk out our front door and we can see trees, grass, sky, animals, other human beings, etc., so, unless we're waxing philosophical, we don't question objective reality and in order to survive we must establish certain absolutes. For example, from an early age, we learn that fire is hot, that certain animals will devour us if given the chance, that ocean water will not quench our thirst, etc.

What happens if we don't believe that those truths exist? What happens if we decide fire is not hot and walk into a burning building? If we decide all animals are friendly and jump in the lion cage? If we insist on drinking only ocean water? The answers are obvious, however, truth does not always present itself so clearly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, in the absence of concrete observable phenomenon, many presume there is no moral reality.

Let's take a look at what we can observe about developing a system of right and wrong independent of relativity. One of the things we can observe is the function of law in society and what is law based on? Morality.

Some people say you can’t legislate morality, however if we're not legislating morality, what are we legislating? Law must be based on some concept of the common good or else it is based on an individual's personal preference, and exists only to enforce the will and desire of that person, in other words despotism. In a free society, morality is the only thing we can legislate.

"Law stands upon the necessary foundation of morality" – Aristotle

What about if the law is based on morality but that morality turns out to be tolerance of everything? Eventually, chaos will ensue and it's almost certain that those whose "morality" is limited to survival of the fittest, will grab the power and enforce the law based on what's good for them only thus morality becomes irrelevant and power, the only thing that matters.

Heroes of moral realism can function as another way to observe moral principles in action. Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc., are all perfect examples of people who came the closest to living out their lives adhering to moral truth. Just as most of us will fail to consistently meet the requirements necessary (nutrients, exercise etc) to get the most we can from physical reality, even more of us will fail to meet the requirements necessary to get the most from moral reality. Nevertheless, just because we don't live up to those standards, doesn't mean those truths do not exist. Just as we know we must eat, drink and move our bodies even though we may not come close to getting it exactly right, we do it anyway or die. In the same way, just because we understand there is a moral reality does not mean we all will have the integrity or the intelligence to interpret that reality, but we try anyway or face the consequences.

We define a moral relativist as one who claims there are no absolute truths regarding morality, and that a system of right and wrong can only be based on individual preference, and the tolerance of those preferences and most importantly that everyone’s moral beliefs are equally legitimate. "Morality should never be imposed" is their sacred utterance. However, unless they state their belief by prefacing it with "my personal preference is not to impose...", they clearly believe in an objective morality. Tolerance is a form of morality, not imposing your own morality on others is a form of reality, in the same way a tree is a form of life. Declaring the absence of absolute truths, is an absolute truth in itself.

Most moral relativists defend moral relativism with the same intensity that moral realists defend their belief in an objective morality. The very act of defending your belief system implies moral truth, otherwise you would only state your preference, right?

Well, I didn't like what Hitler did but he had every right to do it...I would never participate or look at child pornography but who am I to tell others what to do. How many of us can utter those words without wincing?

A moral relativist can't say murder is wrong because the word wrong is a moral term. They can declare their dislike of murder or that they themselves would not murder anyone, but they cannot impose that preference on others, otherwise they are admitting to an absolute moral truth, that murder for the sake of murder is wrong. While it's true, not all moral truths are so transparent, it shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend, that whatever it takes to keep you alive, it takes to keep others alive as well. Just as easily as we learn fire is hot, most of us seem to learn killing for the sake of killing is wrong.

So, what can we observe about moral relativism? Who is the hero to the moral relativist? The lack of outward directives and guidelines and the fact that it is based only on the "truth" of the individual makes it very hard to observe much of anything. Moral relativity by its definition is immoral as it rejects morality. Morality is not doing what's right for the individual, it's taking the time to figure out what's right, whether it's best for you, or not, and you cannot do that without some type of moral truth to base your decision. A good night's sleep might be what's best for mother, but when her newborn is starving or crying out for help, the moral decision for mother is to get up and help her child.

Oddly enough, many of those who claim to reject moral relativism are in truth, moral relativists since moral relativism distinguishes between what's right and wrong based on personal preference, instead of let's say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The only true moral relativist or hero of the moral relativist is the sociopath. A sociopath has no concern for another's idea of right and wrong, only follows his own view of right and wrong and consistently lives his life according to his own desires. Pretty simple if you ask me. Jesus Christ or Ted Bundy? Oxygen or carbon monoxide?

Read more...

Good Lies, Bad Lies and Body Count Lies

I am a liar, no question about it.

If you were to ask me, "Hey, I've got tickets to "Mary Poppins" on Broadway next Friday...you want to go with me?" Not wanting to risk of hurting your feelings, I would more than likely respond with a quick excuse to get me off the hook...I would rather a rock in the process of metamorphosis.

That's really presumptuous of me to assume I'm going to hurt your feelings just because I don't like "Mary Poppins" on Broadway...who cares what I like? However, I know a person or two who would take offense, either because I don't share their love of "Mary Poppins", or he or she will assume I'm trying to avoid spending time with them.

So, what's the harm? As far as I'm concerned, none, that is, unless my friend catches me hanging out at the Broadway Lounge (yes, I would be that stupid) instead of helping Great-Great-Great Uncle George schlack his wooden teeth, two states away, the first thing that popped into my mind in order to avoid watching Mary Poppins administer a spoonful of sugar.

I call the aforementioned scenario "compassionate" lying...lies that spare the feelings of others. Actually the example I just gave is more an example of "spare-me-the-guilt-trip" type of lying. Telling a toothless, wrinkled homeless woman who hasn't showered in a decade how beautiful she is, would be a better example of "compassionate" lying...and to be honest (I love when people say that, like it's the first time), she is beautiful...on the inside, where it counts, right?

Anyway, lying, IMHO, is an essential component of civilized living. The question is where do we draw the line? The first example I gave, many would argue, is not at all a requisite to co-existing benevolently; I'm obviously sparing only myself. The "beautiful" homeless woman illustration is humane; emphasizing humanistic values and concerns, which differentiates the barbaric "community" versus an enlightened one.

A University of Arizona study on lying in children reveals that lying increases as children age, and that the majority of these are "pro-social", or “white lies", intended to benefit or help others. "Pro-social” lying can be an indicator that kids are developing their ability to sympathize or empathize, vital to connecting with others. Professor Talwar's hidden-camera tests with children show that fibbing is part of normal brain development.

So, when does lying turn into a bad thing? What about Ken Starr, Linda Tripp and the Republican Party "catching" Bill Clinton in a lie? Well, considering the elaborate effort Starr, Tripp etc. made to deceive Monica Lewinsky in order to set up the President of the United States for a fall, Bill Clinton's lie pales in comparison with the conspiracy to bring about that little lie.

Oddly enough, lies associated with girls in blue dresses with stains and splashes bring about the wrath of God whereas lies that blow off men's toes and eyelashes, or what I call body-count lies, barely register on the radar.

Read more...

True Faith.

“Where is my faith?” “Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness. … If there be God — please forgive me.” -- Mother Theresa

Faith is not so much about how we feel or what we say as it is about what we do. Mother Theresa's actions and behavior spoke louder than any feelings or words could ever convey. It's easy to act accordingly when your feelings are in sync with what you believe, but almost impossible to do so when feeling the opposite, which is why Mother Theresa's faith is not only strong, but transcends human nature.

How many times do we see people who claim to serve God, cry, shout, and preach about how strong their faith is, only to find out their conduct and lifestyle only serve themselves. Many of these people may even convince themselves the high they feel comes directly from God, when in reality it comes from power, greed, and the perception of their own "superiority".

Read more...