Obama, Natural Resources and the Conquest of Africa

The function of Obama is now clear: the conquest of Africa.

On 14 October, writes John Pilger, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only “engage” for “self-defence”, says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.

The tragedy of The War Against Terror, is that the energy monopoly sought by the US will not be worth the candle. With the quadrupling in oil price since 2000, new investments in exploration and advances in technology have revealed huge supplies of hydrocarbons in virtually every part of the world. They’re fracking for gas in Cheshire, England, there’s a glut of natural gas in North America, and China’s looking to develop its own shale resource.

But the biggest technological advances will be in energy efficiency. It takes one and a half to two kwh of electricity to make a litre of petrol. But it requires less than one and a half to two kwh of electricity to drive a light electric car as far as a Chevy travels on a litre of gas. And the Chinese have already built several hundred million electric bikes that can go just about all the way round the world on a kwh, and they are investing hugely in electric cars.

Then there’s solar power which will be competitive with oil sooner than later.

So when the war’s over, trillions will have been wasted, millions or perhaps billions of lives will have been disrupted or destroyed, free society will have ceased to exist even as an idea, and the fascist West will control a lot of useless oil fields and unnecessary pipelines.

The same will be true of virtually every other resource: rising prices will lead to improved techniques of discovery, higher use efficiency, and more cost efficient and complete recycling.

The recycling industry will be revolutionized by bar coding or chipping everything sold. Robots will identify the manufacturer, the ownership, the composition, and the recycling destination of every piece of trash. No more blue boxes and different colored wheely bins. If it's a manufactured item, just chuck it down the chute and a high-tech recycling industry will handle it. Maybe they'll even pay you if your rubbish contains enough reusable polyethylene, fermentable carbohydrate or neodymium.

See also
Beneath the UK lie trillions of cubic feet of shale gas, Daily Mail

Time for a new Balfour Declaration designating a homeland for the British?

The Express, Monday August 9, 2010: ONLY one baby in 10 born in some parts of the country has a mother of white British origin, figures revealed yesterday.

Britain’s rapidly changing ethnic make-up means white British women are now in a minority on maternity wards in 27 NHS hospital trust areas.

Across the country as a whole, they still account for 69 per cent of pregnant women receiving hospital care. But the figures from 150 NHS trusts in England reveal the ethnic diversity in metropolitan areas.

In north-west London, only one mother in 10 was of white British origin in 2008-9. At Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust in south London, mothers of white British origin made up just a quarter of those treated.

At Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals Trust, the proportion of white British mothers was 16.5 per cent, while at Bradford Teaching Hospitals Trust, it was 34 per cent.

Parts of the Home Counties also reflect shifting populations and migration. According to the figures, only 57 per cent of mothers giving birth in the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust were categorised as white British in 2008-9. Among the remaining 43 per cent, the biggest groupings were “other white” (mainly eastern Europeans) Indians, Pakistanis, Africans and “other Asians”.

Read more

Or if grabbing a whole new homeland for a homeless nation at the expense of the Arabs or some other unfortunate people is no longer a viable option, would it not be possible to set aside a few reserves: Buckinghamshire, perhaps, or the less populated areas of North Devon?

But even such modest propsals as these will no doubt be howled down by the settlers and self-hating white enforcers of political correctness, which is to say the entire brainwashed lib-left British establishment, which does not exclude the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, David, Humanitarian-Bomber, Cameron.

Libya: What do you do when the people you prevented Gaddafi from killing start killing the black minorities that Gaddafi protected?

Every house, shop, school and public building in Tawergha has been ransacked since the Misrata rebels chased out pro-Gadhafi soldiers. At the time, hundreds of families also fled, fearing reprisals. Rebels slaughtered some of the livestock left behind, the carcasses of which are still rotting in the yards of abandoned homes.(Source: WSJ)

Another WSJ report makes it clear, it is not merely livestock in Tawergha that has been targeted for slaughter:

Ibrahim al-Halbous, a rebel commander leading the fight near Tawergha, says all remaining residents should leave once if his fighters capture the town. "They should pack up," Mr. Halbous said. "Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata."

... Other rebel leaders are also calling for drastic measures like banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.

...Some of the hatred of Tawergha has racist overtones that were mostly latent before the current conflict. On the road between Misrata and Tawergha, rebel slogans like "the brigade for purging slaves, black skin" have supplanted pro-Gadhafi scrawl.

Meantime, as shown in this video, NATO is using anti-personnel cluster bombs on civilian targets in Libya:



As for the "responsibility to protect," see this and weep.

Co-opting Occupy Wall St.

Is the Occupy Wall St. movement being co-opted, asks Prof. Michel Chossudovsky?

the report that Trikileaks founder, Julian Assange, addressed the London protest from the steps of St Pauls cathedral, should help focus attention on this question.

Assange, remember, is an admirer of the Australian pornographer, Poop Murdoch.

Assange earned the admiration of certain former CIA operatives who named him winner of the Sam Adams Award for "integrity in intelligence."

Assange claims to be a whistleblower, but he finds those who question the official US Government narrative on 9/11 "annoying."

With Assange and the American Nazi Party bidding for leadership roles in the movement, folks sure need to be wary about where Occupy Wall St. and its various spin-offs are heading.

And now President Obama and the Chinese Communist Party have added their voices to those who support OWS!

Speaking at the dedication of a new Memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King on Washington's National Mall, the President said:

Dr King would want us to challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonising those who work there.

WTF!

"Would want us to challenge?"

Is this guy some sort of lone, powerless protestor, whose best effort is to wave a hand-made placard or make a speech?

Oh, and do make sure not to demonize the bastards who destroyed your country, loaded you with impossible debt, turned you out of your home and who have long since prepared safe havens where they can enjoy their ill-gotten billions safe from disturbance by the angry cries of the dispossessed losers such as Occupy Wall St. protesters.

Or is this dude supposed to be in charge of something. You know, able to do something, propose laws, bring to bear all the powers of the executive branch of government to end corruption, reform laws and impose necessary regulation.

But no. Apparently, the best we can expect from President Hopey Changey is that he will challenge the destruction of the nation by the ruthless, and limitlessly greedy bankers who stuff his pockets and who funded his election.

Occupy Wall St.

Bring it on.

Overturn the tables of the money changers. Set free the pigeons!

Fox Nation: "American Nazi Party backs Occupy Wall St." LOL

"American Nazi Party declares full support for Occupy Wall Street protests"

Announces the Fox Nation headline.

"There has certainly been no shortage of vile anti-Semitism at the Occupy Wall Street protests."

Fox  continues, before quoting some racialist rubbish from an unidentified source as proof.

One's first reaction may be to say, fuck off. Do they think we don't know who the real Nazis are?

But more to the point, is to observe that the Occupy Wall St movement must really be getting under some peoples' skin, for the American Nazi Party appears to be a wholly Jewish owned operation whose function is to hold up the Nazi scarecrow and terrorize anyone who might say anything critical of Israel, prominent Jewish Americans, bankers in particular, or the Jews-first mentality of some American Jews.

Like the Canadian branch, the post-war American Nazi Party seems to have depended largely if not entirely on the leadership of Jews. Frank Collins, aka Frank Cohen, for example, and Davis Wolfgang Hawke, aka Andrew Britt Greenbaum.

Who uses the Nazi specter to shape opinion in Europe?

In Europe, the Nazi brand may be exclusively employed by the intelligence services. In Germany, it was MI6 who set up a post-war Nazi party. 

In the UK, the British National Party, which is home to various old Nazis, looks very much like an intel op designed to discredit reasonable policies such as bringing the troops home, taking Britain out of the EU, devolving power to regional governments, ending mass immigration to what is among the World's most crowded countries, and developing an industrial policy to protect British jobs and maintain Britain's industrial capability.

Thus, for example, during the 2010 election, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader appeared to do everything possible to insure electoral failure including, moronically featuring a jar of Marmite in a nationally television broadcast, claiming to have been threatened with death by his own PR chief, and, after bloodying the face of a Times reporter, boasting that the incident proved the party "has not gone soft."

Then there was that lone nut Norwegian gunman, Anders Breivik who managed to identify himself with the Nazis and the Zionists at the same time, while condemning the politically correct teachings of the Jewish Frankfurt school.

A bit confusing, that one, although since the police were running an exercise involving an act of terrorism by a lone nut gunman at the exact time that the lone nut Anders Breivik was gunning down teenagers on Utoya Island, it seems a safe bet that the Breivik atrocity was an operation of one of the Western intel agencies.

Certainly it wasn't an agency of Iran or one of the other countries on the US/NATO hit list or they'd have been nuked by now.

Where did all the jobs go?

As some Americans are saying:

Ten years ago we had Bob Hope, Johny Cash and Steve Jobs. Now we have no hope, no cash and no jobs.

What happened?

In part, what happened was corporate executives like the mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, intolerant Steve Jobs of Apple Corporation and the awesomely clueless Jeff Immelt of GE chose to hire people in China and other places where wages are minimal and environmental protection and workplace safety standards are weak or non-existent, rather than hire their fellow countrymen.

What those sons of bitches have done and continue to do -- with the backing of the political sons (and daughters) of bitches who seek their party's nomination for President -- is export the economy of their country.

The result?

Imports from China and American manufacturing employment 1997-2006 (Source)

Between 1997 and 2006, the number of jobs in America fell, as population increased due to a flood of illegal immigrants and as imports from China zoomed and America's foreign indebtedness soared.

And since 2006, another four million US manufacturing jobs went West East:

Image source

But the corporate pyschopaths who own the US government don't even like Chinese workers, dirt cheap though they may be.

For one thing, the bastards embarrassed Steve Jobs by jumping off the roof of Apple's Chinese i-Pad factory.

To stop that, Apple forced workers to sign an agreement not to commit suicide. But the miserable ingrates kept jumping anyhow.

What to do?

Replace the whole goddam workforce with millions of robots.

Cool, hey? Screw your Chinese slaves and the working stiffs back home out of a livelihood at the same time.

But that's not it all, either.

There are three other important factors.

(1) It's the debt, stupid

Home buyers, urged on by the FED Maestro, Alan Greenspan, who couldn't spot a bubble even if it were inflated with dynamite, drove US private sector debt to an all-time high of 300% of GDP in 2010.

Now the debt is beginning to unwind, which means that demand for everything from cars and other consumer goods, to vacations, new houses, education and healthcare has slumped.

The more demand slumps, the higher unemployment rises, the greater the downward pressure on real wages and hence the greater the urge to reduce debt.

It's called positive feedback.

The corporate elite love it: wages are falling, the stinking masses will have to stay home instead of lousing up the beaches in Florida and Hawaii.

At least they love it now.

Maybe if the Occupy Wall Streeters string up a few stock brokers and bankers, they'll view things differently.

Meantime, the US Government makes feeble gestures to provide "stimulus," which means new wasteful and stupid government spending, which only exacerbates the the plight of the people by increasing the burden of unproductive government.

(2) Time for those death panels?

When the elite kick the shit out the mass of their fellow countrymen, the population begins to sicken and die. One manifestation is collapse of the family, soon followed by a collapse in the birth rate.

The result?

Far too many old people, trying to eke out their savings, spending less and less, but demanding more and more from the taxpayer for drugs, hospitals, and many other forms of welfare.

So, yes, old folks provide jobs alright. But they are jobs that are funded very largely by their children and their children's children, thus adding to the difficulty of working-age adults struggling through the second great depression.

No, we don't advocate euthanasia.

What we do believe is that folks have a right to a job at a living wage so that the Western nations can replace themselves, not be replaced by people from elsewhere who differ in race, culture and creed, however willing they may be to clean toilets or work in the underground economy at below minimum wage.

(3) How do you think Steve Jobs got to be worth $8 billion?

Average income in 2006 was up $60,000 for the top 1 percent of American households (yes that's right, in a single year incomes of the top 1 percent increased by more than the average wage), but up only $430 for the bottom 90 percent of households, resulting in the most inequitable distribution of income since 1928 (Source).

But rich people can only consume so much. So when income becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, demand for a lot of things slumps, which has become apparent in the US since the Fed-engineered property bubble collapsed, destroying the value of the principle asset of millions of families.

The negative wealth effect impinging on ordinary folks, combined with growing income inequality ensures weak demand and hence slow or negative employment growth.

You might think the politicians would talk about some of these things.

But they never do.

Time for a revolution?

Or are we seeing the emergence of global neo-feudalism, under which the nations of the World will be trashed, and replaced by a single mongrel population, without diversity of race, beauty, culture or faith?

No need to ask what the ruling elite want. But what do ordinary folks want?

Or do ordinary folks no longer believe they have a right to determine their own destiny?

See also:
Canspeccy: Ending Unemployment. Part 1: The Negative Income Tax
Canspeccy: Ending Unemployment. Part 2: Wage Subsidies

Michael Moore's interview with Tony Benn:

"What people said was, 'In the 1930's we had mass unemployment, but we didn't have unemployment during the war. If you can have full employment by killing Germans, why can't you have full employment by building hospitals, building schools ...'"



Patrick Buchanan: Is the New World Order Unravelling?

Chris Hedges explains the Occupy Wall St. Moverment, demolishing CBC-featured boorish clown, Kevin O'Leary, in the process

For those who have lacked the time, interest or energy to follow the Occupy Wall St. movement, a good overview is provided by this interview in which Pullitzer-prize-winning former New York Times foreign correspondent, Chris Hedges, demolishes Kevin O'Leary, a boorish twit currently featured by Canada's propaganda agency, the Canadian Broadcorping Castration.



And here's an intelligent, patriotic response to Sean Hannity of Fox News from a couple of US Marines in New York.



And Alan Grayson speaks for Occupy Wall Streeters:



Thanks to Scott C. for the firs video link, and to WRH for the other two. Also thanks to Scott for the link to the following item, which recounts the progress of Stephen Harper's plan to give away the farm:

Crumbling Canadian Sovereignty

I’m sick of people thinking politics is some sort of hobby, like we can just choose to decide it doesn’t have to do with our life, death, happiness and freedom. Looking at the mechanics that underlie our world is not something I do out of boredom. To me, it seems self-evident that we’re on this earth to learn. Learning and gaining experience seems to be what being human is all about. I don’t like reading words on a page/screen. I’d much rather create music or learn to paint but unfortunately, sometimes missing a week’s worth of news is like missing a month. Missing a month is often missing a year.
Few Canadians are aware of the true scope of the horrific G-20 event in Toronto last year. This event got very little coverage during the recent elections despite many calling it “Torontonamo”. There were agent provocateurs (cops dressed up as anarchists), $5 million spent on a fence, $1.2 billion spent on paying 2 or 3 thousand cops overtime so they could arrest and brutalize 1000 innocent people, many of whom were not even taking part in the protest. I even hesitate to say $1.2 billion. Who knows how much of our tax money was actually spent for security. If memory serves me well, it was originally stated it would only be around $170 million, then $300 something million, then $600 million-ish, then $900 million-ish, then finally $1.2 billion. For all we know, it could have been $10 billion.
It’s worthwhile to note that back when the H1N1 scare was happening the government gave dozens of body bags to some native communities. Why body bags? Equally disturbing and strange, it was found that the H1N1 shot caused a 300% increase in narcolepsy in children and this prompted some countries to ban it. Canada went a different route and introduced this mercury-laced H1N1-vaccine into the trivalent seasonal flu shot.
On September 29, 2009, an article came out from SkyWatch Canada titled Forced Vaccination and Quarantine Laws in Canada. That article outlined some shocking laws we have here:

In 1996 Ontario passed the Health Care Consent Act, which allows treatment such as vaccination to be administered without consent of the individual in the case of a loosely defined “Emergency”. In Quebec the Public Health Act clearly states: “Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, while the public health emergency is in effect, the Government or the Minister, if he or she has been so empowered, may, without delay and without further formality, to protect the health of the population, (1) order compulsory vaccination of the entire population or any part of it against smallpox or any other contagious disease seriously threatening the health of the population and, if necessary, prepare a list of persons or groups who require priority vaccination. ”
…
In 2005 a new Quarantine Act was passed to deal with the transmission of communicable diseases by travelers entering or leaving Canada. Powers are awarded under this act to a Quarantine Officer to issue an order for a traveler who may have come in contact with someone with a communicable disease, to comply with treatment (ie. vaccination) or any other preventative measure (Section 26). If the traveler refuses to comply with the order he or she may face detention at a quarantine facility, until they decide to comply with treatment (ie. vaccination) or no longer pose a risk (Section 28). The threat posed by this act is diminished by the fact that it only applies to people leaving or entering Canada. Unfortunately there is a real possibility that the definition of a traveler may be expanded to include internal travelers (ie. everyone). The 2004 Public Safety Act (Bill C-7 (2004) formerly Bill C-42 (2002)) amends the Quarantine Act , and in doing so grants powers to the Minister of Health to make an interim order without Parliamentary oversight, to expand the definition of a traveler to include anyone residing in Canada.

The moral of the story is that our government doesn’t care about us and our government is clearly not in our control. Canada’s sovereignty is being insulted at breakneck speed. The corporate oligarchy is what is inevitably responsible for forced inoculation legislation in our countries, and maybe our complacency is also to blame. These insane laws, by the way, never come as a shock to those who are aware of the efforts that have been made to combine Canada, USA, and Mexico into one country and that agenda’s underlying motivation to further consolidate power into one global government. Dana Gabriel recently wrote about Canada’s degenerating sovereignty, noting a “U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement” that would expand “collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing”. ...

Read more

Ending Unemployment. Part 2: Wage Subsidies

Image source

The International Labor Organization (ILO) predicts that millions in the developed and developing nations will lose their jobs in the coming months.

Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, says "the global and UK economies had been turned on their heads in the past three months [and] the situation could be even worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s."

So what should governments be doing?

In an earlier post I advocated a negative income tax, an old idea to combat unemployment and poverty promoted by, among others, the late conservative economist and Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman.

To anyone whose labor is worth more than absolutely nothing, the negative income tax provides both an incentive and an opportunity to work, since it guarantees anyone with a job, however poorly paid, enough income to live on.

The great defect of the negative income tax is that it requires either that:

any increase in market wage received by a low-wage worker is subject to a claw back of the negative tax benefit equivalent to a marginal tax rate approaching 100%; or

the benefit is extended to those with earnings that well exceed the minimum living wage.

In the former case workers have little incentive to maximize their earnings, in the latter case the program becomes excessively expensive.

Another approach is for government to make wage subsidies available to employers by public auction.

An employer bidding successfully for a wage subsidy would pay for it, cash in advance, the subsidy to be paid to the employee by the tax department over the course of the year.

Amounts bid for subsidies, would depend on the quality of labor available and the profitability with which it could be employed, and thus would range from 0.01 dollar/euro/whatever  per hour to an amount close to the full value of the subsidy.

Subsidies could be sold both singly and in batches via an online E-Bay type auction, the number of subsidies offered varying from week to week according to the unemployment rate. The aim would be to drive that number to the full employment rate of around two or three percent as unemployment is currently measured in the United States.

The program should aim to minimize cost by excluding bureaucratic stipulations about qualifications of either employers or employees other than rules designed to prevent fraud. Thus, for example, subsidies should not be linked to place of work, type of work, type of worker or any of the other annoying restrictions that make employers loathe and detest virtually all of the wage subsidy programs that governments have from time to time tried in the past. The aim should be to minimize the cost of program administration to both government and employers.

How a wage subsidy system would skew incentives in the labor market is not altogether obvious. A counter-intuitive consequence would likely be that, to retain trained workers in a labor market offering many new opportunities for low-wage workers, employers might be compelled to pay a premium to retain experienced unsubsidized workers earning little more than the minimum wage.

A wage subsidy program would have many benefits:

first, it would result in massive savings in the cost of multiple bureaucratically complex welfare programs that supposedly care for those without income;.

second, it would provide a tremendous stimulus to many low-skill labor intensive industries, by making available millions of workers at third-world wages, thereby increasing total output of goods and services, raising the general level of prosperity, and increasing business tax revenues to government;

third, it would largely eliminate the disaffected, criminally inclined underclass, which currently lacks incentive to acquire education or work-place skills, thereby greatly reducing unemployment-related crime and its various policing and prison costs;

fourth, it would reduce the despair of the unemployed and the mental health problems that such despair can create. Currently, something like 40% of Europeans and 20% of Americans are diagnosed with some form of mental ill health at any one time. Much of this illness is related to economic stress, and much of that stress is likely unemployment related.

The cost of subsidizing the 40 million or so jobs required in America would be in the range of $100 to 200 billion dollars per year. Barely a drop in the bucket compared with the seemingly endless bailouts required to maintain the banking class in the style to which they have become accustomed.

With adjustment for differences in population and living costs, the cost of an employment subsidy program in other countries would be comparable: say $10 to 20 billion a year in Canada, or not a whole lot more than the Government of Canada was happy to spend entertaining representatives of the G8 and the G20 for a couple of days.

See also:
How to end unemployment. Part 1: The Negative Income Tax
Why economics is bunk
America's inflationary depression
USA versus China: Wage Convergence, Wealth Divergence and Global Hegemony
US Economy: Expecting the Unexpected
USA Boom or Bust: The Next Decade
Why China Booms While America Slumps
China's Economy Already Larger Than America's
NY Times: The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00

Some links

WRH Afghanistan War was Planned Months Before 9/11
Patrick Buchanan The End of Pax Americana?
WSJ Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit
Patrick Buchanan Was Awlaki and American?
Craig Murray Diplomatic blowback
The Truth Will Set You Free Al Gore’s New $9 Million Mansion
Pravda Libyan conflict lurches out of NATO control
AFP Senator Carl Levin, calls for release of memo authorizing assassination
American's Journey Ever wished you'd taken part in the original American revolution?
Aangirfan GREENS WINNING IN LIBYA?
Xymphora Breivik, Hitler and the Zionists
Paul Craig Roberts Is the War on Terror a Hoax?
Paul Craig Roberts The Day America Died
Hua Hsu The End of White America?
Pat Buchanan: Path to national suicide

What if Ron Paul were elected?

Ron Paul is a likeable man, earnest, feisty, good humored, and with a decidedly different perspective to all the other candidates running for President.

According to the latest Harris poll, Ron Paul would beat Barak Obama 51:49. So what if he wins the Republican nomination and then the Presidency?

As President, he would need no brains trust to figure out what to do. He would lead as the aging Prince Mikhail Ilarionovich Kutuzov led the Russian army during Napoleon's invasion: politely listening to the ambition-crazed advice of the wonks -- and ignoring it.

His policies are already decided.

Abolish the money-printing Fed, the IRS (and with it the Federal income tax), the Department of Education and many other branches of government.

End the wars, slash the Pentagon budget, bring the troops home.

Secure America's borders.

Withdraw from the UN, exit the WTO and other trade agreements that restrict free trade in the interests of the most powerful corporations.

Then what?

Stephen Harper, Cameron, Sarkozy and other former US puppets would be toast. In a post-imperial era, no one likes an imperialist lackey.

America would become a more diverse nation. Some states would no doubt seek to assume the big-government roles abandoned by the Feds. But others would not.

Americans would have new choices. They could vote with their feet for high taxes and massive state intervention in the economy and their personal lives, or for low taxes and greater personal responsibility.

Uncontrolled immigration would end. Abortion would cease to be legal and the birthrate of the native-born would increase.

Abroad, America's direct influence would be greatly diminished.

China, India and other great nations would be free to pursue their own economic interests in Africa and elsewhere, bribing and corrupting governments, monopolizing oil supplies, gaining control over agricultural and other resources.

The Kissingerian policy of ruling the World by controlling the World's energy supplies would be abandoned.

Energy-rich countries such as Iraq and Libya, Iran and Sudan would become prosperous and highly developed, as was occurring in Libya under Gaddafi and in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Such countries might become militaristic dictatorships or they might evolve in other ways. But what concern is that of Americans?

With thousands of nuclear weapons and means of delivering them within 15 minutes to any spot on Earth, the US has no reason to fear petty despots.

But America would once again become a credible advocate of freedom and of the right of every nation to self-determination and of the right of every person to freedom of conscience.

Political correctness would be at an end. Democracy would emerge more strongly than ever before.

America would once again become a light unto the World: the nation that the mass of people throughout the World would want their own country to emulate.

Would this not be a worthier role, a better role, for the American people than pursuing a global empire controlled by faceless plutocrats buying elections, creating fake democracies and holding the people in contempt?

See also
Aangirfan: LIBYAN TOWNS WRECKED AND LOOTED; THOUSANDS MURDERED
Aangirfan: Inside the minds of the CIA
Aangirfan: Britain, the most Americanized and least happy state in Europe

Is the World tiring of US leadership?

Germany slams 'stupid' US plans to boost EU rescue fund

Stupid US Treasury Secretary?

German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU's bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.

"I don't understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense," he said.

Mr Schauble told Washington to mind its own businesss after President Barack Obama rebuked EU leaders for failing to recapitalise banks and allowing the debt crisis to escalate to the point where it is "scaring the world".

"It's always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the US government," he said. ...

Read more

Gibbering?

Fidel Castro calls Barack Obama UN address 'gibberish'

Cuba's Fidel Castro criticised Barack Obama's speech to the United Nations as "gibberish" on Monday, saying the US president used a rambling address to justify the "unjustifiable." ...

Read more

Iran May Send Warships Near US Waters

Iranian Navy off US coast? A "strong presence."

American beachgoers soon may have more to look out for than jellyfish and cast members of "Jersey Shore."

Iran's navy warned Tuesday that it planned to deploy ships near the Atlantic coast of the United States as part of its goal to create a "strong presence" in international waters.

"Just like the global hegemony that is present near our marine borders, we … also plan to establish a strong presence near US marine borders," IRNA quoted Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying on Tuesday. ...

Read more

How the Rich Destroyed the Economy

By Paul Craig Roberts

Economic policy in the United States and Europe has failed, and people are suffering.

Economic policy failed for three reasons: (1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; (2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; (3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.

Jobs offshoring was made possible because the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in China and India opening their vast excess supplies of labor to Western exploitation. ...

Read more

See also:
CanSpeccy: How to end unemployment 
Aangirfan: How Argentina protects jobs

Should British company get carbon credits for evicting Ugandans from their homes?

The green-sounding British company "New Forests" is reported to have evicted over 20,000 people from their land in Uganda to make way for tree plantations, some victims of displacement being killed in the process. But it is all in a good cause, apparently. The New Forests Company will earn carbon credits for every tree planted.But why not give them carbon credits for the humans displaced or killed too? That would seem to be pretty much in line with the thinking among the more radical members of the environmental movement.

James Corbett discusses Tom Secker's new vid on the July 7th London bombings

In a Global Research production, James Corbett interviews Tom Secker on his post-July 7th Inquest video, Crime and Prejudice (the latter video, linked here). The discussion provides a useful warning to those inclined to embrace conspiracy theories uncritically. Some quite plausible, but unsubstantiated, theories may well have been spawned for the purpose of being later debunked, lending in the process spurious plausibility to government lies and evasions of the truth.

MSM Finally admit the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives

Apparently the Toronto Hearings on 9/11 have sparked a little anxiety in the MSM, prompting them to publicize a wacky theory that the Twin Towers fell  because a mix of aluminum from the crashed airliners and water from the buildings' sprinkler systems caused a series of gigantic explosions. As YaYa Canada points out,  it's good to see it admitted publicly that the Tower's were brought down by explosives, but folks should bear in mind that there was no aluminum from a crashed airliner to account for the explosions that caused the 47-story World Trade Center 7 to collapse in its own footprint also on 9/11.

The mainstream media are now so pathetic, it seems certain it will have to be made a criminal offense to question anything they say -- with extra jail time for laughing about them in public.

Thing is, on 9/11, the media cannot retreat. To admit the 9/11 lie would be to admit that the corporate media are merely a conduit for lying propaganda and that the US Government and its numerous puppet regimes throughout the World represent a system of disguised tyranny under which the crimes of the ruling elite are justified by false flag terrorism, environmental scare stories based on pseudoscience and genocidal policies presented as an antidote to white racism.

Mmaintenance of the absurd official 9/11 narrative is as vital to the survival of governments as it is to the survival of the MSM. To admit its fatuity would reveal Obarmy, Harpie, Sark and Cameroon for what they are: frauds from snout to tail.

A different angle on that Libyan mass grave

It turns out that the mass grave reported to have been discovered at Tripoli's Abu Salim prison where Gaddafi is alleged to have buried more than a thousand victims of his murderous repression has not, in fact, been excavated, nor have the bones touted by the BBC been positively identified as human.As an anonymous commentator remarks, now that Bin Laden has died his final death, Gaddafi seems to have been promoted by the media to the role of World Enemy No. 1.We will, presumably, be hearing from him due course via various videoed statements of dubious authenticity, declaring war on the west by Muslims, in general, and by all those, in particular, that US/NATO intends to attack in the years to come.

Atzmon on Jewishness: Jezebel’s legacy

By Eric Walberg

The Wandering Who? A study of Jewish identity politics, gives a unique insider’s view of the Israeli mind. Its author explains to Eric Walberg that you can take the girl out of Jezebel, but you can’t take Jezebel out of the girl

 Gilad Atzmon is a world citizen who calls London his home. He was born a sabra, and served as a paramedic in the Israeli Defense Forces during the 1982 Lebanon War, when he realised that “I was part of a colonial state, the result of plundering and ethnic cleansing.” He has wandered far since then, become a novelist, philosopher, one of the world’s best jazz saxophonists, and at the same time, one of the staunchest supporters of the Palestinian cause, supporting their right of return and the one-state solution. He now defines himself as a “proud self-hating Jew” and “a Hebrew-speaking Palestinian”. In 2009 Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan quoted Atzmon during a debate with Israeli president Shimon Peres, telling him at the World Economic Forum that “Israeli barbarity is far beyond even ordinary cruelty.”

 

Atzmon denies that there is even such a concept as “anti-Semitism”, stating that “‘anti-Semite” is an empty signifier. “You are either a racist which I am not, or have an ideological disagreement with Zionism, which I have.” When railed against as an anti-Semite, Gilad quotes the witticism: “While in the past an ‘anti-Semite’ was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.”

 

One of his Orient House Ensemble’s nine albums, appropriately called “Exile”, with its arresting blend of Middle Eastern and Western themes, was BBC jazz album of the year in 2003. His fascination with Arab music was a natural development out of his embrace of the Palestinian cause. Arab music “must be internalised, reverting to the primacy of the ear”.

 

His unique blend of jazz and radical politics means his performances are picketed and sometimes disrupted. But the gregarious Gilad relished the opportunity to reach out to even his most strident critics, always engages the picketers and even invites them to coffee and an extended chat after the performance. Peter Bacon wrote that Atzmon reminds us of “the strong link between jazz and the radical politics that are sometimes the only way to ensure its -- and our -- freedom.”

 

Atzmon’s novel My One and Only Love features as a protagonist a trumpeter who chooses to play only one note (extremely well) as well as a spy who uncovers Nazi war criminals and locks them inside double bass cases which then tour permanently in the protagonist’s orchestra’s luggage. His intent was to explore “the personal conflict between being true to one’s heart and being loyal to The Jews”.

 

Tony Blair speaks for his paymasters

Tony Bair yesterday condemned as a "deeply confrontational move" the Palestinian president's request to the United Nations for recognition of of an an independent Palestinian state.

"What we need" continued Blair, "is another hundred years, at least, of futile negotiations going nowhere, while Israel appropriates all Palestinian land and finally persuades the Palestinians to bugger off somewhere else."

Well actually not.

But for a quid, he would surely have said that. For a couple of quid, he'd have believed it too.

So much for the US/EU/UN/Russia's Middle-East Peace Envoy.

Elsewhere, the New Statesman asks "Why is Blair the peace envoy so desperate for war with Iran?" to which the answer should be obvious. Israel will not be content until it dominates the whole of the Middle East,thereby dominating the globe through it control over the World's largest hydrocarbon reserves and among the most important trade routes.

For once, I find myself in agreement with Craig Murray who applauds the Palestinian application to the UN for statehood as, if nothing else, an effective device for exposing US hypocrisy.

Patrick Buchanan asks Is the Window Closing on Israel?, which sounds like a reasonable question, but probably is not. Rather, it appears that by means of its control of puppets throughout the West, Israel is in a position to bring the whole World down before anyone has a chance to close any windows on it.

Confirming that the money window on the American taxpayer's pocket remains open, JePo reports: US budget cuts won't affect military aid to Israel.

Meantime, Muslim nations demand Israel open its nuke program to IAEA viewing.

Now that's a window that will remain firmly shut.

But it's time to give those Palis some stick for their temerity in demanding recognition by the UN, says Jewish supremacist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

And Obarmy assures America's rabid Zionists: Whatever Israel may do:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of the state of Israel.

Or something to that effect.

And if you were wondering how subservient the Canadian Government is to Israel:

It supports illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land despite a greater number of Canadians supporting Palestinian statehood than voted for the government of Stephen Harper. Yep, the Israel lobby really does have Harpy by the balls.

But in Israel itself, 70 percent of the people polled in a recent Hebrew University survey agreed that "Israel should accept the decision if the UN recognizes a Palestinian state," thus confirming that, wherever it is to be found, democratic government is a blatant fraud: a device for the manipulation of the people by a hidden plutocratic elite that treats the people, Jewish or gentile, as mere cattle to be used, abused and trashed at will without the slightest regard for their opinions, beliefs, wishes or needs.

POSTSCRIPT: Tony Blair's Israeli affair?

Ending unemployment. Part 1: The Negative Income Tax

Image source

The US economy is contracting. US unemployment is at an all time, post-WW2 high of around 18% when discouraged workers and workers only partially employed are included (US Bureau of Labor Statistics: U6 measure of unemployment).

How is it that people who are able to work, who want to work and who need to work, cannot work?

Because no one wants to hire them.

Why does no one want to hire them?

Because folks borrowed too much during the FED-driven housing boom, and are now paying down their debts as their assets, particularly houses, decline in value.

This debt deleverage means reduced consumption, reduced consumption means reduced demand for labor.

The result: idle workers, idle factories, underutilized public infrastructure.

The Keynesian solution?

Increase aggregate demand by deficit government spending covered by money printing.

Is this bad?

In theory, not necessarily. In practice, almost certainly.

Why is it good in theory?

Because it can create something of value from resources that would otherwise be wasted.

Why is it almost certainly bad?

Because government spending is almost always hugely wasteful. As a consequence, money is spent but little if any benefit results. The expenditure must, nevertheless, be paid for by someone, and it is normally paid for by the employed workforce through the inflation tax: the money the government printed to pay for the deficit spending creates inflation that cuts the value of the money that those with jobs are able to earn.

In theory, as noted, this need not be the case. If deficit spending resulted in some new and valuable public infrastructure that increased the productivity of the work force, the efficiency of energy use, or the quality of life, the cost would be recovered in kind. This, however, rarely occurs due to corruption, ineptitude and the near universal lack of imagination in the administration of government programs.

The inflationary effect of deficit spending can to some extent be limited by tax cuts that stimulate the supply of goods and services. This phenomenon was recognized during the Reagan era (supply side economics), and has since been applied to limit the inflationary impact of Keynesian policies.

But whatever the potential benefits, the Keynesian response to unemployment is of diminishing effectiveness in a globalized world economy where jobs in high wage economies are off-shored to places were labor can be had for pennies an hour. Deficit spending simply means bigger trade deficits as increased consumption sucks in cheap consumer goods from abroad, with little impact on domestic manufacturing employment.

What alternatives are there?

The Austrian economists say, let those who borrowed too much go broke, so that the assets they control — land, houses, businesses, etc. —can be acquired by better managers for pennies on the dollar. Then with indebtedness slashed, and mismanaged assets redeployed, the economy will grow and unemployment will fall.

There is undoubtedly merit in this approach. It keeps bankers honest by making them vulnerable to failure as the price of reckless lending, it makes borrowers cautious in the knowledge that there is no government safety net should their speculative ventures fail, and it makes savers disinclined to deposit their money with any but the most conservatively managed banks.

The problem with the Austrian "solution" is that in the process of renewal through widespread bankruptcy, banks would go under, savers would be wiped out and most wealth would end up in the control of a handful of astute speculators who might have little interest in reviving the consumer society.

The effect of the Austrian "solution" applied without restraint would likely be a catastrophic depression followed by massive social unrest, if not war or revolution.

Is there another approach?

Yes.

If it's jobs that are needed, governments should pay for them directly.

How?

Easily enough!

First, eliminate minimum wage laws.

Second, extend the income tax table into negative territory.

Earn less than a living wage? Then the IRS will supplement your income to enable personal and family survival.

How much would this cost?

Not as much as you might think.

Let us suppose that all 30 million unemployed Americans (US Labor Department U6 definition of unemployment) were able to find work at a wage between one cent per hour and the minimum Federally established living wage, which we will take to be $8.00 per hour (with variation according to circumstances, such as dependents, place of residence, etc.). Let us suppose that on average, these workers are able to command a market wage of only half the Federally established living wage. In that case, the Federal wage subsidy would be, approximately, $6,400 per person per year, or a total program cost of $192 billion per year, or about 7% of the 2011 US Federal Budget.

Seven percent of the 2011 US Federal Government budget is not chicken feed. But it's a lot less than the $700 billion banksters' bail out fund. And from it would be deducted substantial amounts that would otherwise have had to be spent on food stamps and other welfare programs, law enforcement, prisons, mental healthcare, and other costly consequences of mass unemployment.

Furthermore, the availability of 30 million American workers at third-World wages would provide American industry a huge shot in the arm, allowing many producers to repatriate jobs, capital and technology presently off-shored to India, China, and other low wage countries.

An expansion in American manufacturing and revival at home of off-shored or outsourced service industries would add substantially to US corporate profits and thus to US Government tax revenues.

So why is this solution not adopted?

Because Wall St. owns the Government and Wall St. wants the Austrian solution.

It's interesting. The top financial entities can borrow ten-year funds at rates as low as 1.75%. So what's to stop the financial elite borrowing the funds to buy up the stock market -- at least that part of it with decent income. BP, for example, with a price to earnings ratio currently at 5.6 looks like a good bet.

At, say, 3% you could finance the purchase of BP, which has yearly earnings of $20 billion, for a mere $3.7 billion per year.

Cool, hey. Let those dumb unemployed Americans starve.

But hold it. We can buy cheaper than this. See there's a run developing on the European banks. Talk it up. Panic, everybody. Just a few million more unemployed. A big bankruptcy. A Greek default. Yay, we'll own everything for really, really cheap.

See also:
Ending unemployment. Part 2: Tradeable Wage Subsidies
Why economics is bunk
America's inflationary depression
USA versus China: Wage Convergence, Wealth Divergence and Global Hegemony
US Economy: Expecting the Unexpected
USA Boom or Bust: The Next Decade
Why China Booms While America Slumps
China's Economy Already Larger Than America's

9/11 Truth? Can't you guys just forget 25,000 years of professional experience?

In a letter to a 9/11 skeptic, Julius Sequerra draws attention to this evaluation by professional architects, engineers, fire prevention experts, physicists, and other scientists of the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001.



Conclusion: the NIST report on the collapse of the Twin Towers is based on a tissue of lies.

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
Adolf Hitler

Difficult, certainly, for Americans to accept that their government is Hitlerian. For many, better to call the truthers traitors.

Then there are those who know full well that 9/11 was a Hitlerian psyop and fully support its purpose, which was to kick start a war for global hegemony, a war in which more than a million have died already, and many millions more have been maimed, or driven from their homes.

To these pro-war patriots, the death of three thousand Americans was merely an unfortunate necessity: the catalyzing event to trigger a world war.

Whether these Dubya loyalists fully understand what it is they condone is open to question. Nine-eleven marked the death of democracy in America and the imposition of a system of soft tyranny, a tyranny imposed by psychological manipulation of the most gullible half of the population, whose votes negate those of more thoughtful citizens who might have made something meaningful of the term American democracy.

One wonders, also, if those loyal patriots who so readily accept the sacrifice of 3000 American lives for the sake of an effective public relations exercise, understand who's interest will ultimately be served by the war for global empire.

Will it be Americans? An American elite? Or perhaps not necessarily Americans at all?

For is not America merely a tool -- the most powerful presently available instrument for violent transformation of the World, to be used in the service of a deracinated, international plutocratic elite that aims to control all governments through the purchase of elections and the bribery of officials?

Demonstrating thermate cutting steel:


See also:
The New American World Order: How It Works
Afghanistan: They attacked us on 9/11, which is fortunate because the country is a mining treasure house ripe for exploitation
9/11 Crime Scene Evidence Was Destroyed - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth
Defending the Indefensible: Noam Chomsky's 9/11 Spin
Stupid Truthers

Blogger: Stats you can trust?

There is something distinctly odd about the usage stats provided by Blogger for this site. Page views surge and fall abruptly for no apparent reason.  A post about the New World Order is ranked by Blogger as the most popular one day, then a  much older post about the London riots suddenly emerges at the top of the list, and the former and more recently written top post drops overnight to near the bottom of the list, yet none of this surge in hits for the older post is due, apparently, to links from other Web sites. Rather, it would seem that the newly popular page is suddenly coming up in multiple Google searches, yet there seems no reason for a wave of new interest in the London riots. Very odd.

Another oddity is that whereas my Blogger usage stats might indicate, say, 500 page views on a particular day, if I run Google ads on my pages, Adsense will tell me that my page views are only about one tenth of that number.

Odder still, most page views are the result of links from Google, whereas there are virtually not links from Bing.com and non whatever from Yahoo.com or other search engines. So am I being favored by Google in some way, or are my blog posts invisible to most other search engines, or are my blog stats simply wrong?

Altogether, these anomalies induce a slight sense of paranoia. Perhaps there are simple explanations. If any one can suggest an explanation, I'd be glad to hear from them.

Naturally, I'd ask Google if I could, but Google is decidedly unapproachable should you wish to pose a simple question to an actual human being. I guess that would involve employing people, something the modern American corporation seems extremely reluctant to do.

Canada-US Border Deal Threatens Sovereignty

James Corbett reviews the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty in light of the proposed cross-border "security" agreement between Canada and the US, which is expected to be unveiled in the coming weeks. Don't look for any interference from Canada's pathetic new official opposition.

They already rubber stamped the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya, with not a single NDPer voting against the last extension of Canada's participation in NATO's mission to bomb Libya's infrastructure to Hell.

Why would such a bunch of gutless wimps get in the way of the demolition of Canada?

America after 9/11: a nation ruled by emotion, not law

By Paul Craig Robers
From Vdare.com

In the US on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, politicians and their presstitute media presented Americans with “A Day of Remembrance,” a propaganda exercise that hardened the 9/11 lies into dogma.  Meanwhile, in Toronto, Canada, at Ryerson University the four-day International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001, came to a close at 5pm.

During the four days of hearings, distinguished scientists and scholars and professional architects and engineers presented the results of years of their independent research into all aspects of 9/11 to a distinguished panel consisting of the honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court who was an investigative judge who presided over terrorism cases and three distinguished scholars of high renown and judgment. The distinguished panel’s task is to produce a report with their judgment of the evidence presented by the expert witnesses.

The Toronto Hearings were streamed live over the Internet.  I was able to watch many of the presentations over the four days. I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media.

As I stressed in my recent interview about 9/11 with Jim Corbett and Global Research, I am a reporter, not an independent researcher into 9/11.  I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda. Perhaps this reflects my age.  My generation was raised to believe in evidence and the scientific method.  George Orwell and other writers warned us of the consequence of succumbing to government propaganda as a result of disinterest in the truth or government manipulation of one’s patriotism.

My ability to serve as a reporter of scientific evidence is enhanced by my having a Bachelor of Science from Georgia Tech, a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, and post-graduate education at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University, where my professor was the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. In the 1960s, I was appointed Visiting Assistant Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, where together with Polanyi, I was to deliver a course in Polanyi’s unique contributions to knowledge. Polanyi’s illness prevented the course from happening and condemned me to being a mere economist.

This does not mean that I am infallible or that my reporting is correct. If my reporting stimulates you, go to the presentations, which I believe will continue to be available online, and if not, some edited CD will be available. Try here.

As one whose own contributions to economics, now belatedly recognized, are “outside the box,” I am responsive to those who can escape peer pressure in order to advance truth.  Here are some of the important things I learned from the Toronto Hearings.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, a government agency) reports on the Twin Towers and Building 7 are fraudulent.  Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that Building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the Twin Towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.

A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the Towers, found evidence of nano-thermite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Physicist David Chandler proved beyond all doubt that the visible part of Building 7 (other buildings obscure the bottom floors) fell at free fall speed, an unambiguous indication that explosives had removed all supporting columns simultaneously.There is no possibility whatsoever according to the laws of physics that Building 7 fell for the reasons NIST provides. The NIST account is a total denial of known laws of physics.

Many other powerful points were made at the conference that I will not report, at least not at this time, because the revelation of malevolence is so powerful that most readers will find it a challenge to their emotional and mental strength.

Psychologists explained that there are two kinds of authority to which people submit. One is to the authority of people in high positions in the government. The belief that “our government wouldn’t lie to us” is pervasive, especially among patriots.  The other source of authority is experts.  However, to believe experts a person has to be educated and open-minded and to trust scientific, professional, and scholarly integrity.

In recent years in America, scientific and scholarly authority has come into disrepute among Christian evangelicals who object to evolution and among anti-intellectual Tea Party adherents who object to “elitists,” that is, objection to knowledge-based persons whose knowledge does not support Tea Party emotions.

In other words, qualified, knowledgeable people who tell people what they do not want to hear are dismissed as “the enemy.” Much of the American population is set up to believe government propaganda. Without an independent media, which the US no longer has, people are taught that only “conspiracy kooks” challenge the government’s story. Even on the Internet, this is a main theme on Antiwar.com and on CounterPunch.org, two sites that protest America’s wars but accept the 9/11 propaganda that justifies the wars.

This is the reason that I think that the US is moving into an era where the emotional needs of the population produced by government propaganda overwhelms science, evidence, and facts. It means the abolition of accountable government and the rule of law, because protection from terrorists is more important.

The fact-based world in which “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is being displaced by dogma. Anyone who doubts “our government” is an anti-American, Muslim-loving, pinko-liberal commie, who should be arrested and waterboarded until the culprit confesses that he is a terrorist.

The event of 9/11 is now outside the realm of fact, science, and evidence.  It is a dogma that justifies the Bush/Cheney/Obama war crimes against Muslims and their countries.

Obama regime appointee Cass Sunstein, a Chicago and Harvard Law School professor, thinks the 9/11 movement, for challenging the official “truth”, should be infiltrated by US intelligence agents in order to shut down the fact-based doubters of government propaganda.

When a law professor at our two most prestigious law schools wants to suppress scientific evidence that challenges government veracity, we know that in America respect for truth is dead.

The notion that a country in which truth is dead is a “light unto the world” is an absurdity.

David Cameron, Serving Britain or Israel

By: Rachel Lowenburg

For those spiritual and those not, the words of the Bible contain common sense and truth. Take for instance the simple words of advice that “No man can serve two masters - for he will love one and despise the other.”

Just how then can the British Prime Minister vow to serve both Britain and Israel? Could it now be that David Cameron’s blatant and accelerating dismantling of the British nation, its Constitution, defence, values, morality, history and customs is a sign that he has come to despise the British?

For those who are sensitive about mention of Israel, it is worth emphasising that this article is not about the rights or wrongs of Israel as a nation or its people - our interest and attention is directed to David Cameron, Britain as a Sovereign nation and the Conservative Party. In particular we believe that the British public are entitled to know and understand what their Prime Minister is doing - especially where National loyalty, conflict of interest and treason are concerned.

Starring on the front page of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) website, British Prime Minister David Cameron’s boyish face is partly hidden in shadows and flanked by Israeli flags - it’s a powerful and emotive media image. But aimed at whom?

The headline is equally robust and more telling - Prime Minister David Cameron: “In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible.”

Read more

Why the Globe and Mail Is Mostly Bollocks

A newspaper publisher, you'd think, would aim to make a profit. In fact, the directors of any newspaper owned by a public company have a legal obligation to the shareholders to maximize profit.

However, the Globe and Mail, Canada's self-proclaimed national newspaper, is 85% controlled by the Thomson-family-owned private company, Woodbridge. Perhaps this explains why, instead of publishing news that people might be glad to pay for, it publishes politically correct bollocks about the terrifying incidence (not) of anti-Semitism in Canada, ridiculous war propaganda, and last week, the need for British Columbia to spend billions on a totally uneconomic scheme to eliminate all carbon emissions in the supply of electricity, notwithstanding that British Columbia is among the World's largest producers of green power. Thus, last Thursday, the G and M's British Columbia section led with an article: Hydro policy threatens to collapse climate-change progress, scientist says:

The Clark government appears poised to adopt a new policy that would roll back the province’s requirements to ensure it can meet its domestic electricity needs even in extreme drought conditions.

Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist, said Wednesday that would be a mistake, forcing the province to rely on imports from coal-fired plants rather than building up the clean energy sector that the province has been seeking to develop under its Clean Energy Act.

Quite scary As Marvin Shafer points out in a commentary at rabble.ca, if true.

But there is no basis for the story that was told and little need to be concerned. There was no science in the scientist's reported remarks. It was sadly just another effort, sponsored by the Independent Power Producers (IPP) lobby, to encourage the government to retain the now widely discredited "self-sufficiency" policy that is forcing BC Hydro to buy more power than it needs to ensure reliable supply.

The policy issue is not, as characterized by Justine Hunter in the Globe, whether BC Hydro should be able to meet its requirements in drought conditions. Of course it must be able to do that. BC Hydro must ensure reliable supply under all water conditions. The issue is how that can best be done.

The government's self-sufficiency policy requires BC Hydro to guard against the risk of drought by entering into long-term firm power purchase contracts with British Columbia IPPs -- power that in many years it will not need and be forced to sell at a loss. It precludes BC Hydro from even considering more cost-effective and in many ways less environmentally damaging options -- in particular relying on the spot market for electricity in those years that its own hydro production is limited by drought.

Oh, and that bit about "Andrew Weaver, the Nobel laureate climate scientist?"

There is no Nobel Prize for climate science.

Professor Andrew Weaver is not a Nobel Prize winner.

The Nobel Prize referred to is not a science prize.

The Nobel Prize the Globe and Mail is talking about is the 2007 Peace Prize, which was awarded jointly to Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), members of which include 194 countries, but no individuals. In other words, an almost totally meaningless prize that insults 194 countries by association with Al Gore's bogus claims about climate science.

Although thousands of scientists have participated in writing the IPCC's periodic climate change assessment reports, none of them are, or could be, members of the IPCC, which means that none of them are Nobel Prize winners by virtue of their participation in the the preparation of the IPCC's tendentious and scientifically questionable reports.

Other brilliantly inspired choices for the Nobel Peace Prize made by the Norwegian politicians making up the Peace Prize selection committee include Barak Obama (2009), author of various extensions to the war on terror, Menachem Begin (1978), Irgun terrorist, author of the King David Hotel bombing that left 93 dead, and war criminal, Henry Kissinger (1973), author of the mass killing by illegal bombing of Cambodia (1969-1975).