Don’t Forget the real legacy of George Bush
By LAWRENCE BROWN
Cape Cod Times
May 10, 2013

No sooner had the living presidents assembled to open the Bush library in Texas than conservative pundits started getting all mushy about what a good guy George was and how those eight years weren’t really so bad. Republican strategists have realized that even retired from office, Bush is still holding them back.

The opening of the Bush library and the cheerful bantering among chief executives was the perfect moment, since Bush’s name had come up, to sand down his image and repaint him in happier colors, which is precisely what right-wing commentators proceeded to do.
And it worked. Today, ex-President Bush’s popularity hovers at 47 percent. Remember, after signing a $700 billion bank bailout, Bush left office with his popularity under 30 percent.
Ex-President Jimmy Carter has run the legs off his younger staff in humanitarian pursuits; Bill Clinton has been doing the same thing. What has Junior been doing? Making oil paintings of his feet in the tub.

Helium balloons may rise of their own accord. All others must be lifted by hot air and a cynical reliance on our itty-bitty spans of attention. Listen in on tea party activist Judson Phillips, to the Washington Independent: “… For better or worse … America’s got a really short attention span. If you go past a few days, people forget about it.”
What are we forgetting? Did Bush keep us safe from terrorism? There were warnings. Bush even got a briefing while enjoying one of his 1,020 days of vacation. “Bin Laden determined to strike in USA,” with specific warnings about airplanes.

“All right,” said Bush to his CIA briefer, according to The Week magazine. “You’ve covered your ass.”
Within the month, we sustained the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans. In all, there would be 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the eight years of Bush’s presidency.

A comparison between Clinton’s presidency and George W. Bush’s is useful. George led an exemplary personal life during his eight years as president. And the pressures on him were enormous. The same cannot be said of Clinton. I still remember my seventh-graders asking about the cigar and the blue dress, and shamefully having to tell them to ask their parents.

But our peacetime economy boomed under Clinton — and he left office with a modest budget surplus. Then Bush, as Doonesbury put it, “installed a fox in every henhouse” and our economy crashed under his watch. That’s how America judged it — and elected a Democrat in 2008.

In 2004, U.N. inspector Hans Blix checked over 700 sites in Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction. We went in anyway, sure the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, sure that the sale of Iraqi oil would pay for our efforts there. We intended to set up a supply-side economy and a democratic government. “Mission Accomplished” read the aircraft carrier’s banner when Bush flew the 39 miles out from the California coast. Eight years later, hostilities had still not concluded.

The decision to invade Iraq will cost us between $4 trillion and $6 trillion after figuring in the long-term cost of caring for our wounded. The U.S. Army Surgeon General’s Office reports more than 44,000 moderate to severe brain injuries and more than 1,500 amputees. More than 4,000 American soldiers are dead.

And in Iraq, between 400,000 and 655,000 were killed by 2006, a continuing motivation and inspiration for global jihadis.

In retrospect, the invasion of Iraq was even more catastrophic than its critics predicted — and it was unnecessary. Bush and Vice President Cheney would later admit Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks. The al-Qaida connection to Iraq existed only after the fall of Saddam Hussein. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were not greeted as liberators. Iraq proved incapable of paying for our invasion and occupation. The greatest beneficiary of our wasted lives and treasure? Iran.
Let’s not forget that when George W. Bush left office, America was diminished in almost every respect: less solvent, less prosperous, less safe, less free, less respected around the world. If Republican strategists cannot repudiate George Bush, let’s not let them cloud our memories about what a disaster both he and his party visited on our country. The same policies — advanced by new champions — will do it again.

Lawrence Brown of Hyannis teaches humanities at Cape Cod Academy in Osterville.

DVD-R
Price: $17.95

Have you ever wondered how the professional news anchors can keep a straight face while presenting government and corporate spin and propaganda? It’s all pretty simple as explained in this article by Jon Rappoport, a veteran journalist and author. Read it and weep, for in my near 50-years of experience in the news media, this is closer to the truth than what you see on TV any day.

Jim

Boston bombing: citizen video-analysts create major problems for controlled media

By Jon Rappoport
Before It’s News
April 23, 2013

You’re a reporter for a TV news outlet.

You’ve become aware of a disturbing trend. Thousands of private citizens are now analyzing video and photographs of crime scenes and posting their findings.

They’re hounds, and they can’t be stopped. They’re looking at news footage, casual video, photos, and what they’re coming up with challenges the official story lines your network pushes.

Some of the their analysis is ridiculous, but some of it isn’t.

For example, video footage of the first bomb in Boston doesn’t appear to show any shrapnel damage to the fencing near the explosion, or to the blue canopy just above the street. You, the reporter, wonder about that.

The now-famous 78-year-old runner who fell down in the street, just after the first explosion? Security personnel wearing yellow jackets were standing closer to the bomb, but they didn’t wobble or duck or waver. You, the reporter, wonder about that, too.

You, the reporter, see a photo of a storefront which was presumably right next to the first bomb. The windows are blown out. But all the glass is lying in the street, which would indicate the force of the explosion was coming from inside the store. How is that possible, you ask yourself.

Then there are the quickly circulating photos of the man in the wheelchair. He’s missing large parts of both legs. People are pushing the chair. His legs are bleeding. But other posted photos? Do they show he already was wearing prosthetics? Is it true he should already be dead from the massive blood loss? You, the reporter, are disturbed by this.

You also look at several photos of the pressure-cooker bomb. In the twisted metal remains, you see discoloration, but no signs the nails or ball bearings in the bomb penetrated the pressure cooker or pitted it or ended up embedded in it.

You look at photos of men standing near the Marathon finish line, the men in identical uniforms, who have variously been described as Navy Seals, Coast Guard, and Craft International security personnel.

What were they doing there? Running a drill? Watching suspects or patsies or bomb-planters? What was going on?

You look at a photo of the younger Tsarnaev brother leaving the scene after the bombs went off. He’s still…wearing his backpack? And another photo, the one of the ripped-apart backpack on the ground. Is that a white square on it? Because one of the Seal-Craft-Coast Guard guys had a white square on his intact backpack…and is that him, leaving the scene of the bombing without that backpack? Hmmm…

You, the reporter, now face several quandaries.

First, if you decide to look into all this, you’ll have to do actual work. Investigation. That isn’t part of your job description. You basically talk to official sources, obtain their statements, repeat them, and sound like you know what you’re talking about. Investigation? What’s that?

Second, if you undertake a serious inquiry, you’re going to have to verify that all these photos and all this video footage are pristine and haven’t been altered or cropped in order to mislead.

You’ll have to find experts to help you. More work. You’re already feeling exhausted, just thinking about it.

On the other hand, your network has shown faked and cropped photos and edited footage in the past, to slant stories. So maybe you can get by with less work.

However, there is a rule in your business. Reporters aren’t allowed to follow their noses. They aren’t allowed to do investigations on their own. They most definitely aren’t permitted to do technical analysis of evidence, like crime-scene photos or video. No, all technical interpretation has to come from government agencies.

If you go off the reservation, you’ll take heavy hits from your bosses.

But all this is meaningless. It’s just mental masturbation, because, finally, you know there is no possible way your producer will allow you to present evidence that the official Boston scenario has gaping holes in it.

Your own network has the explicit job of promoting that scenario.

You’d be torpedoing your own people. Professional suicide. Just walking into your producer’s office and pointing to issues raised by private-citizen analysis of video? It would put you on a watch list.

Your producer would think, “This guy’s gone soft in the head. He wants to pursue a story on his own. He must be some kind of grandstanding goof. He doesn’t have a firm grip on things. He doesn’t know what his job really is. And he wants to raise doubts about the Boston bombing? Wow…”

To the degree that you have any shred of conscience left, you’re in a bind. Maybe it’s the moment to offload that last bit of idealism and go completely corporate. It’s not as if you’ve been challenging your bosses; you’ve just been asking yourself questions privately. So what’s the problem? Just stop asking the questions.

Maybe you’re depressed. Maybe you should go in and see a shrink and get a script for Zoloft. Something to take the edge off. Of course, then you’d have to cut back on your drinking. Screw that. Just up the booze. Have a few more every night after work. Make the coffee stronger in the morning.

Wait. An idea is forming.

It’s coming.

Sit there. Let it formulate.

Mmmm….

Yes. Yes! Here it is. Some of these video hounds are saying no one at all was hurt or killed in Boston; the whole bombing thing was a hoax. Well, tell that to the doctors at the hospitals who were doing amputations.

Okay. Okay. Now you’re on to something. You can feel it. There’s an obvious way to destroy all this wildcat video evidence in one fell swoop and, at the same time, endear yourself to your bosses.

They’ll be grateful. You can rack up some brownie points. They’ll think of you as a company man. A tough defender of the realm, their realm.

Anyway, you’ve got a deadline to meet. You have to put something together. It may as well be this:

Take the most radical opinions these video hounds are promoting, package them all into one article, and imply that every hound is a complete freak. All their video analysis must be wrong, because they’re all crazy. It’s the old rejection by generality. And by ad hominem. By straw man. Didn’t you learn something about those logical fallacies in college? Time to put them to use.

Do the conspiracy-theorist thing. Say these weirdos have far too much time on their hands. And what else? They’re dangerous. Sure. Refer back to that FBI dude who’s in charge of the Boston investigation, DesLauriers, who said people should focus on helping the investigation by looking at certain photos and no others.

How did he put it? He said there were irrelevant photos out there, and if people tipped the FBI to them, they’d overload agents and delay the search for the bombers.

That’s it. These private video hounds are dangerous. They’re giving people too much information.

So they have crazy ideas, one. They’re saying nobody was hurt, there were no bombs, two. They’re claiming all the bleeding people at the Marathon were actors brought in from some outfit in Colorado, three. They’re saying these massacre ops are designed to shut down freedom in America, four. They’re dangerous, five.

Roll all that up into a ball and you’re good to go. Whatever they’ve actually got in terms of troubling and disturbing and truthful video and photo evidence will disappear in a sea of ridicule.

Perfect.

Imply there are two basic classes of people: the normals and the crazies. The crazies are threatening the rest of us. They’re multiplying like fruit flies. They’re swarming the Internet. They’re disrespecting the wounded and dead—don’t forget that one. How dare they come out with all this insanity as the families are grieving and in turmoil.

Yeah. There is only one true stream of information, and the public has to know it. It comes from the major networks. There has to be a central story line, because if there isn’t, the whole country will fall into chaos. Don’t actually say that, but realize you’re on the side of the angels here. You’re standing tall against the barbarians at the gates.

Right. You’re giving the audience a choice. Do they want to be nuts, or do they want to be normal. Normal is the wave of the future. Soon, that’s all there will be. The others will be wiped out. They have no cache. They have no right to challenge the order of things.

Isn’t that what Arthur Jensen said in the movie Network? There is one planetary, galactic order of things, and everybody has live under it.

Expand the piece. Take it all the way back to 9/11, and the loonies who claimed the towers couldn’t have been taken down by the planes. Yeah. They said there were bombs inside the buildings. They said Building 7 didn’t go down from a fire. Idiots.

Why not do history? Makes you sound smarter. JFK. “Oswald didn’t act alone.” That’s where it all started, that’s how the conspiracy germ spread. It was a disease.

That’s a great metaphor. The plague of conspiracy theories. It had a ground zero, in Dallas, on November 22nd, 1963. From there, the virus moved through time. It’s all one epidemic.

Call a few shrinks. Get comments from them. A psychological pandemic. These guys always want face time. Give it to them. Let them speculate on why the plague is accelerating.

Geez. Maybe this could become a three-part series. “We investigate the trend of conspiracy thinking. Why is it happening? Who are these people? Where do they come from? What do they really want?”

Then…oh yeah. We find some guy who was a conspiracy nut but he woke up and realized he was about to go off the cliff, so he stepped back. He was addicted. It was an addiction. He had alienated his whole family and all his friends.

Then he had a revelation. He saw what had happened to him. Get a few juicy quotes. “I needed a way to rebel against society, so I chose this. It was a fad. I joined up. It was a kind of cult. I made new friends. But then I saw that these people weren’t like me. I was ruining my life. I was walking around paranoid all the time…I finally came to my senses…”

Nail down the place and time when he woke up. Maybe take a camera crew there. “This was the spot. I was walking along this stretch of beach one night, all alone, and it hit me. I was isolated. I had no ties left to my community…”

Yeah. Plays very well. Do you want to be in the cold, on the outside, or do you want to be near the hearth, where the tribe is safe?

With a series, a three-part “investigation,” you could establish yourself as the go-to guy whenever a new conspiracy theory pops up. They’d come to you. You, the expert. This could be a very good career move.

And why pretend? That’s what you’re in this for, isn’t it? A career? So stop fooling around with all the freakazoid photo and video evidence. Just go for it.

It’s a war. The independent journalists and bloggers and video loons are trying to steal food out of your kids’ mouths. You can lie down in the road or you can fight back. If you’re going to fight, take off the gloves. Screw that half-way stuff.

Who knows more about conspiracies than anyone else? The CIA, the FBI, the intelligence community. Hell, after a few years of attacking the weirdos and nutballs out there, you might graduate up into a more distinguished and rarefied atmosphere, where real conspiracies are planned and carried out for the sake of national security. The real stuff, the right stuff.

You could become a “our national intelligence correspondent.” Wouldn’t that be something. You’d have access to the big boys and some of their secrets. You’d prove you could be trusted.

You’d never have to look at another foot of video put together by losers who’ll never get within a thousand miles of real news.

You’ll never have to wonder whether you’re doing the right thing. You’ll live in a place that’s far from the madding crowd. You’ll drink single malt instead of rotgut. You’ll sit down with senators and lobbyists and bankers and diplomats.

You’ll turn into a controlled drunk who knows when to start and when to stop. You’ll find inner peace and all that crap, knowing you’re serving the best interests of your country and the people who own it and run it.

You’ll write a movie script about the Agency stopping a terrorist plot in New York. You’ll meet people from Hollywood.

One night, high above the city of angels, a beautiful actress will take you in her arms…

And some day, through your CIA connections, you’ll learn about a brain-bending scandal that’s brewing under the surface of Washington, and they’ll give you the green light to go out there and dig up the information you already have in your back pocket.

You’ll be Bob Woodward and the doors will open for you wherever you go.

You’ll be unstoppable.

You’ll be the man who finds out all the secrets.

Except the real ones.

Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. Sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

A consultant has been described as someone who comes from out of town to tell you what you should already know. Here Mr. Chang reminds us that no matter the PR from the banks and government, your deposits are about as secure as a politician’s pledge not to raise taxes.

Jim

No Bank Deposits Will Be Spared from Confiscation

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that confiscation of bank deposits is legalised daylight robbery

By Matthias Chang
Future Fastforward

April 25, 2013

Bank depositors in the UK and USA may think that their bank deposits would not be confiscated as they are insured and no government would dare embark on such a drastic action to bail out insolvent banks.

Before I explain why confiscation of bank deposits in the UK and US is a 1000% certainty and absolutely legal, I need all readers of this article to do the following:

Ask your local police, sheriffs, lawyers, judges the following questions:

1)    If I place my money with a lawyer as a stake-holder and he uses the money without my consent, has the lawyer committed a crime?

2)    If I store a bushel of wheat or cotton in a warehouse and the owner of the warehouse sold my wheat/cotton without my consent or authority, has the warehouse owner committed a crime?

3)    If I place monies with my broker (stock or commodity) and the broker uses my monies for other purposes and or contrary to my instructions, has the broker committed a crime?

I am confident that the answer to the above questions is a Yes!

However, for the purposes of this article, I would like to first highlight the situation of the deposit/storage of wheat with a warehouse owner in relation to the deposit of money/storage with a banker.

First, you will notice that all wheat is the same i.e. the wheat in one bushel is no different from the wheat in another bushel. Likewise, with cotton, it is indistinguishable. The deposit of a bushel of wheat with the warehouse owner in law constitutes a bailment. Ownership of the bushel of wheat remains with you and there is no transfer of ownership at all to the warehouse owner. And as stated above, if the owner sells the bushel of wheat without your consent or authority, he has committed a crime as well as having committed a civil wrong (a tort) of conversion – converting your property to his own use and he can be sued.

Let me use another analogy. If a cashier in a supermarket removes $100 from the till on Friday to have a frolic on Saturday, he has committed theft, even though he may replace the $100 on Monday without the knowledge of the owner / manager of the supermarket. The $100 the cashier stole on Friday is also indistinguishable from the $100 he put back in the till on Monday.

In both situations – the wheat in the warehouse and the $100 dollar bill in the till, which have been unlawfully misappropriated would constitute a crime.

Keep this principle and issue at the back of your mind.

Now we shall proceed with the money you have deposited with your banker.

I am sure that most of you have little or no knowledge about banking, specifically fractional reserve banking.

Since you were a little kid, your parents have encouraged you to save some money to instil in you the good habit of money management. And when you grew up and got married, you in turn instilled the same discipline in your children. Your faith in the integrity of the bank is almost absolute. Your money in the bank would earn an interest income. And when you want your money back, all you needed to do is to withdraw the money together with the accumulated interest. Never for a moment did you think that you had transferred ownership of your money to the bank. Your belief was grounded in like manner as the owner of the bushel of wheat stored in the warehouse.

However, this belief is and has always been a lie.

You were led to believe this lie because of savvy advertisements by the banks and government assurances that your money is safe and is protected by deposit insurance. But, the insurance does not cover all the monies that you have deposited in the bank, but to a limited amount e.g. $250,000 in the US by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Germany €100,000, UK £85,000 etc.

But, unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat who has deposited the wheat with the warehouse owner, your ownership of the monies that you have deposited with the bank is transferred to the bank [Emphasis in the original] and all you have is the right to demand its repayment. And, if the bank fails to repay your monies (e.g. $100), your only remedy is to sue the bank and if the bank is insolvent you get nothing.

You may recover some of your money if your deposit is covered by an insurance scheme as referred to earlier but in a fixed amount. But, there is a catch here. Most insurance schemes whether backed by the government or not do not have sufficient monies to cover all the deposits in the banking system. So, in the worst case scenario – a systemic collapse, there is no way for you to get your money back.

In fact, and as illustrated in the Cyprus banking fiasco, the authorities went to the extent of confiscating your deposits to pay the banks’ creditors.

When that happened, ordinary citizens and financial analysts cried out that such confiscation was daylight robbery. But, is it?

Surprise, surprise!

It will come as a shock to all of you to know that such daylight robbery is perfectly legal and this has been so for hundreds of years.

Let me explain.

The reason is that unlike the owner of the bushel of wheat whose ownership of the wheat WAS NEVER TRANSFERRED to the warehouse owner when the same was deposited, the moment you deposited your money with the bank, the ownership is transferred to the bank.

Your status is that of A CREDITOR TO THE BANK and the BANK IS IN LAW A DEBTOR to you. You are deemed to have “lent” your money to the bank for the bank to apply to its banking business (even to gamble in the biggest casino in the world – the global derivatives casino).

You have become a creditor, AN UNSECURED CREDITOR.

Therefore, by law, in the insolvency of a bank, you as an unsecured creditor stand last in the queue of creditors to be paid out of any funds and or assets which the bank has to pay its creditors. The secured creditors are always first in line to be paid. It is only after secured creditors have been paid and there are still some funds left (usually, not much, more often zilch!) that unsecured creditors are paid and the sums pro-rated among all the unsecured creditors.

This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The law has been in existence for hundreds of years and was established in England by the House of Lords in the case Foley v Hill in 1848.          

When a customer deposits money with his banker, the relationship that arises is one of creditor and debtor, with the banker liable to repay the money deposited when demanded by the customer. Once money has been paid to the banker, it belongs to the banker and he is free to use the money for his own purpose.

I will now quote the relevant portion of the judgment of the House of Lords handed down by Lord Cottenham, the Lord Chancellor. He stated thus:

“Money when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal… it is then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into the banker’s, is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains himself,… The money placed in the custody of the banker is, to all intent and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable TO THE PRINCIPAL IF HE PUTS IT INTO JEOPARDY, IF HE ENGAGES IN A HAZARDOUS SPECULATION; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of the principal, but he is of course answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.”

Holding that the relationship between a banker and his customer was one of debtor and creditor and not one of trusteeship, Lord Brougham said:

“This trade of a banker is to receive money, and use it as if it were his own, he becoming debtor to the person who has lent or deposited with him the money to use as his own, and for which money he is accountable as a debtor. I cannot at all confound the situation of a banker with that of a trustee, and conclude that the banker is a debtor with a fiduciary character.”

In plain simple English – bankers cannot be prosecuted for breach of trust, because it owes no fiduciary duty to the depositor / customer, as he is deemed to be using his own money to speculate etc. There is absolutely no criminal liability.

The trillion dollar question is, Why has no one in the Justice Department or other government agencies mentioned this legal principle?

The reason why no one dare speak this legal truth is because there would be a run on the banks when all the Joe Six-Packs wise up to the fact that their deposits with the bankers CONSTITUTE IN LAW A LOAN TO THE BANK and the bank can do whatever it likes even to indulge in hazardous speculation such as gambling in the global derivative casino.

The Joe Six-Packs always consider the bank the creditor even when he deposits money in the bank. No depositor ever considers himself as the creditor!

Yes, Eric Hodder, the US Attorney-General is right when he said that bankers cannot be prosecuted for the losses suffered by the bank. This is because a banker cannot be prosecuted for losing his “own money” as stated by the House of Lords. This is because when money is deposited with the bank, that money belongs to the banker.

The reason that if a banker is prosecuted it would collapse the entire banking system is a big lie. The US Attorney-General could not and would not state the legal principle because it would cause a run on the banks when people discover that their monies are not safe with bankers as they can in law use the monies deposited as their own even to speculate.

What is worrisome is that your right to be repaid arises only when you demand payment.

Obviously, when you demand payment, the bank must pay you. But, if you demand payment after the bank has collapsed and is insolvent, it is too late. Your entitlement to be repaid is that of a lonely unsecured creditor and only if there are funds left after liquidation to be paid out to all the unsecured creditors and the remaining funds to be pro-rated. You would be lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.

So, when the Bank of England, the FED and the BIS issued the guidelines which became the template for the Cyprus “bail-in” (which was endorsed by the G-20 Cannes Summit in 2011), it was merely a circuitous way of stating the legal position without arousing the wrath of the people, as they well knew that if the truth was out, there would be a revolution and blood on the streets.

It is therefore not surprising that the global central bankers came out with this crap:

“The objective of an effective resolution regime is to make feasible the resolution of financial institutions without severe systemic disruption and without exposing taxpayers to losses, while protecting vital economic functions through mechanisms which make it possible for shareholders and unsecured and uninsured creditors to absorb losses in a manner that respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation.”

This is the kind of complex technical jargon used by bankers to confuse the people, especially depositors and to cover up what I have stated in plain and simple English in the foregoing paragraphs.

The key words of the BIS guideline are: “without severe systemic disruptions” (i.e. bank runs), “while protecting vital economic functions” (i.e. protecting vested interests – bankers), “unsecured creditors” (i.e. your monies, you are the dummy), “respects the hierarchy of claims in liquidation” (i.e. you are last in the queue to be paid, after all secured creditors have been paid).

This means all depositors are losers!

Attorney Matthias Chang was the political secretary to Malaysian former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. He is a world-known authority on economics.

When you are ready to take a break from the unthinking cheering over the Feds and Boston police in their massive efforts to catch the Boston Marathon bombers, you might take a look at this article. Not only was that city-wide lockdown ineffective – the observant homeowner only noticed the bloody boat in his yard when he broke curfew to step outside for a smoke — but it may have ushered in a whole new era of unconstitutional militarized police activity. Just saying…

Jim

How The Boston Bombing Is Already Being Exploited To Introduce Tyranny

By Brandon Smith
Activist Post
April 24, 2013

I have no personal experience in the business of false flag terrorism, but I imagine that engineering a successfully staged terror attack to be blamed on innocent or semi-innocent parties with the goal of psychologically manipulating a population requires that one also be an accomplished storyteller. It demands an avid imagination and an organized sense of foresight. And, most of all, it requires a consistency of narrative. Without consistency, the audience’s ability to suspend its disbelief is damaged, and they become disconnected from the fantasy being portrayed.

If I were the “writer” behind the “story” of the Boston Marathon Bombing, I would consider my efforts an abject failure.

The narrative of the event has changed multiple times in only a few days, following a hailstorm of conflicting observations from the government and the establishment-run media. The “villain” of the original plotline was clearly meant to be “rightwing extremism” as numerous mainstream talking heads, led by federal agency inferences, began repeating the “homegrown right wing terrorist” meme everywhere. This meme was partly abandoned after the alternative media and the Liberty Movement began its own investigation, revealing a large federal presence on the scene, including military Civil Support Teams often tied to the DHS and NORTHCOM, as well as the witnesses who observed what on-scene officials called “training exercises” during the marathon. I have no doubt that these citizen investigations forced the establishment to change the direction of their crime tale, and use Plan B patsies instead. This, however, complicated the momentum of the fiction, and created even more questions.

The Chechen brothers now implicated in the attack have been revealed as long time FBI contacts. This is a bit awkward for the FBI considering they asked the American public to help them “identify the suspects in on-scene photos” while they failed to mention that they knew EXACTLY who the two young men were already (this is what we might call a contrived story arch). Today, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, is conveniently dead. The younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, had his throat conveniently shot out. The feds are now supplying the media with “written confessions” from Dzhokhar to which there is no proof of legitimacy. For all we know the boy hasn’t written a word.

The new “villains” get no voice in this drama, and thus become two dimensional characters. They exist so that we can hate them. Understanding them, or hearing their side of events from their own lips, is certainly out of the question. Poorly fleshed out antagonists are a sure sign of a poorly constructed story.

Finally, we get to the “heroes”. Though the criminal elements of our federal government and adjoining alphabet agencies did not yet get the right wing patriot patsy they obviously wanted, they have still so far gleaned considerable social capital from the bombings. The point of a false flag is to frighten the population of any given nation into relinquishing freedom in the name of safety, which in the process gives the central government even more control. In the wake of the Boston attack, the establishment is having a field day….

Martial Law Conditioning

For a few days, Boston became an Orwellian nightmare. The city lockdown and subsequent militarization was swift, though any intelligent and guilty suspect could have easily left the area before hand. This kind of response to catch only two supposed perpetrators is outlandish, unless you understand that it was not about catching the bombers. Rather, it was an exercise designed to test the malleability of the American people during a crisis scenario. In Watertown, residents were not only forced into lockdown; they were also subjected to house-to-house searches without warrant, pat downs, and numerous other violations of their 4th Amendment rights. Take note that almost everything you see in the video below is an illegal and unconstitutional action on the part of Boston authorities:

As this was occurring, officials were consistently pushing media cameras away from the area in the name of “safety”, even though media cameramen are sent into domestic shootouts and foreign warzones on a regular basis. The only real purpose that I can see to removing them from the scene was to reduce the amount of video footage depicting these illegal searches and seizures:

For those who can’t grasp what has happened here, let me explain; the dynamics of liberty have just been erased. This kind of behavior on the part of government will not be limited to disasters like Boston, or New Orleans during Katrina; a precedence is being set to use martial law-style tactics anywhere for any reason at anytime. The “national security argument” is being used as a free license to institute any measure regardless of law to achieve a particular combat objective. The environment we saw in the dark days of Boston is an environment we’ll soon see all over the country, and here is why…

Escalation

Boston represents a clear escalation of the use of NDAA and martial law measures in the aftermath of a security event. After the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2012, his Miranda Rights under the Constitution were denied due to “extraneous circumstances of national security”. Numerous lawmakers called for the suspect to be treated as an “enemy combatant” so that he could be interrogated under the laws of war without due process: (Source)

The Obama White House has cleverly called for a civilian trial of Tsarnaev in order to reduce criticisms of its support for numerous unconstitutional measures, including the NDAA and the use of assassination against American citizens. The White House has always claimed that it would not use the combatant provisions against American citizens, but has never denied that those provisions could be applied to us. The idea is that while the president does have these powers at his disposal, we’re supposed to have “faith” that he will not abuse them.

During the debate over the passage of the NDAA, Obama opposed certain language within the legislation that REQUIRED him to treat accused domestic terrorists as enemy combatants, not because he thought it was wrong, or unconstitutional, but because he wanted the OPTION to decide whether he would or would not black bag a citizen and throw him into an unspecified hole. He has simply exercised his “option” for a citizen trial, at least this time around…

In the meantime, a simultaneous and so far poorly verified “train attack” has been averted in Canada, opening the door for more discussion on something the establishment has been trying to squeeze out of the populace for years: consent for the federalized lockdown of travel and public events. Whether through TSA, or the use of state authorities under the watch of the DHS, the government has been desperately clamoring to expand the control grid out of airports and federal buildings into the bus stations, subways, trains, highways and sidewalks of America.

I believe that we will soon see much greater presence of TSA VIPR teams at large public arenas and in transportation venues outside of airports, and that the Boston Bombing will be used as a primer for this expansion. Recent comments by NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg only reinforce my belief. Bloomberg, in reference to the marathon attack, stated that:

…we live in a complex word where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.

Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11…

We have to understand that in the world going forward, we’re going to have more cameras and that kind of stuff. That’s good in some sense, but it’s different from what we are used to…

Ironically, the only enemy out there that appears ready to “take our freedoms away” are men like Bloomberg; snakes in the grass that pay lip service to the Constitution while constantly trying to undermine it.

Free Speech Is Next

The bombings in Boston took place, apparently by coincidence, just before Oath Keepers, a national organization of current serving military, police officers, and veterans promoting adherence to their constitutional oath was to hold a large rally at Lexington Green. The Lexington Green board, one member of which had been openly hostile to Oath Keepers in the past, decided to use the crisis as an excuse to deny the rally permit already attained by the liberty minded group.

The Lexington Selectmen claimed that under the suggestions of “state officials” the rally had to be cancelled due to the “lack of police” available to secure the area and ensure public safety. However, when Oath Keepers held a brief oath ceremony at the Green in protest of the decision, a police force was sent to watch them.

This means that public safety was not the issue. Rather, safety and security were being used yet again to deny a constitutional right, and this time it was the most vital and valuable right of all – free speech.

During the height of the civil rights marches of the ’50s and ’60s, the exact same tactics were used to silence dissent. Black protesters were told that they could not obtain proper permits for peaceful marches because their “own safety” and the safety of the public could not be ensured. This matter of using broad hypothetical dangers as a catalyst for censorship was finally argued before the Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham. The court sided with the protesters  pointing out that the use of undefined safety concerns and “prior restraint” to silence speech was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the decision has not prevented the U.S. government from slowly undermining public protest rights ever since.

The fascinating thing about incremental tyranny is the way in which naïve members of our society try to rationalize it. They debate using logical fallacies like:

How have your rights been violated in particular? If your rights haven’t been violated, what right do you have to complain?

And how about this gem…

Yeah, there are problems in this country, but at least we have some freedom. In many countries, you wouldn’t be allowed to complain the way you are…

This is statist psychology at work. Freedom, in their minds, is a privilege doled out by governments, rather than an inborn attribute outside of the realm of law. They do not understand that the violation of the rights of one American is a violation of the rights of ALL Americans. They do not understand that the destruction of some constitutional protections will one day lead to the destruction of ALL constitutional protections.

The establishment and the useful idiots they manipulate want to make the “threat” the center of attention, but ultimately, the threat is irrelevant. There will always be the danger of terrorism and death. Always! And, if our government is following the Operation Gladio false flag model (look it up, folks, it was openly admitted government funded terrorism), as I believe they are, then we can count on Boston-style bombings all over the U.S. very soon.

True crisis lay in what we refuse to see, and the greatest crisis today is not the bombing of a marathon, but the destruction of our freedoms in the name of “security”. The bottom line? Our civil liberties are not up for compromise. Period. Shootings, bombs, nukes, nothing! There is no rationalization that will ever make tyranny a moral enterprise. I, like many other Americans, do not care what boogeyman fantasy is paraded in front of me. We are not frightened, and we are not ignorant. No attack, no matter how heinous, will ever convince us to hand over our freedom.

You can contact Brandon Smith at: brandon@alt-market.com.    Alt-Market is an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for mutual aid and defense.

Can anyone imagine President Dwight Eisenhower ordering his Marine honor guard to be disarmed? Our current commander-in-chief is a fraud, fearful of the public and his own military. Nothing about him is real, neither his encouraging hope-and-change rhetoric nor his fictitious and hidden background. P.T. Barnum was wrong. You can fool all the people all the time, especially if you control the corporate mass media.

Jim

Obama Disarmed Marines During Inauguration

Before It’s News
February 11, 2013

Barack Obama has clearly shown who he doesn’t trust one bit — the United States Marines. In this report from Infowars, we learn that Obama forced them to disarm during his inauguration ceremony. Is this another sign that this impostor has no sense of American history and the traditions of our vaunted institutions?

Note the missing rifle bolts in the video capture above.

David Codrea reported on February 9 that a United States Marine Corps source forwarded an email to the Gun Examiner stating that soldiers marching up Pennsylvania Avenue in Obama’s inaugural parade had the bolts removed from their rifles.

“The email linked to a YouTube video of the 57th Presidential Inaugural Parade, embedded in this column, featuring Bravo Company Marines from the Marine Barracks Washington,” the USMC page on the Examiner reported. “Sure enough, the observation in the email is confirmed by watching the video, with screen shots provided in the photo and slide show accompanying this article.”

“Apparently Obama’s Secret Service doesn’t trust the USMC. Simply searching each guy to make sure he didn’t have a live round hidden on him wasn’t enough, they had to make sure the guns were inoperable,” the Blur-brain blog wrote on February 8.

At least one person is thinking clearly in the wake of the terrible bombings in Boston. Here Rob Kall questions the right—and the effectiveness – of a city-wide lockdown as occurred there recently. He is not alone in viewing such attempts to sequester whole populations as a slippery slope to a full-blown Police State. Pay attention and act now or be imprisoned within your own home in the future.

Jim

 
I don’t recall in my life or my exposure to US history a previous episode where a whole city was locked down, with a combination people told not to  leave their homes, public transportation shut down and all vehicular traffic stopped.

With the threat of flooding of the subways, the subways were shut down in NYC. But the city was not locked down.

When there is something dangerous going on– a gun-fight, a hostage situation, a gas leak– police have historically cordoned off areas of a few blocks.

Sometimes there are road-blocks that police use to check for people on the run.

But shutting down a metropolitan area– 4.6 million people– that was going too far.

Many people will argue that it worked. The police shut down the city and the on-the-run suspect was captured. That is ridiculous, poor logic. There is no reason to conclude that the lockdown led to the capture. On the contrary, the fugitive, Tsarnaev, was seen AFTER the lockdown was ended, when a man came out of his house.

If the use of a metropolitan area-wide lockdown is accepted by the public, the media and legislators, it can and almost certainly will become a precedent that will be used in the future to lock down other cities, other metro areas and perhaps even whole states or collections of states.

If the powers that be can lock down a city based on the argument that they have to hunt for terrorists and protect citizens, then the government can simply tell us that there is a terrorist threat that is top security. They can create boogeymen who we know nothing about and then use “them” to lock down a city or larger area. They can take away the most basic rights– the rights to walk out of our homes.

If you extrapolate this policy just a little, then any policeman can tell you not to go anywhere, can order you to stay in your house indefinitely. This is a very slippery slope.

Police do currently have the legal power to give some orders to some people at some places. Those powers are limited. Abuse of them can lead to appeals for unreasonable arrests and even lawsuits that result in financial damages paid by the city that employs the police.

When the powers of the police and of government are expanded so greatly there is a great risk that the limitations of police power– important limitations that are essential for preventing abuse of police power– something I have seen many times, particularly during activist protests– there is a huge risk that the restrictions and limitations will be weakened or eliminated entirely.

I realize the position I am taking will yield criticism– that many will say that the police did what they had to do. I disagree. I believe the police did far more than they needed. I believe that what they did was not successful. It failed and perhaps delayed an earlier capture of the fugitive. The all day lock-down “brought the tenth largest metropolitan area in the US to a complete standstill,” as Melissa Harris Perry described.  That’s right. Over 4.6 million people were locked down. Do the math. Eight hours times that population and you have 36.8 million hours of house arrest.

HOUSE ARREST!!   That’s what criminals are given as punishments. This is what happened in Boston. People were under house arrest. You can argue I’m just framing it that way. Hell yes. Why would it not be considered in all the different possible lights?

To summarize, my position is that the lockdown of such a large area was unprecedented, did not work, should not have been done, should have its legality questioned and challenged and there should be legislation that bans  it ever happening again short of invasion– and that contingency for invasion is already on the books.

There are all kinds of conspiracy theories arising. People are asking a lot of questions and sometimes leaping to conclusions. Those are different conversations. This issue I am raising may or not be a part of those theories. But it seems to me that it is one that should get mainstream discussion and assessment.

The US, since 9/11, has been sliding more and more towards becoming a nation where rights are being restricted and taken away, moving more towards becoming a police state.

There are many people who make excuses, who say that if these restrictions of our rights keep us safe, they are okay. They are making a huge mistake. Ben Franklin got it right when he said, ” Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The use of such a massive martial collection of forces is another question that should be challenged, as is the use of private security forces as some have observed were present at the finish line of the Marathon. But those are separate issues I am not addressing here, though they deserve attention and discussion, since it looks like neither of those worked either.

Russ Baker, author of a major book on the Bush clan entitled Family of Secrets hosts a website devoted to real news and information, as opposed to the corporate mass media that routinely act as a gate keeper to sensitive issues and information. In this piece, Mr. Baker takes on the mass media over the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, which alternated between a paucity of factual information and an overabundance of fluff and sentiment. Read and think.

Jim

The Marathon Bombing: What the Media Didn’t Warn You About

By Russ Baker
Who,What,Why
April 19, 2013

During a meeting on Tuesday morning, less than 24 hours after the bombings at the Boston Marathon, a well-meaning person asked me whether I thought we could assume that the usual suspects were behind the mayhem, or whether there was “more to it.” When I explained doubts about the conventional rush to judgment—and where those doubts came from—I was told I was on dangerous ground. This person, it seemed, was quite steadfast that the culprits must have come from certain well-advertised enemies of America, and didn’t want to even consider anything more complex.

We’re the products of our environment, and, in many respects, the media defines that environment.

Monday’s bombing at the Boston Marathon provides a perfect example of the defects of conventional news reportage—and proof that we urgently need something better. We got “scoops”, “experts”, “updates,” and post-tragedy Kumbaya ^[2], but at the end of those days of saturation coverage, we were none the wiser. It’s like what studies find about television news: the more you watch, the worse you perform on knowledge exams.

We ought to care more about the narrative we’re getting, about the texture of what saturates us. The way in which a story is handled shapes our emotions and perceptions, determines priorities, and influences seemingly unrelated outcomes that affect us in profound ways, sometimes transforming our society.

Worry, But Not Too Much

With the bombing story, emotions ran high, of course. The media understand this, and while they talk in reassuring tones and routinely issue sober disclaimers, almost everything they do plays to our irrational sides.

Two elements predominate: danger and reassurance. Some of the talking heads are there to warn about danger, others to reassure us. Some do both. We wouldn’t want just one or the other—it would be too hard to take. But together, they represent, psychologically, an ineluctable offering.

As long as they appear in tandem, we will sit, immobilized, and let the networks’ pronouncements wash over us. We become so anaesthetized to critical thinking that we fail to consider whether we are getting any information of use at all.

Experts

On CBS, a purported expert declared, “It could be Al Qaeda, it could be someone influenced by Al Qaeda, or it could be a domestic lone wolf” –when in fact it could have been anything at all, including a whole bunch of domestic non-Al Qaeda non-lone wolves. This man provided nothing useful in any way beyond conventional stereotypes. What he did do was define the permissible bounds of public conjecture.

Scoops

Speculation and its close cousin, “analysis,” predominate only in the absence of the hottest commodity, “scoops.” News personnel are pressed into service to gather any sort of exclusive tidbits that might put their employer just slightly ahead of the competition. Temporarily, of course, and in the same direction. So, while CBS expert was strongly implying that we might suspect foreigners, CNN went it one better.

Correspondent John King reported ^[3]:

I want to be very careful about this because people get very sensitive when you say these things. I was told by one of these sources, who is a law enforcement official, that this was a dark-skinned male. The official used some other words, I’m not going to repeat them until we get more information because of the sensitivities. There are some people that will take offense even at saying that.

Well, no wonder. That “dark-skinned” detail turned out to be a false report.

Repetition

In the absence of “scoops” or a fresh trove of “experts,” TV news outfits resort to repetition. Thus, after several minutes, you’re on a loop. They don’t tell you that you are, and because we hear a live anchor slightly rewording things, we hang on, in the vain hope we are about to learn something new.

Another thing that keeps us hooked is the promise of being re-traumatized in as many ways as possible. Show us that bomb going off again, please. Let’s see new pictures of the killed and injured in happier times. Let’s see closeups of gnarled detritus, and, on occasion with disclaimers that young children ought not watch, at least a hint of blood and gore. Let us “empathize,” and feel good about ourselves for doing so.

Kumbaya

How many times do we have to hear the same—literally, almost exactly the same—stories about “our hearts go out to the families”, about how “neighbors displayed yellow ribbons, lit candles and displayed American flags.” A liberal news site sent out an email saying “we are all in this together.”

To what end all this empathy? It may reassure us that humanity continues to shine through at tough times, but don’t we already know that?

Some might say that stoking a “show of unity” is a principal responsibility of the American media. But is that really the purpose of journalism?

The definition of journalism I find most useful is, simply stated, the production and dissemination of news. And what, exactly, is “news”? Here’s one definition from the Oxford English Dictionary ^[4]:

Newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events.

Is it new or noteworthy when people act in expected ways and say expected and indeed almost identical things in new situations?

Substitute for Substance

In today’s economic and journalistic climate, resources for newsgathering are extremely limited. It’s not surprising that the bosses go for quantity over quality. Much easier to collect a bunch of sterile or hackneyed “public reactions” than to ask the tough questions or do the hard digging.

When an event like the Boston bombing gives rise to wall-to-wall coverage, it fills our bandwidth. It exhausts us. It blocks out our ability to focus on anything else. At least, if we’re going to give up on everything else, is it too much to ask that the coverage contain some useful information?

What Gets Blocked Out

At the same moment that all eyes were on Boston, in Washington, legislation imposing restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition clips, along with efforts to require the recording of sales of murderous weapons, were under merciless assault by the NRA and its allies. Indeed, the proposed laws subsequently went down to defeat. As horrible as the death and destruction at the Marathon, it pales by comparison to potentially avoidable gun violence, with literally thousands of times as much carnage. Put another way, the toll in Boston was a compressed version of that occurring during a single ordinary week around this country.

Call the Senate vote bad timing. Just like the atypical rampage the week before in which a “nut” used a knife instead of the standard-issue assault rifle. How atypical? Very, says USA Today in an article, “Mass Knife Attacks, Like at Texas College, Are Rare ^[5].” Yet, at the time of the Senate vote, opponents of stronger gun laws were beneficiaries of this statistically anomalous but dominant news story.

Those who still will not do anything after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown ad nauseum had “cover” from the Boston bombing to not make hard choices.

Of course, a real nut, seeing the kind of coverage lavished on the Boston bombings, would be more, not less likely, to want to generate such a hullaballoo.

Double Standard on Tragedy

We repeatedly fail to see how such media circuses feed the sickness. It’s an uncomfortable topic, but you can be sure that every assigning editor was aware that the Boston Marathon story had all the elements of high ratings: Families gathered. A hallowed sports event. Children. People of all backgrounds. A popular city and site.

Other stories in the news — such as the explosion Wednesday night at a Texas fertilizer plant ^[6], resulting in more fatalities than the Boston bombing— lack these compelling elements. How many people were glued to their sets or talking constantly about the Texas tragedy, which involved not “ordinary American families” enjoying a beloved pastime, but blue collar workers in a “right to work” state where unsafe working conditions are hardly considered shocking?  Even when it seemed possible that the Texas explosion might also involve terror, it didn’t capture the same degree of interest. We came to learn that perhaps it was “just” an industrial accident—at a plant that hadn’t been inspected in five years ^[7]. Such accidents, if that is what it was, are only likely to increase as federal inspection funds are slashed as part of the sequester.

The truth is, some things grab and keep our attention more than others. The people who run the media know this. And because they have to sell ads, they focus on some things more than others.

FBI Missteps

Was there anything else we could have been focused on? There was, but it was just too “distasteful” to broach, at least in the early hours. Perhaps counter-intuitively, it was the Fox brand (admittedly a local station, not the propagandistic Fox News Channel) that dared to raise questions about events that terrorize the public. In this report ^[8], the correspondent dares to remind us that the FBI has in the past had close relationships with people who want to blow things up, and has even facilitated these plots up to the point where law enforcement can intervene to thwart the bad guys. Was a similar sting in place at the Marathon – a sting that went horribly wrong?

One veteran marathoner, Alistair Stevenson, the cross-country coach at the University of Mobile, says that he noticed an unusually heavy police presence, including bomb-sniffing dogs and spotters on rooftops, before the race, and that runners were told not to worry—that law enforcement was carrying out “drills.”

Stevenson’s account ^[9] was reported in an Alabama blog run by a consortium of respectable local news organizations, but it was virtually ignored by the traditional media. Nothing here worth a second-look? Really?

Is it heresy or madness to take a harder look at the metastatic growth of the national security state? History is replete with examples of cynical efforts to create “strategies of tension ^[10]” in which the public, fearful of growing chaos, turns to the reassurances of those who promise order.

In fact, it so happens that advocates of increasing surveillance are pressing their game on every front. One involves the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA ^[11]), which, if enacted, would authorize your web service provider to pass along your real-time personal data to the Federal spooks. There’s been a lot of opposition to this, but something like the Marathon bombing can be a game-changer. Those who monitor public sentiment understand the power of emotion to alter public stances.

That’s not to say there is necessarily anything “more” going on here. But from history, we know that the official story will point to one of two things: either an organized radical (Left or Right or Foreign) group that threatens “the American way of life,” or it will be a “lone kook ^[12].”

It could be that by the time you read this, we will “know” the “full story.” At press time, the story was breaking in a new direction, with two young immigrant brothers, Chechens, the identified culprits. Why Chechens, who, though Muslim, would principally have a beef with the Russians ^[13], with whom they have been at war, not with the US? And why if they were, as apparently they were, treated well here and given opportunities, including a scholarship?

The upshot will be to bring the US and Russia into closer alignment.

Remember, though, that even the most radical of terrorists can be wound up by infiltrators, or can have links to our good friends ^[14], as we reported about those identified as the 9/11 hijackers, and their ties, via a house in Florida, to the Saudi royal family.

Oh, and what about the fire that broke out around the same time as the Marathon bombing, at the nearby John F. Kennedy Library and Museum ^[15]? Interest in that fire largely vanished as soon as we were tentatively assured that it was (perhaps/probably) unrelated. Talk about symbolism: the Boston Marathon on “Patriot’s Day”—and the repository of records related to one of America’s greatest mysteries ^[16], the death fifty years ago of a President who warned us repeatedly of the dangers of tyranny—and who sought peace with the non-hardliners in the Kremlin.

So let’s not settle so fast for the wrong kind of reassurance. Other societies have learned the hard way to be wary of too-easy answers. We simply must be open to the most inconvenient truths—not out of paranoid fantasies, but from a cold-eyed look at history and recent experience.

Surce: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/04/19/the-marathon-bombing-what-the-media-didnt-warn-you-about/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ap-_boston_investigation_lpl_130417_wg.jpg

[2] Kumbaya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

[3] Correspondent John King reported: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/04/17/boston-bombing-suspect-cnn-double-breakdown-so-much-for-abundance-of-caution/

[4] Oxford English Dictionary: http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/news

[5] Mass Knife Attacks, Like at Texas College, Are Rare: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/knife-attacks-lone-star-college/2069347/

[6] explosion Wednesday night at a Texas fertilizer plant: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/us/huge-blast-at-texas-fertilizer-plant.html?_r=0

[7] that hadn’t been inspected in five years: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/18/1886991/west-texas-fertilizer-plant-hadnt-been-inspected-in-the-past-five-years/

[8] In this report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjW03McCgfw

[9] Stevenson’s account: http://blog.al.com/live/2013/04/boston_marathon_explosion_univ.html

[10] strategies of tension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

[11] CISPA: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57580268-38/cispa-permits-police-to-do-warrantless-database-searches/

[12] lone kook: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/04/11/just-asking-media-outfoxed-on-spate-of-bizarre-shootings/

[13] would principally have a beef with the Russians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya

[14] our good friends: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-florida-saudi-family-0/

[15] John F. Kennedy Library and Museum: http://www.dotnews.com/2013/suspicious-fire-kennedy-library-remains-under-investigation

[16] greatest mysteries: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/03/05/outside-the-box-video-series-the-men-who-killed-kennedy/

[17] click here: http://www.whowhatwhy.com/donate

[18] The Ponzi-Pulitzer Scheme: http://whowhatwhy.com/2009/05/18/the-ponzi-pulitzer-scheme/

[19] Left Unsaid: Obama, The Bushes, The CIA, And The Media: http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/09/07/left-unsaid-obama-the-bushes-the-cia-and-the-media/

[20] Media’s Belated “Acknowledgment” of Saudi 9/11 Story: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/03/05/medias-belated-acknowledgment-of-saudi-911-story/

[21] Media Manipulation: Are Conflict Photos Staged?: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/10/16/media-manipulation-are-conflict-photos-staged/

So, you have friends who believe that everyone criticizing President Obama and his wife are simply acting out of racist bigotry? Give this black columnist’s article a read and then pass it along. Mr. Massie clearly sees beyond the skin to perceive the actions, non-actions and policies of the man who openly has stated he wants to “change America.” The question is…into what?

Jim

PS: Obama wants background checks for all gun owners…how about we start with him?

Why I Do Not Like The Obamas

By Mychal Massie

The Daily Rant

January 5, 2013

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.

I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.

He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.

His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)

Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)

Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. He has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and has testified concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. He has been a keynote speaker at colleges and universities nationwide and an unapologetic supporter of our right to own and carry firearms.

After reading this inspiring story of a youngster who accomplished more than the entire medical Establishment spending millions of dollars on research, one comes away with a new appreciation of the Internet and search engines. Obviously, they offer more productive opportunities than Tittering, Tweeting, Facebooking and other social networking.

Jim

15-Year-Old Invents New Test for Early, Reliable Detection of Pancreatic Cancer

By Dr. Mercola
Mercola.com
March 3, 2013

Pancreatic cancer is a devastatingly fatal form of cancer, and is typically regarded as the most deadly and universally rapid-killing form of cancer. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, an estimated 45,220 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year, of which 38,460 are expected to die.

Part of the problem is that this cancer is usually diagnosed quite late, contributing to the abysmal five-year survival rate. It also shows you just how ineffective conventional detection methods and treatments are.

All of that may soon change however — all due to the persistence and dedication of a high school kid who decided there must be a better way to detect this lethal cancer sooner…

Yes, a 15-year-old boy named Jack Andraka has done what scientists with millions of dollars-worth of research grants at their disposal have failed to do. He invented a dipstick-type sensor to detect pancreatic, ovarian, and lung cancer that is:

• 168 times faster
• 26,000 times less expensive, and
• 400 times more sensitive than the current standard of detection

And he did it using Google and Wikipedia as his primary research tools — online resources that are available to virtually anyone on the planet with an internet connection. What’s more, the test costs three cents, takes five minutes, and has a 90 percent accuracy rate. Compare that to the current standard, which employs 60-year-old technology, costs about $800, and misses 30 percent of all pancreatic cancers.

How Could a High School Kid Make Such an Amazing Discovery?

You are in for a real treat. Please find the time to watch this awesomely inspiring video of a high school freshman who accomplished a major feat that most of us will never surpass in our lifetime. It is clearly one of the most inspiring videos I have ever seen. You are left with the impression if this high school freshman can do this, why can’t I achieve my goals?

Last year, Jack was awarded first place in the Intel International Science & Engineering Fair for his invention.² To me the most impressive part of his story are the thousands of failures he went through that did not deter him in the pursuit of his goal. Absolutely magnificent story.

When Jack first began his research, he didn’t even know he had a pancreas, but when pancreatic cancer suddenly claimed the life of a close family friend who was like “an uncle” to him he got to thinking… and researching, using readily available online tools and freely available studies, he determined that the reason we haven’t done a better job at detecting pancreatic cancer is because we’re looking for a particular protein present in the blood, called mesothelin.

This protein is always present, but in ovarian, pancreatic, or lung cancer patients, this protein is elevated. The problem is, detecting elevated levels is like “finding a needle in a stack of identical needles.”

After determining the parameters for an ideal detection sensor — noninvasive, rapid, inexpensive, simple, sensitive, and selective — he set to work trying to figure out how to detect elevated levels of mesothelin. The idea for his dipstick sensor came during a high school biology class on the subject of antibodies, during which he was secretly reviewing a paper on analytical methods using the 21st century technology of carbon nanotubes. (His approach would be absolutely impossible when I was in high school as carbon nanotubes would not be discovered for many decades.)

Antibodies fit like a lock and key into an antigen binding site. In this case, that would be the mesothelin protein. His idea involved lacing the nanotubes with the antibody, which would subsequently only attract the mesothelin protein. The nanotube strip would then generate an electrical response large enough to detect with a simple ohm meter.

Once he had locked down his theory, he needed a lab space. He applied to 200 laboratories working with pancreatic cancer and promptly received 199 rejections. But there was one “maybe.” He “hunted down” the professor and eventually landed a meeting. And a place to work. Seven months later, after countless trials and errors, he had created his first paper sensor. The sensor has now been tested in blind studies on humans, and has been found to have a 90 percent accuracy rate. Another key is that this protein becomes elevated during the earliest stages of cancer, allowing for a greatly increased survival rate.

“Through the internet anything is possible,” Jack says.

I couldn’t agree more. Not only is this story amazing because of his youth, it’s also an incredible testament to the power of the internet. Anyone can now, quite literally, change the world by putting the available information to good use!

Video at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9yuAhusVts