• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0
there's the reputation of renowned peacemakers like Henry Kissinger
we
need to treasure
----
Despite the fact that the United States is embroiled in three major
conflicts and can barely service its own gigantic debt, top globalist
and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently told fellow
elitists at three different globalist confabs that the US needs to
launch a ground invasion of Libya.

Despite the fact that the United States is embroiled in three major
conflicts and can barely service its own gigantic debt, top warmonger
and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently told fellow
elitists at three different globalist confabs that the US needs to
launch a ground invasion of Libya.

FACT NO. 1:
On March 28, 2011, Obama's Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the
United States HAS NO VITAL INTERESTS in Libya.

FACT NO. 2:
On March 28, 2011, the Pentagon said that the cost to US taxpayers of
Obama's "kinetic military action" war in Libya was $600 MILLION for
the first week:

U.S. ships and submarines in the Mediterranean have unleashed at least
191 Tomahawk cruise missiles to the tune of $268.8 million.
U.S. warplanes have dropped 455 precision guided bombs, costing tens
of thousands of dollars each.
A downed Air Force F-15E fighter jet will cost more than $60 million
to replace.
Operation of the war craft, guzzling ever-expensive fuel to maintain
their positions off the Libyan coast and in the skies above, could
reach millions of dollars a week.

FACT NO. 3:
On March 29, 2011, at approxmately 7pm, west coast time:

The U.S. national debt is OVER 14 TRILLION DOLLARS:
$14,262,703,284,888.
US gross domestic product is $14,639, 682,230,000 (which means our
national debt is almost the equivalent of our GDP!)
Debt per citizen is $45,949.
Debt per taxpayer is $128,383.

never forget who Kissinger represents


On Jun 29, 12:49 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>     <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/> Nobel Committee
> Rescinds Obama's Peace
> Prize<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/nobel-committee-res...>
> *Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* | June 29,
> 2011 at 10:41 am | Tags: Afghanistan
> war<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=afghanistan-war>,
> Al Gore <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=al-gore>,
> fraud<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=fraud>,
> Henry Kissinger<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=henry-kissinger>,
> IPCC <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=ipcc>, Iraq
> war<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=iraq-war>,
> Libya war <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=libya-war>,
> Pakistan<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=pakistan>,
> where are the peaceniks<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=where-are-the-peaceniks>,
> Yassar Arafat <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=yassar-arafat>,
> Yemen <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=yemen> | Categories: Idiot
> U.S. Presidents <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=56949039>,
> Liberals <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=35711271>,
> Libya<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=16272>,
> Military <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=33806753>, United
> Nations <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=59722>, United
> States<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=5850>,
> US Presidents <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=51656283> | URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-7Ra
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/10.jpg>
>
> BREAKING NEWS!
>
> Obama Forfeits Peace
> Prize<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28406.htm>
>
> By Robert S. Becker - June 26 2011 - Information Clearing House
>
> Stuck between shame and chagrin, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has for the
> first time in human history reversed a past prize selection. With high drama
> this week, the Committee notified President Obama his misguided 2009 Prize
> has been formally rescinded, requesting the $1.4 million payoff be returned.
>
> "It's not about the money," conceded a press release, "we have a sacred
> obligation to protect the honor of humanitarian-arms maker Alfred Nobel.
> Plus, there's the reputation of renowned peacemakers like Henry Kissinger we
> need to treasure. Sadly, we are forced to conclude that since his '09 award
> ceremony Obama has qualified as nothing less than the world's greatest,
> pre-emptive warmonger. Frankly, outgunning Bush, with three new
> discretionary wars, contradicts humanistic notions of peacemaking. We are
> chagrined that, after the fact and in only two years, our winner doubled his
> war production. It's this reversal that triggers ours, despite all the
> office wall signage we have to change."
>
> Apparently, killing civilians with unmanned predatory drones in Pakistan,
> Yemen, and Libya pushed the Committee over the line. "Unlike Obama or Bush,
> we at Nobel admit blunders," explained Bjorn Bjorn, "Obama's soaring
> rhetoric carried magic dust because we, too, got enthralled by demonstrably
> empty promises. What were we thinking? Instead of ending regional violence,
> Obama has notched his military credibility, again and again. Our worst fear
> is that our Prize provided cover for new assaults, thus deflecting anti-war
> outrage. The only good news is the Afghan surge wasn't a prelude to striking
> Iran."
>
> Historically, Nobel choices have incited strong reactions, Bjorn continued,
> "like selecting hard-line, Vietnam cold warrior Henry Kissinger. But never
> before have we honored a leader blatantly wedded to pre-emptive bombing of
> civilians in non-attacking countries. What's the underlying Obama credo,
> "All we are saying is give war a chance"?
>
> +++
>
> Alas, the above is SATIRE. Ha Ha Ha Ha
>
> But if those Norwegian socialists on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have
> any shred of moral integrity, this should be real instead of satire.
>
> It was bad enough that the NPPC awarded the Peace Prize to such
> non-pacifists<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates>as
> Yassar Arafat (1994) and Henry Kissinger (1973), and swindlers such as
> Al
> Gore and the UN's IPCC (2007), but giving it to Obama 8½ months into his
> presidency <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize> takes the
> cake.
>
> Congrats, NPPC, for utterly trashing the meaning of "peace" and of "prize".
>
> H/t beloved fellow and brave Microsoft
> whistleblower<http://expotera-ceo.blogspot.com/2010/05/microsoft-illegal-campaign.html>
> *Tony Whitcomb*.
>
> *~Eowyn*
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/nobel-committee-res...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Reach
> out to your own subscribers with
> WordPress.com.<http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

0








North Korea to Head U.N.
Conference on Disarmament

 

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on The Weekly Standard.

On Tuesday, the United Nations again made itself an international laughing stock – except perhaps to the American taxpayers who continue to foot 22 percent of the bill – by appointing North Korea chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. That would be the same North Korea that, according to an article this week by Senator John Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has "twice tested nuclear weapons…is developing missiles to carry them…has built facilities capable of producing highly enriched uranium for more nuclear weapons" and has defied a U.N. arms embargo by exporting weapons and sensitive technologies to rogue regimes.

Alas, Senator Kerry is also one of the lead champion of the United Nations in the Senate. According to the U.N., "The Conference is funded from the UN regular budget, reports to the General Assembly and receives guidance from it."

North Korea assumes the Conference chairmanship by being the next state in the alphabetical rotation of the 65 members, which include five nuclear weapons states and 60 other countries such as Iran and Syria. North Korea will preside over the Conference for a four working-week period.

North Korea's representative, So Se Pyong, was enthusiastic about his new job. He announced that he was "very much committed to the Conference" and that during his presidency he "welcomes any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the Conference on Disarmament." He also said that "he would do everything in his capacity to move the Conference on Disarmament forward."

That might make sense, if by "forward" he means toward a nuclear winter, or by "constructive," he means steering clear of anything that might impede North Korea. The official mandate of the Conference looks a bit different and includes "all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems" with the following "main areas of interest": "cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters."

North Korea's chairmanship was heralded by other U.N. aficionados, including the Iranian delegate to the Conference. Iran's Mohammad Hassan Daryaei told the Conference meeting: "I would like to congratulate the distinguished ambassador of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the assumption of the presidency and assuring him of my delegation's full support and cooperation."

Iran's support is telling. Just yesterday Iran's Revolutionary Guards tested 14 long-range missiles that could carry a nuclear weapon, with the express purpose of hitting U.S. interests and Israel, according to the head of their aerospace division.

Congratulations also poured in from such upstanding world citizens and U.N. fans as China. China's Wang Qun "welcomed the presidency of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

It was left to the Canadian delegate to speak plainly. Canada's Marius Grinius said: "[I]n the last 13 years the Conference has failed to move forward on its core disarmament responsibilities, including the negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty…[T]he Conference on Disarmament is on life support because it no longer is the sole multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament. Indeed, it is not negotiating anything and has not been for a very long time."

Why not just put it out of its misery and pull the plug?

 

 

For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.



EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies.

We need your support to continue our crucial work. Donate to EYEontheUN online HERE.



Were you forwarded this e-mail by a friend or colleague? Subscribe here.

Unsubscribe here.

 


 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 





"US is not at war with Islam".

Denying the reality that Islam is at war with the US.
















--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0

Spread your Bacon Jam on this muslim's face.




--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0

What: Watermelons
When: Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:00 PM

Where: Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Ave, NE
Washington, DC

UN30 Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors SHARE

With characteristic wit and humor, James Delingpole's latest book, Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors, examines how "Climategate" came about and what it means. By delving into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, he shows that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red. He explains how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism and argues that the modern environmental movement – at its roots – is not an effort to save the world, but to rule it.

James Delingpole writes a blog for Britain's Daily Telegraph website and in 2010 won the Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism. He is the author of several books, including: 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy,Welcome to Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future and It Doesn't WorkHow To Be Right, and the Coward series of World War II adventure novels.

More About the Speakers James Delingpole
Author

 

Check it out!




UN30

Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors

SHARE

With characteristic wit and humor, James Delingpole's latest book, Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors, examines how "Climategate" came about and what it means. By delving into the background of the organizations and individuals who have sought to push global warming to the top of the political agenda, he shows that beneath their cloak of green lurks a heart of red. He explains how the scientific method has been sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism and argues that the modern environmental movement – at its roots – is not an effort to save the world, but to rule it.

James Delingpole writes a blog for Britain's Daily Telegraph website and in 2010 won the Bastiat Prize for Online Journalism. He is the author of several books, including: 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy,Welcome to Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future and It Doesn't WorkHow To Be Right, and the Coward series of World War II adventure novels.

More About the Speakers

James Delingpole
Author
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (libertarian-364@meetup.com)
This message was sent by bruce (majors.bruce@gmail.com) from Washington D.C. Libertarian Party Meetup.
To learn more about bruce, visit his/her member profile


Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



When Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of the UK, feminists had a debate about whether she was or was not a feminist, or more precisely, whether her taking office was or was not a feminist victory.  Most eventually admitted that the fact of a woman taking office changed the way people looked at women and at politics, and the "power relations" between men and women, so that Thatcher's election represented a revolution for feminism.  As feminist Zoe Williams wrote in the leftist (UK) Guardian:


"... Thatcher did leave a legacy, perhaps not on the women's movement, but certainly - and arguably more importantly - on the practical conditions in which women live, and on our expectations. At the most basic level, the fact that a woman has occupied the most important job in the country has had an impact on the cultural landscape: in that sense alone, Thatcher expanded other women's horizons and did much to break down bigotry about women's work.

"You could also argue that, in an indirect and unintentional way, she helped broaden British notions of femininity. When the Spice Girls and their ilk lauded Thatcher for all the empowerment she rolled out, they were talking about more than the fact that she existed. They were talking about the fact that she was bellicose, uncompromising, uncaring and harsh. In the way she carried and presented herself, she might have been careful never to upset anyone's idea of what made a woman (always the fluffy hair, never the trouser suit), but in terms of personality and, chiefly, in terms of policy, she never showed any sign of 'feminine' compunction."


Most of us know that prejudice against gays and lesbians has some of its roots in prejudices against women and anxiety about any changes in, or boundary crossings of, traditional gender roles.  Little boys are attacked for being too feminine, little girls for being too masculine, on playgrounds across America, and as soon as kids have a glimmer of sexual awareness, the "gender atypical" kid is attacked for being a queer.


We all know that there are very feminine girly lesbian women and girls and very masculine athletic gay men and boys.  But studies of brain structures and testosterone levels and many other physical characteristics do suggest that gays and lesbians usually have some characteristics intermediate between those of most women and most men.


So having a woman candidate, almost whatever her views, run for or be elected to an office women have never held, is itself a revolutionary social change that makes things better for lesbians and gays.  And so I think Michele Bachmann's surprising tie with the better funded Mitt Romney in the GOP polls is a good thing for gays and lesbians.




I don't think it actually matters that it is difficult to parse Michele Bachmann's (Michele Bachmann JD's) statements on gay marriage, state's rights, and federal authority.  I don't think it matters if Hillary Clinton would have done a better job at delivering on gay issues than either Michele Bachmann or President Obama (as opposed to continuing to milk the gay donor cash cow with promises and delays and half-measures).  And for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it matters that the debt tsunami and hyper-inflation and social upheaval coming at all of us, gay and straight, are much more important issues than gay rights (and that Bachmann is probably better on these issues than many other candidates including President Obama).


Nor am I endorsing Bachmann (or Palin, whose politicking has clearly helped sweep many women into office, from South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to South Dakota Congresswoman Kristi Noem), as my own preferences lean more to libertarian former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, or Congressman Ron Paul, or the "undiscovered candidate," gay Californian Fred Karger.


But I think intellectual honesty, almost an unknown substance inside the Beltway and during Presidential campaigns, requires that we admit the salutary gender politics of Michele Bachmann.  I know the gay political class won't be capable of rising to that level of civility -- they will repeat such shameful 2008 episodes as Sandra Bernhard's telling rape jokes about Sarah Palin a few blocks from my home at DC's Jewish Community Center (Bernhard later apologized) (well documented in the upcoming documentary on Sarah Palin, "The Undefeated," which I was lucky to see a rough cut of a few weeks ago).  But it's well past time for gays and lesbians to have their own lavender herbal tea party and overthrow those who have been claiming to be their leaders.


Bruce Majors blogs at BigHomo (www.bighomocon.blogspot.com)



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



Nobel Committee Rescinds Obama's Peace Prize

BREAKING NEWS!

Obama Forfeits Peace Prize

By Robert S. Becker - June 26 2011 - Information Clearing House

Stuck between shame and chagrin, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee has for the first time in human history reversed a past prize selection. With high drama this week, the Committee notified President Obama his misguided 2009 Prize has been formally rescinded, requesting the $1.4 million payoff be returned.

"It's not about the money," conceded a press release, "we have a sacred obligation to protect the honor of humanitarian-arms maker Alfred Nobel. Plus, there's the reputation of renowned peacemakers like Henry Kissinger we need to treasure. Sadly, we are forced to conclude that since his '09 award ceremony Obama has qualified as nothing less than the world's greatest, pre-emptive warmonger. Frankly, outgunning Bush, with three new discretionary wars, contradicts humanistic notions of peacemaking. We are chagrined that, after the fact and in only two years, our winner doubled his war production. It's this reversal that triggers ours, despite all the office wall signage we have to change."

Apparently, killing civilians with unmanned predatory drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya pushed the Committee over the line. "Unlike Obama or Bush, we at Nobel admit blunders," explained Bjorn Bjorn, "Obama's soaring rhetoric carried magic dust because we, too, got enthralled by demonstrably empty promises. What were we thinking? Instead of ending regional violence, Obama has notched his military credibility, again and again. Our worst fear is that our Prize provided cover for new assaults, thus deflecting anti-war outrage. The only good news is the Afghan surge wasn't a prelude to striking Iran."

Historically, Nobel choices have incited strong reactions, Bjorn continued, "like selecting hard-line, Vietnam cold warrior Henry Kissinger. But never before have we honored a leader blatantly wedded to pre-emptive bombing of civilians in non-attacking countries. What's the underlying Obama credo, "All we are saying is give war a chance"?

+++

Alas, the above is SATIRE. Ha Ha Ha Ha

But if those Norwegian socialists on the Nobel Peace Prize Committee have any shred of moral integrity, this should be real instead of satire.

It was bad enough that the NPPC awarded the Peace Prize to such non-pacifists as Yassar Arafat (1994) and Henry Kissinger (1973), and swindlers such as Al Gore and the UN's IPCC (2007), but giving it to Obama 8½ months into his presidency takes the cake.

Congrats, NPPC, for utterly trashing the meaning of "peace" and of "prize".

H/t beloved fellow and brave Microsoft whistleblower Tony Whitcomb.

~Eowyn

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Mr. President, Your Default Rhetoric Is Just Not So.
June 29, 2011 by Justin Ptak

Barack Obama moments ago proclaimed that no one is advocating for default.

San Jose State University Assoc. Professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel calls for exactly such a default:

But my major disagreement with Tyler [Cowen] and Arnold [Kling] is that I believe that a U.S. government default, rather than being "the end of the world," could possibly be a good thing. I even advocated repudiating the national debt in a 1981 issue of CALIBER (the newsletter of the California Libertarian Party), long before predicting a default. My arguments were moral, economic, and political, and I would only soften them slightly today.
The moral argument for repudiation is easiest to follow although by itself says nothing about the practical results. Treasury securities represent a stream of future tax revenues, and investors have no more just claim to those returns than to any investment in a criminal enterprise. I favor total repudiation of all government debt for the same reason I favor abolition of slavery without compensation to slaveholders.
The economic argument depends on whether Ricardian Equivalence holds. Repudiating government debt eliminates future tax liabilities. To the extent that people correctly anticipate those liabilities, the value of private assets (including human capital) should rise over the long run by the same amount that the value of government securities falls. Thus, people will gain or lose depending how closely their wealth is associated with the State. If on the other hand, people underestimate their future tax liabilities, they suffer from a fiscal or "bond illusion" in which Treasury securities make them feel wealthier than they actually are. Debt repudiation will bring their expectations into closer alignment with reality, which should increase saving.

LVMI's own Bob Murphy has made the same point:

There is a strong libertarian argument to be made that all tax revenues are stolen, and in that respect the government has no business "honoring" its debt at all.

Gary North has stated default will come, and that the vast majority of the people of the United States will benefit from it:

Liberty will receive a shot in the arm when this phrase provokes universal laughter: "The full faith and credit of the United States." That day is fast approaching. The credit rating of the United States government will be marked down from AAA to AA. It will then be marked down to A. For every notch down that it falls, the national day of deliverance draws closer. American liberty is measured inversely to the credit rating of the United States government.

The President should hear from these voices and this rationale. I highly doubt he has even considered these arguments and would greatly benefit from a week at Mises University.



Abercrombie & Fitch Muslim bitch claims she's getting death threats from people who want to behead her and wrap her head in pigskin

barenakedislam | June 28, 2011 at 10:37 PM | Categories: CAIR Nazis, Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-w4L

Yeah, sure you did. Sorry sweetie, it's YOUR people who do all the beheadings in this world. Get the hell out of this country. Nobody wants your kind here. This video came from CAIR, no surprise, so we know who's behind this false allegation. I guess she thinks she'll get a bigger payoff from A&F [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.









http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/disappearing-la-ni-blamed-us-disastrous-weather-january

 

Disappearing La Niña blamed for U.S. disastrous weather since January

Published 29 June 2011

La Niña and El Niño are opposite extremes of a great Pacific oscillation; every two to seven years, surface waters across the equatorial Pacific warm up (El Niño) and then they cool down again (La Niña); each condition has its own distinct effects on weather; La Niña was strong in December, but disappeared in January, leaving nothing to constrain the jet stream; the jet stream took advantage of the new freedom -- with disastrous results for the weather

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/standard/tornad0-1.jpg

The Tuscaloosa tornado of 2011 // Source: giantbomb.com

Record snowfall, killer tornadoes, devastating floods: Since December 2010, the weather in the United States has been wild. The question is why?

Some recent news reports have attributed the phenomenon to an extreme "La Niña," a band of cold water stretching across the Pacific Ocean with global repercussions for climate and weather. NASA Science reports that NASA climatologist Bill Patzert names a different suspect: "La Nada." "La Niña was strong in December," he says. "But back in January it pulled a disappearing act and left us with nothing – La Nada – to constrain the jet stream. Like an unruly teenager, the jet stream took advantage of the newfound freedom — and the results were disastrous."

La Niña and El Niño are opposite extremes of a great Pacific oscillation. Every two to seven years, surface waters across the equatorial Pacific warm up (El Niño) and then they cool down again (La Niña). Each condition has its own distinct effects on weather.

NASA Science notes that the winter of 2010 began with La Niña conditions taking hold. A "normal" La Niña would have pushed the jet stream northward, pushing cold arctic air (one of the ingredients of severe weather) away from the lower US. But this La Niña petered out quickly, and no El Niño rose up to replace it. The jet stream was free to misbehave.

"By mid-January 2011, La Niña weakened rapidly and by mid-February it was 'adios La Niña,' allowing the jet stream to meander wildly around the U.S. Consequently the weather pattern became dominated by strong outbreaks of frigid polar air, producing blizzards across the West, Upper Midwest, and northeast U.S."

The situation lingered into spring — and things got ugly. Russell Schneider, Director of the NOAA-NWS Storm Prediction Center, explains:

"First, very strong winds out of the south carrying warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico met cold jet stream winds racing in from the west. Stacking these two air masses on top of each other created the degree of instability that fuels intense thunderstorms."

Extreme contrasts in wind speeds and directions of the upper and lower atmosphere transformed ordinary thunderstorms into long-lived rotating supercells capable of producing violent tornadoes.

In Patzert's words, "The jet stream — on steroids — acted as an atmospheric mix master, causing tornadoes to explode across Dixie and Tornado Alleys, and even into Massachusetts."

All this because of a flaky La Niña? "La Niña and El Niño affect the atmosphere's energy balance because they determine the location of warm water in the Pacific, and that in turn determines where huge clusters of tropical thunderstorms form," explains Schneider. "These storms are the main energy source from the tropics influencing the large scale pattern of the jet stream that flows through the U.S."

In agreement with Patzert, he notes that the very strong and active jet stream across the lower United States in April "may have been related to the weakening La Niña conditions observed over the tropical Pacific."

An intriguing question: "Does any research point to climate change as a cause of this wild weather?"

"Global warming is certainly happening," asserts Patzert, "but we can't discount global warming or blame it for the 2011 tornado season. We just don't know … Yet."

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
June 28, 2011
The 5 Steps of How The Fictitious 9/11 Story Was Implanted Into The Public Consciousness
by Saman Mohammadi

The freaky thing about the false flag attack on 9/11 is that a ready-made script to blame the attacks on radical Islamists was prepared and written years ahead of time.

The false narrative of who did 9/11 and why they did it was so believable because media portrayals of Muslims as terrorists in films and other media created a very powerful effect on how people in the Western world saw the politics of the Middle East and the people who lived there. It was easy for the spin masters in the Bush administration, other elements of the U.S. government, and the Israeli government to implant a false version of reality into the public consciousness on September 11, 2001 because by that point the propaganda war against Muslims and Arabs had already been won.

The rogue forces behind the 9/11 attacks, especially the neoconservatives, launched a coordinated and massive propaganda campaign before 9/11 against Arabs and Muslims in academia, media, and politics to make them look irrational, barbaric, and primitive.

9/11 was an act of self-prophecy by the neocons and the criminals in the rogue governments of the United States and Israel.

Below I list 5 steps of how the masters of reality implanted the fictitious narrative of the 9/11 events into the global popular consciousness.

1. Hire intellectuals in academia and enlist think tanks to invent new enemies, hype the threat posed by foreign regimes to America, construct a fantasy-based belief system, and create an ideological paradigm that will serve the perverted interests and goals of the war establishment in America, and Israel.

Northrop Frye raised a pivotal question in his book 'Words With Power.' Frye asked: "What creates an ideology in the first place? Why does social authority rationalize its power in words, instead of simply asserting that it has it, which according to Thrasymachus is all it needs to do?" (1).

The reason why power has to justify itself to the people is because there is a force greater than power - the social instinct for justice. The rulers of the U.S. empire use deception and psychological mind control to protect their ill-gotten power and privileges because if the truth were known about the depth of criminality of the empire then it could not survive as a social, political, and economic system. The rulers of the U.S. empire are not a stabilizing force in the world, but a corrupt and corrosive monster who eat their own people and chews out America's young soldiers.

The truth is that all national standing armies are obsolete social institutions, not just the U.S. empire. But that is a revolutionary truth so new enemies have to be constantly created to legitimize the U.S. empire, as well as other armies around the world.

Samuel P. Huntington, who acted as a surrogate for the power elite and war establishment, was a hired intellectual. He helped to create a myth of inevitable conflict between Western civilization and Islamic civilization, and wrote a popular book about it in 1996 called 'The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.' Huntington played a key role in establishing a new consensus in Washington in the 1990s that international terrorism and Middle Eastern nations are the new enemies of the U.S. empire.

There was a dark logic at work because the U.S. empire had to find new enemies to justify its gigantic military presence around the world and massive military industry at home. Casting the new enemy as international terrorism gave the evil empire a purpose, and a sense of direction. In the 1990s the empire was lost in the wilderness, bewildered and confused; on September 11, 2001, there was a whole new ball game. New batters were up, the same pitchers were at it again, and the crowd was as large as ever.

But what the crowd isn't told is that there is only one team playing on the field - the U.S. empire. It has no real enemies. It has no competition. The empire gave itself a self-inflicted wound on 9/11 with the help of Israel, and then cried to the American people "we're bleeding, radical Jihadists did it, let's go and kill them!"

Edward Said crushed Huntington's moronic myth to pieces in this lecture. Said described how there are different strains within any given culture and civilization, and remarked that it is a sign of anti-intellectualism to paint a civilization as monolithic. There are parts of Islamic nations that are barbaric and backward, but the West is even more barbaric and backward because it is ruled by a criminal banking and political class that starts evil wars based on lies, and steals from the people of all nations through usury money lending practices and engineered economic crises.

You can read Said's criticism of the clash of civilizations myth in my article 'War on Terror: The Official Grand Narrative Vs. The Counter-Narrative.' Some other useful information is also included in 'The War on Terror: A Myth of Conflict Between Islam And The West.' Another good article you should read is by Tony Cartalucci called Brookings Institute: "Which Path to Persia?"

2. Hire journalists to pump the press with fabricated stories and lies to hype the dangerous new enemy until there is a blanket of disinformation and hysteria over the entire news media, national conversation, and popular culture. The people must be bathed in government lies to the point that anyone who wishes to dry himself with the towels of truth will be looked at as a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Robert Bonomo has written a terrific article called 'Banging the Drums of War: Iran and the Neo-cons,' that illustrates how filthy war rapists such as The New York Times's Thomas Friedman, The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, and The Washington Posts's Charles Krauthammer cultivate irrational fears in America about countries that pose no threat to the American people and global security. Bonomo writes:
What's most amazing about the ideological support for an attack on Iran is how we have not even begun to debate how and why we went into Iraq. During the 1970s the United States went through a deep and painful period of introspection regarding Vietnam. Mysteriously, the debate on Iraq has simply morphed into a debate on Iran. Where is the national dispute on how, why, and who is to blame for this deadly, devastating debacle?

For the most part, corporate journalists are whores who work for an enslaved press that treats the public like ignorant trash. If there is a hell for newspapers the New York Times would be there along with Pravda and other official organs of political parties and totalitarian governments.

John Swinton, Chief Editorial Writer of The New York Times between 1860 to 1870, said:
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

If journalists were whores in those days then they are worse than whores today. There is no greater enemy to human freedom and world peace than the corporate and government press in America, Canada, and other Western nations. That is not hyperbole. That is a fact.

3. Stage a big false flag attack like 9/11. Make it a public ritual and a highly symbolic event that changes the course of history in the direction you want.

There is growing awareness of the fact popular beliefs about historical events and political figures are made. The controllers of the press in the United States and the Western world crafted a narrative about 9/11, international terrorism, and the war on terror that has no basis in fact, but which rationalizes dictatorial policies and criminal invasions of sovereign nations.

David I. Kertzer, a professor at Brown University, wrote in his 1988 book 'Ritual, Politics, and Power' that a public ritual such as a state funeral service for a decorated soldier "plays an important political role in bringing about solidarity where consensus is lacking" and "is an important means of influencing people's ideas about political events, political policies, political systems, and political leaders," (2). Kertzer adds:
Through ritual , people develop their ideas about what are appropriate political institutions, what are appropriate qualities in political leaders, and how well the world around them measures up to these standards. Political understandings are mediated through symbols, and ritual, as a potent form of symbolic representation, is a valuable tool in our construction of political reality. (3).

The public is denied information and evidence by the press which proves that there is a real history of 9/11 and a politically constructed history. People who don't believe in the politically constructed narrative are considered crazy and mental lepers, and casted out of society. This impulse to call people "fringe" and deny them the rights of human existence happens in all societies throughout history. It is not an American phenomenon, or a modern phenomenon, but an ancient and a human phenomenon. People don't like to change their beliefs so they demonize anyone who questions their beliefs. A lot of people would rather die with their political and cultural beliefs intact then change their interpretation of history and of the world.

Kertzer says that we have delusions about how rational we are, and are too confident that our beliefs are true. There is a magic element in history, in politics and power, which can be manipulated by rulers and elites through the staging of emotionally powerful public rituals. Kertzer writes:
By repetitively employing a limited pool of powerful symbols, often associated with emotional fervor, rituals are an important molder of political beliefs. Political reality is defined for us in the first place through ritual, and our beliefs are subsequently reaffirmed through regular collective expression.

But what does all this say about our rational faculties, our ability to think logically and independently, to examine a problem critically and come to a rational conclusion based on an examination of the evidence? Unfortunately, it suggests that this view of our essentially rational nature is hard to defend. As Edelman observed, our most cherished and deeply rooted political beliefs are rarely if ever subjected to debate or critical examination. It is just because they are so deeply held that any sincere debating of their validity is so threatening, for to do so is to recognize implicitly that they may be erroneous. (4).

The 9/11 ritual was powerful and potent. In a flash, a new enemy was created out of thin air, and a new war was born. The Judas goats in the U.S. government and mainstream media sacrificed thousands of innocent people and created a pseudo-reality for the American and global public that allows them to invade innocent countries and murder innocent people in the name of national defense.

4. Get government agents and conspirators behind the 9/11 plot on television news stations immediately after the attacks to blame the enemies who were previously hyped in the press for the deed. Then repeat the official talking points in the press. Don't allow anyone to question the government's fictitious narrative about the event. Shout down critics as conspiracy theorists and unpatriotic nutcases.

The clearest example of this was seen on BBC television when former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak was interviewed one hour after the attacks in New York City happened. The evil Barak took over the conversation in a bullish manner and mentioned the name "Bin Laden" as a possible terrorist candidate who was responsible for the attacks without providing any evidence.

Throughout the eight minute long interview Barak name-dropped a list of targets, including several states, that had no role in the attacks. He also said that Western society must become less free to fight the new stateless enemy. Several times he said that the "international community," led by the United States, Britain, and Israel, must tackle terrorism by attacking rogue states, and then listed Iraq, Libya, Iran, and North Korea. It is clear that Barak was putting out a political narrative and deceiving the public. Other world leaders pushed the same false narrative.

It was the false word of authority, not the sword of a stateless enemy, that brought America and world civilization to its knees on September 11, 2001. President Bush acted as a storyteller and a transmitter of myth, which is the job of modern U.S. presidents. George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama must all have a dual personality because that is what the job demands.

5. Construct a big popular myth about how and why the 9/11 attacks happened and who was responsible. Cast Israel's enemies and the Empire's enemies (independent nations like Saddam's Iraq, Gaddafi's Libya, Iran, and North Korea) as "evil" and "bad," and the U.S. empire/Israel as "good" and a "protector of freedom, democracy, international law, and human rights."

Myths that are created for corrupt political purposes and criminal objectives like the one about 9/11 must be deconstructed and destroyed for the health of human society and the security of all nations.

It is tough in our era to separate history from myth, and truth from lies because of Washington's policy of state secrecy and cover-up mentality, but it is not impossible. We know 9/11 was an inside job because that is what the scientific evidence and common sense tells us. We are not in the dark about this. Only the fools who believe everything the government tells them like to keep themselves in the dark, but they're not really in the dark. The 9/11 truth movement has received mainstream exposure. It is not a fringe movement.

There is a difference between myths and accepted myths. Northrop Frye said:
Accepted myths soon cease to function as myths: they are asserted to be historical facts or descriptive accounts of what "really happened," (5).

The government story of 9/11 is no longer an accepted myth. It is regarded as a big phony lie by millions of people, and several government leaders. This week, Iran is hosting an International Conference on the Global Fight against Terrorism to get at the roots of the crisis.

Although the conference has not received any attention in the corporate-state media in the United States and the West, the rest of the world is beginning to publicly question the fictitious official story which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, a world war in the Middle East, and a global political crisis.

We are seeing across the world the destruction of a global mythology and the emergence of a historical understanding of the horrific truth about the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general.

The American people are tasked by history with the greatest responsibility of any people: overthrowing their own empire and its evil mythology. If they don't bring it down, then the empire will collapse upon them like an elephant falling on ants and destroy millions of lives in the process.

Destroying the myth of 9/11 will be a great defeat against tyranny, but we have to expect massive political and social instability in American society and other societies as well. A fine line must be walked because there is a tightrope, and below it is hell. Total chaos could descend on America if the exposure of what really happened on 9/11 is not done rationally, and constructively. An entire political, legal, social and economic order is being put on trial.

People who say the truth about the 9/11 attacks doesn't matter don't know what they are talking about. They don't have any idea. Government goals and policy prescriptions have been organized around 9/11. America is fighting a global war on terror because of 9/11. The world is looking on as NATO and U.S. troops invade nation after nation because of 9/11. 9/11 revealed the nature of Washington's hegemonic power and how it is used against the American people.

Frye said that myths play an important social function in society. Myths have "two contexts," said Frye. "In their structure they resemble other types of story, and so are potentially literary. But in early societies they also develop a social function that we have been calling ideological. They play a leading role in defining a society, in giving it a shared possession of knowledge, or what is assumed to be knowledge, peculiar to it," (6).

Martin S. Day, author of 'The Many Meanings of Myth,' touched on the same theme as Frye, writing that "all myth serves the cause of mental health in communities and in individuals by objectivizing the universal fears and desires of mankind and working these drives to solution," (7). I think this goes to the heart of 9/11. When we speak the truth about 9/11 and tell people to question the false government narrative of the events we must remember the fact that the human psyche is a very sensitive thing. People's psyches are threatened when they're told that their beliefs are false, their leaders are criminal liars, and their government is committing mass murder.

As a species, we are in uncharted territory. The politically crafted 9/11 myth distorted public perceptions for criminal ends and thereby destroyed the American people's inherent right of self-government, which includes the right to know.

But something historic is happening. Millions of individuals in America and millions more around the world have deleted the fictitious story of 9/11 from their mental software without the aid of the old media (newspapers, television, films, music), which is used as a cultural hardware system by a criminal transnational conspiracy to implant political and social beliefs into the public consciousness. This is an amazing social and political awakening that may lead to fundamental changes in how the world is structured, how people are governed, and how societies make decisions.

What began as a movement to find out the truth of what happened on 9/11 has grown in a short decade into a global consciousness movement that is determined to redefine politics and government forever.


Sources:

1. Frye, N. Words with Power: Being a Second Study of "The Bible and Literature." 1990. Pg. 20.
2. Kertzer, D. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Pg. 78-79.
3. Ibid. Pg. 79.
4. Ibid. Pg. 95-96.
5. Frye, N. Words with Power: Being a Second Study of "The Bible and Literature." 1990. Pg. 34.
6. Ibid. Pg. 31.
7. Day, Martin. The Many Meanings of Myth. 1984. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1984. Pg. 277.

http://bit.ly/kgPvkD

Two Wrongs on Libya Won't Make a Right
by Laurence M. Vance, June 28, 2011

Since the day President Obama began his military escapade against Libya on March 19, members of Congress have expressed indignation because they were not consulted. Not, mind you, because they necessarily oppose any of the wars the United States has been or is currently involved in, but because they were not asked to sign off on the military action.

Now, over three months and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Congress is beginning to take action. But is that a good thing?

House Speaker, John Boehner sent a letter to the president warning him that he was out of time under the War Powers Act that says the president must terminate a military mission ninety days after notifying Congress that troops have been deployed into some hostility.

Boehner also says that the president lacks the support of members of the House for authorizing the Libyan military operation.

Several House members are backing measures to cut off funds for the Libyan intervention (with exceptions, of course).

Ten lawmakers (seven Republicans and three Democrats) have filed a lawsuit asking a judge to order the president to pull out of the Libya campaign because Congress didn't authorize it.

A bipartisan resolution in the Senate would allow the Libyan operation to continue for one year.

A similar resolution has also been introduced in the House, along with another resolution that would require withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Libyan operation within fifteen days of passage.

The White House has issued a report asserting the president's authority to continue the Libyan military intervention without congressional approval because American involvement falls short of full-blown hostilities.

Congress, of course, is right in insisting that it is the governmental body that should make the decision to go to war. Something called the Constitution says so. The fact that the Obama administration refuses to call its Libyan foray a war while U.S. drones fire missiles into Libya is ludicrous. Any missile fired by any country at the United States would be considered an act of war.

But Congress errs in two respects.

First, a congressional authorization to use force is not a constitutional declaration of war.

The United States has declared war on other countries only eleven times encompassing five conflicts: Great Britain in 1812 (the War of 1812), Mexico in 1848 (the Mexican War), Spain in 1898 (the Spanish-American War), Germany and Austria-Hungary in 1917 (World War I), and Japan, Germany, and Italy in 1941 and Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in 1942 (World War II).

Although the United States has fought many wars and undertaken scores more military interventions since World War II, we haven't actually declared war on a country since that "good war." Congress has instead abrogated its responsibility and issued congressional authorizations for the president to use force: Eisenhower in 1955 (Taiwan) and 1957 (the Middle East), Kennedy in 1962 (Cuba and Berlin), Johnson in 1965 (Vietnam), George H.W. Bush in 1991 (Iraq), and George W. Bush in 2001 (Afghanistan) and 2002 (Iraq).

Sometimes Congress hasn't issued anything, like when Truman fought a full-scale war in Korea in the early 1950s, Eisenhower sent Marines to Lebanon in 1958, Johnson sent Marines to the Dominican Republic in 1965, Nixon invaded Cambodia in 1970, Reagan invaded Grenada in 1983, Bush invaded Panama in 1989, and Clinton sent troops to Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999.

And then there are all the other cases of the misuse of the military during and after the Cold War.

But second, and more important, two wrongs on Libya won't make a right.

Even if the president came to Congress and Congress voted to approve of military action in Libya, issue an authorization to use military force, or declare war on Libya ­ the president's military action in Libya would still be unconstitutional, hypocritical, and wrong.

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the U.S. government to intervene militarily in other countries? The preamble to the Constitution says that one reason the Constitution was "ordained and established" was to "provide for the common defense." To this end, Article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies," "provide and maintain a Navy," "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces," "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions," and "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." Getting involved in foreign wars was anathema to the Framers. What does intervening in Libya have to do with providing for the common defense of the United States? Absolutely nothing, of course. The president doesn't even claim it does. Our military mission in Libya is supposed to be to protect civilians, provide humanitarian assistance, and ­ whether publicly admitted or not ­ further our diplomatic goal of regime change.

It is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to intervene militarily in Libya for humanitarian concerns. Why Libya and not China? Doesn't China limit its families to having one child? Hasn't this also resulted in countless numbers of abortions, some of them forced? And where was the United States when Chairman Mao was killing his millions? Why Libya and not Saudi Arabia? Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive a car. Shouldn't we liberate Saudi women from such a blatant violation of their human rights? And where was our humanitarian concern when it came to Darfur and Rwanda? Thousands would still be alive if we had sent in the Marines. And what about when Stalin built the White Sea Canal with slave labor? Where was our humanitarian concern when he worked tens of thousands to their deaths? The terrible truth is that U.S. government humanitarian concerns are very selective. And, of course, untold multitudes of people are poor, oppressed, hungry, persecuted, and in danger all over the world right now. The United States can't possibly alleviate all the suffering and injustice in the world.

But not only can't the United States alleviate all the suffering and injustice in the world, it is neither the purpose of the U.S. military or the U.S. government to do so even if it were possible. Although it would be a terrible thing if Gaddafi imprisoned, beat, starved, tortured, enslaved, or killed any of the Libyan people, it is not the business of the United States. And the same is true if any other dictator or oppressive regime did the same thing. Individual Americans may be outraged, but that still doesn't make it the business of the U.S. government and its military. And what if more Americans than are outraged are either sympathetic or indifferent? What then? The United States is not morally obligated to intervene in any country, militarily or otherwise. Americans who are troubled over injustice and oppression throughout the world have several options. They can financially support resistance movements or, as the case may be, relief efforts. They can go and fight or provide humanitarian aid themselves. They can pray for the oppressive regime to fall and/or for the safety of children, refugees, or civilians in harm's way. If they feel that strongly, they should do all these things. But one thing they shouldn't do is expect other Americans to pay for it in blood and treasure through government intervention.

Needless to say, the United States should cease any and all military activity, directly or indirectly, that relates to Libya. And while we're at it, stop meddling and intervening in the rest of the world as well. The United States is not the world's policeman, fireman, security guard, or social worker, whether Congress affirms it or not. Two wrongs won't make a right.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106za.asp