Month: June 2008

war by way of deception trailer

Posted on


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAsAA8oi4lI

From: Ryantineocons
Added: June 29, 2008

I am so sick of hearing the poisonous disinfo about illuminati/german death cult/black pope/Ashkenazi etc.

911 was a joint US Israeli false flag. But the 911 kook movement makes it so that people will not speak out.
http://www.rys2sense.com/

***********************************************

Repost
September 11: ANOTHER False Flag Israeli Operation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I9z3IsBuSs

Advertisements

More Blood Money from Our Democratic Congress and Democratic Presidential Candidate

Posted on

Dave Lindorff

Laid-off American workers will be getting temporary extended benefits as the nation sinks into recession, thanks to Congressional Democrats, who cleverly tacked a funding provision onto a bill giving the president all the money he asked for (and then some) to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on out through next June. Veterans of the Iraq War will also be getting tuition benefits equal to the full cost of in-state public college tuition plus $1000 a year for books and supplies.

When workers pick up those unemployment checks from their state Department of Labor offices, though, they should see them as dripping blood. Those checks have been bought with the blood of American men and women in uniform who have been sent over and over into harm’s way in those two countries in misbegotten and criminal adventures that have nothing to do with defending America and everything to do with boosting the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, and with getting Bush re-elected and Republicans elected.

Iraq Vets, too, should not overlook the blood on their VA education benefits checks, because their tuition will be paid by the blood of active-duty comrades still left stranded in battle zones overseas.

It didn’t have to be like this.

For generations, Congress has voted supplemental funding for unemployment benefits to be extended during economic downturns—not always willingly, but always eventually, following enough pressure from workers and the labor movement.

For generations, too, Congress has voted for education benefits for veterans.

This being an election year, passage of a freestanding supplemental benefits bill for unemployment insurance and a restoration of decent education benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan War veterans would have been a sure thing. Even Republicans facing the prospect of re-election campaigns would have signed on to both measures by Labor Day and the votes would have been there to override any Bush veto. Neither measure—both important in themselves and badly needed—had to be tied to a war-funding bill.

But Democrats in the House and Senate leadership weren’t really thinking about the plight of the unemployed or the needs of returning veterans in this case. They were, rather, thinking of a way of putting some “progressive” window-dressing on a war-funding bill that they wanted to pass without having to take responsibility for it. Their objective was to push the whole issue of funding the wars out past Election Day, in hopes of not having to discuss it in the coming campaign.

Funding Bush’s and Cheney’s war in Iraq especially has, after all, become a more and more unpopular and difficult affair for Democrats. In this last go-round, fully 141 House Democrats voted against further funding of the war—nearly the same number as voted for it (149). At first, back in mid-May, the measure didn’t even pass, because Republicans cleverly joined with the anti-war Democrats in blocking the measure, forcing Democratic leaders to scramble to round up the votes to pass a bill the second time around.

Americans clearly don’t want the war to continue, and Democrats don’t want to have to face the voters, as every member of the House and a third of the Senate have to do this November, being labeled as war backers. That’s why they come up with these pathetic excuses like, “I’m opposed to the war but we have to support the troops.”

Any sentient being in the country by now knows that most of the long-suffering and abused troops, as polls have shown, think that the best way to support them is to bring them home immediately. A Zogby poll of active-duty troops in Iraq taken in 2006 found that 72% wanted the US out within a year, while one in four wanted all US troops out immediately. Only one in five supported staying “as long as necessary.” (With many of those troops on yet another rotation, in some cases their fifth, those numbers are probably even more in favor of immediate withdrawal today.) Military experts have also written about how all the troops in Iraq could be pulled out safely in as little as two weeks’ time. All the Pentagon would need to do is start running a constant convoy of trucks south to Kuwait, carrying troops and weapons systems. They could leave the porta-potties, the McDonalds stands, the bowling alleys, the gyms and the barracks to the Iraqis and then blow up whatever they didn’t want falling into the wrong hands. It would be easy and fast. There’s no need for Obama’s proposed 16-month staged withdrawal, which would just mean more unnecessary deaths and killings.

Democrats in Congress know all this, but congenitally spineless and devoid of principle, they’re afraid if they don’t fund the war they could be accused by Republicans of being “soft” on defense—as though the Iraq War had anything at all to do with protecting America.

And so they have come up with this shameless ruse of attaching a $95-billion domestic spending package, including unemployment funding measure and a veterans’ education benefits measure, to a $162-billion atrocity—a measure that assures more death and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more dead and maimed American military personnel. They’re pretending that they “pulled one over” on Bush by forcing him to sign an unemployment extension bill and a veterans’ bill, when they know Republicans would have forced him to sign those anyway, later in the summer.

The real joke is on the American people, and on those very workers and veterans who will be receiving the unemployment checks and tuition reimbursements funded as a result of this duplicitous tactic.

The $162 billion that Congress has voted for the continuation of the two pointless and disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the money already allocated for the so-called “War on Terror,” is all borrowed, and is a major contributor to the collapse of the dollar and to the resulting soaring of the price of oil, electricity and imported goods. It is thus a major contributor to the credit crisis and the collapse in the housing market that has pushed the nation into what may be the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Furthermore, the blood-money unemployment and tuition checks bought through his gutless subterfuge by House and Senate Democrats will be pissed away in no time on higher gas prices spent by workers on desperate job searches, or on long commutes to distant jobs or commutes if they are lucky enough to find them. It will be pissed away too for veteran/students on their commutes to college, and on higher heating bills for their families at home.

Equally important, the $162 billion wasted in Iraq, along with the half trillion dollars being wasted every year on military spending for a military colossus that encircles the globe for no good purpose other than intimidation of other nations, assures that those Democrats who control Congress can do nothing of consequence to shore up retirement funds, to develop a national health program, to improve our dismal school system, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, or to develop alternative, non-polluting energy sources that could combat global warming.

The Democratic Congress has shown itself to be worse than useless. It is part of the problem. That includes Sen. Barack Obama, who like Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, signed onto this contemptible funding bill.

The Deafening Silence…

Posted on

Monday, June 30, 2008

Phaedrus
https://i2.wp.com/www.le-champignon.net/paris2005/img/13_shh.jpgConsidering the ever-increasing surge of seriously disturbing accusations being leveled at our old friends, the Jews, it is rather curious indeed that their direct responses have been so remarkably distant and detached. Now please don’t misunderstand Phaedrus here. We are all well aware that they’re screaming “anti-Semitism!” at the top of their shrill little voices at those of us who seek to expose the truth about them and their very curious history. Nothing too surprising about that, of course. And not only that, but they’re lobbying their pet governments in the West to introduce ever more ingeniously-contrived ‘Hate Crime’ laws to prevent legitimate researchers into the Jewish Problem from communicating their shocking findings to a wider audience. Speaking the truth is becoming increasingly criminalized. Anyone and everyone who speaks in negative terms about the Jews must be trussed-up and gagged by any means possible. Now this situation will strike a lot of people as downright unfair, not least for the reasons I set out below.

It’s not odd at all, however, that the Jews would like to see all opposition to them crushed; that’s only to be expected. But the really curious thing that is awakening suspicions among even some Liberals, is that these extremely broad, blanket responses are their SOLE weapon of choice against us. This limited technique of theirs works fine when the opposition against them is patchy, insufficiently motivated and improperly informed. They can push for censorship on the grounds that ignorant bigots are spreading lies about them just because they’re a minority race of people who are simply misunderstood. And for a long, long time now, that’s worked well for them. But lately, things are beginning to change. In the face of a absolute firestorm of lurid accusations swirling around about them on the internet, one thing is increasingly obvious by its total absence: any effort to directly engage their accusers face-to-face.

The Jews simply WILL NOT discuss specific allegations. Curiously, they choose not to defend themselves in the way you or I would INSIST upon, were it we that were on the receiving end of such endless diatribes. Now at first, this could be explained away (and it was) by simply claiming that the Jews didn’t want to ‘provide a platform for racists.’ In the early days (pre-internet) that excuse was widely accepted among the sheeple, who dutifully nodded their heads in unison with this noble sentiment. After all, back then it did seem a perfectly plausible reason. But as time has worn on and the accusations only grow louder and more insistent, to continue to remain silent increasingly seems to imply that they are unable to discuss these matters for the simple reason that they CANNOT counter them; the accusations (crazy sounding that they may be to the uninformed) are NOT baseless. They are grounded in vast stacks of high quality documentary evidence which when put before a Jew would leave him stultified with no answers and nowhere to run. Hence they resort to blanket denials which are not open to cross-examination, and increasing efforts to gag us through the courts.

We see a form of this vigorous avoidance of the pertinent questions every year on Holocau$t Memorial Day. Endlessly we re-live the terrible suffering of the poor Jews at the hands of those terrible Nazis, yet, bizarrely, no mention is EVER made of WHAT precisely it was about the Jews that made Hitler act towards them in such a draconian way. Have you ever heard an old German soldier recounting WHY he was told to seek out Jews? You haven’t? Me neither. So we never get to the hear the OTHER side. And this outstanding omission becomes more and more obvious with every Holocau$t retrospective we’re forced to endure. Things happen for a REASON, and the Holocau$t was no exception. It takes an enormous amount of pent-up anger and resentment on the part of one set of people to treat another set of people so harshly. What were the underlying resentments behind this antipathy? We are NEVER told. All we ARE told is that the Jews were victims of a terrible program to wipe them all out. No background for this is ever provided by the mainstream media. We are simply expected not to pick-up on this fundamental question.

If you or I were accused of half the things the Jews have been accused of (financing endless wars, corrupting society, sacrificing young children in quasi-satanic ceremonies, drinking the blood of those whom they are about to kill, poisoning the desert wells of their neighbors, murdering Palestinian children for the fun of it, stealing land that doesn’t belong to them, being out for their own selfish gain regardless of the consequences to others, false flag attacks against the US to drag us into their never-ending foreign wars to name but a few of their many unique qualities) then I’m damn certain WE would DEMAND the right to confront our accusers so we could PROVE them liars and/or madmen for the entire world to see – and put and end to such ‘vile rumors’ for ever. It’s becoming increasingly odd to folks that the Jews response is simply to try to put these allegations beyond debate by generating taboos around them. One would have thought (if they had nothing to hide) that they would have been only too happy after so many thousands of years of being reviled and persecuted, to avail themselves of a great opportunity to set the record straight. Yet they won’t. And I believe now that ordinary people are beginning to wonder – why the deafening silence?

http://worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com/2008/06/deafening-silence.html

GM Foods: The U.S. Fights Mandatory Labeling in An Untested Human Experiment

Posted on

Monday, June 30, 2008 by: Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D.

NaturalNews
) The U.S. and several other nations recently attended a Codex meeting in Calgary, Canada to discuss food labeling. The Codex Alimentarius Commission implements the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program, the purpose of which is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. The Codex Alimentarius (Latin, meaning Food Law or Code) is a collection of internationally adopted food standards presented in a uniform manner. One of the principle reasons for this forum was to discuss the necessity, or lack of necessity as the U.S. sees it, to set up mandatory labeling of GM (genetically modified) and GE (genetically engineered) foods for consumers. South Africa (SA) and many African countries are strong dissenting voices of the U.S. policy that all GM/GE foods are considered equal to non-GM/GE foods and are in fact deemed safe under a 1992 George H. W. Bush Executive Order.

Under this official policy, all GM/GE foods are not required to undergo any kind of safety testing before entering the market. Below you will find the exact policy of the FDA concerning GM food:
“FDA relies primarily on two sections of the Act to ensure the safety of foods and food ingredients. Generally, whole foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and grains, are not subject to premarket approval. The primary legal tool that FDA has successfully used to ensure the safety of foods is the adulteration provisions of section 402(a)(1). The Act places a legal duty on developers to ensure that the foods they present to consumers are safe and comply with all legal requirements. FDA has authority to remove a food from the market if it poses a risk to public health. Foods derived from new plant varieties developed through genetic engineering will be regulated under this authority as well” [1].

Hence, nearly every modified food in the U.S. is completely untested for safety. This is very noteworthy for two reasons: (a) the U.S. leads the world in GM/GE foods (with up to 80% of its prepared and prepackaged foods being modified); and (b) every other nation besides the U.S. tests all GM/GE food before they are put into the food chain. Several African nations have dubbed GM/GE foods as “lethal” and believes the U.S. is fulfilling a population reduction strategy in Africa.

During the CODEX meeting, SA, who has been demanding that Codex provide them with distinct and mandatory GM/GE labels, presented a 10-page document expressing this view. In this document the following critical points were made:

1. Unmet Religious and Ethical Concerns of Christians and Jews

a. Corruption of Divine Protection

South Africa pointed out that in nearly every country there are various religious groups with differing beliefs when it comes to ingesting certain foods. South Africa stated that these “religious and ethical concerns must be noted and respected through global mandatory labeling of foods derived from genetic engineering and biotechnology must take into account ethical and religious concerns” [2] (CCFL, 2008, p. 1). For example, kosher Jews and Halal Muslims would wish to know whether the corn they were eating had been modified with a gene from pigs. Similarly, vegetarians would certainly wish to avoid vegetables which contained animal genes inserted into them and have an ethical right to know if this was the case.

B. Moral and Ethical Protection

SA contends that Codex and the WTO (World Trade Organization) assure protection of the moral, ethical and religious rights of Christian and Jewish believers. Therefore, mandatory labeling is essential to ensure these rights are preserved. If, for example, a Christian believed that God created the heaven and earth as well as all living creatures (including food), then a serious ethical concern would arise if he or she wanted to avoid such modified foods but had no realistic way to do so.

2. Unintended Consumer Health Effects

a. Psychological and Emotional Health

SA rightfully argued that the introduction of GM/GE foods violate the principles and mandates of Codex which are in place to protect the health of the consumer. In Norway, a report on GM/GE foods stated that, “some customers may experience strong ethical, religious, emotional or other objections for purchasing certain foods. These perceived risks may influence their health. These aspects of health should also be considered when the needs for new standards are discussed”[2]. Hence, the labeling of GM/GE foods should be mandatory under such an assumption.

B. Unknown Effects of Consumption of GM/GE Biotech Foods

Due to the lack of testing on GM/GE foods, safety is a significant concern for many individuals. These individuals may wish to avoid such food out of legitimate concern for their well-being. Antibiotic-resistant super diseases may be created if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM foods would transfer into the consumer. Furthermore, some concerning results have been evinced from animals consuming GM/GE foods. GM DNA has been found in every organ (including fetuses) of animals eating these types of food. Additionally, numerous studies have shown many deleterious short and long-term effects from the consumption of GM/GE foods. For example, spermicide-containing corn, which was developed with funds from the USDA, and results in complete sterility in males has been rampant in the food chain for some time. Without proper labeling of these types of foods, there is no way to protect the fertility of males. Several other recent studies are detailed below:

* In 2005 and 2006, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences reported that female rats who were fed glyphosate-tolerant GM soya produced an excessive number of stunted pups with over 50% of them dying within three weeks. The other half were all sterile. This experiment was repeated several times with the same result [3].

* Between 2005 and 2006 in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradech in India, thousands of sheep died while grazing on residues from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, which is a type of bacteria which is toxic to some types of insects) cotton crops [4].

* In 2003, villagers in the Philippines’ south suffered mysterious illnesses when a Monsanto Bt maize hybrid came into flower. At least five have died and many villagers tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein while others still remain chronically ill [5].

* Between 2001 and 2002, 12 cows died in Hesse, Germany after consuming Syngenta GM maize (Bt176), while many others had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses [6].

* From 2002 to 2005, researchers from four Italian universities published articles indicating that GM soya adversely affected pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice [5].

* In 2005, Australian researchers at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra reported that a harmless protein in beans (alpha-amylase inhibitor-1) caused inflammation in the lungs of mice and elicited increased dietary sensitivities to other proteins when transferred to peas [7].

* In 1998, researchers reported damage to every organ system of young rats who were fed GM potatoes containing snowdrop lectin [8]. In the same year, researchers in Egypt found analogous effects on the guts of mice fed Bt potato [9].

* In 2002, Aventis, later named Cropscience, submitted research to regulators in the U.K. reporting that chicken fed glufosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group [10].

C. Nutrient Non-Equivalence

SA contend that plants genetically modified may not be nutritionally equivalent, bio-available and can possibly possess toxic anti-nutrients [11]. There is no nutritional information for such foods, which raises the possibility that the modified nutrient could be toxic. Different and modified forms of nutrients may be present, which may make these foods unsafe. South Africa concluded that the risks from GM/GE food fall outside the realm of non-modified food and therefore, require strict labels.

D. Post Market Surveillance Impossible Without Labeling

Safety concerns are never over once food reaches consumers. For example, The National Institutes of Science in the U.S. reported in June of 2004 that workers processing GM celery contracted severe rashes, especially when exposed to direct sunlight. Labeling would allow handlers and consumers to become cognizant of potential risks involved with eating and processing such types of foods. Based on the principles of Codex, SA stated that it would be inconsistent and dangerous to adopt anything other than mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods. Furthermore, the absence of adequate labeling of GM/GE foods essentially equates to human experimentation without informed consent. According to Nuremberg Code,

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved… All inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment” [12]. According to SA, mandatory labeling will allow implied informed consent, which will allow consumers to opt in and out of the experiment if they choose to do so.

After SA had submitted their highly researched rationale behind the mandatory labeling of GM/GE foods, the U.S. and its allies (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Indonesia) jumped all over them and stated that extensive research clearly supports that GM/GE foods are safe, therefore, no labeling is necessary. This is obviously not the case (as presented by SA) and delineates the inter-meshed interests and historical marriage between U.S. and large food corporations (i.e., Monsanto, who produces up to 90% of GM/GE seeds and foods). Following the overwhelming condemnation of SA’s paper from the U.S. and the extra procedural requirements the U.S. pushed for because of these comments, the SA government had it subsequently withdrawn.

As a result of this development and the constant battles with the corporations of the U.S. and their biased agendas, SA called another meeting and declared they would circumvent Codex and create their own labeling system with or without their agreement. Countries like Swaziland, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Cameroon, Sudan, Nigeria, South Africa and several other African countries with Japan, EU, Switzerland, Norway and many other countries stated their commitments to the mandatory labeling.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to eliminate all previous labeling documents and keep the door open for the future possibility of international labeling of GM/GE foods at a later date, which was strongly opposed by the U.S.

References:

1. Nutrition, U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. FDA’s Policy for Foods Developed by Biotechnology. 2008 [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biopolcy.html) .

2. CCFL 2008. Comments from South Africa Agenda Item 5. [cited May 27, 2008]; Available from: ((http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2008/05/01…) .

3. Ho, M.W., GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society, 33: (in press).

4. Ho, M.W., Mass deaths in sheep grazing on Bt cotton. Science in Society, 2006. 30: p. 12-13.

5. Ho, M.W., GM ban long overdue. Dozens ill & five deaths in the Philippines. Science in Society, 2006 29: p. 26-27.

6. Ho, M.W. and S. Burcher, Cows ate GM maize and died. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 4-6.

7. Ho, M.W., Transgenic peas that made mice ill. Science in Society, 2006. 29: p. 28-29.

8. Pusztai, A., S. Bardocz, and S.W.B. Ewen, Genetically modified foods: Potential human health effects, in Scottish Agricultural College, J.P.F. D’Mello, Editor. 2003, CAB International: Edinburgh.

9. Fares, N.H. and A.K. El-Sayed, Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on dendotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes. Natural Toxins, 1998. 6: p. 219-233.

10. Novotny, E., Avoid GM food, for good reasons. Science in Society, 2004. 21: p. 9-11.

11. Allinorm 08/31/34. Report of the Seventh Session of the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, Appendix III,. 24-28 September 2007: Chiba, Japan.

12. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, in Vol. 2. 1949, U. S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. p. 181-182.

About the author

Dr. Gregory Damato enjoys a vegan lifestyle while residing in Perth, Western Australia and runs a Quantum Biofeedback clinic treating various clients ranging from autism to cancer. He is currently authoring a book for parents educating on the dangers of vaccines, chemical toxicity in toys, the effects of EMFs and EMRs and other hidden dangers and ways to combat rising childhood illness and neurological disease by naturally building immunity, detoxification, nutrition and energetic medicine. His website is: www.quantumenergywellness.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/023539.html

Prosecute George Bush for Murder

Posted on

then Cheney and on down the list including most in Congress and the enablers in the media.
Art by David Dees – Deesillustration.com,,,,,,Dees Archive
***************************

VINCENT BUGLIOSI: The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THlq3dOeIHI

DEBUNKING911.COM; A SOPHISTICATED NEOCON PROPAGANDA SITE DESIGNED TO COUNTERACT THE 9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT.

Posted on

Monday, June 30, 2008

METHINKS THEY PROTESTETH TOO MUCH!
Damian Lataan

A website calling itself ‘Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ seems to have certain characteristics that look suspiciously like neoconservative propaganda websites. Even the opening background colour is almost identical to the old Project for the New American Century website indicating, perhaps, that the same webmaster is behind this website.

debunking9/11.com is a very sophisticated, extensive and professionally put together website that clearly has had a lot of expensive expertise poured into it. It goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to debunk the evidence that has presented itself on the internet over the last seven years as an alternative to the US government’s version of the events of 9/11, but – and this is where the site gives itself away – it doesn’t attempt to debunk just some aspects of the new evidence that has been presented, but it tries to debunk every bit of it. It is that characteristic that defines it as a propaganda site rather than a site that is scientifically objective with its arguments.

But what really gives it away is the rhetoric and tone of the narrative, which is presented in a pseudo-technical pseudo-academic way, but which is transparently intermingled with outright neoconservative propaganda which has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.

Take, for example, this on the ‘Osama bin Laden’ page of their website:
“Conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn’t have pulled this off.’ Let’s forget for a minute how racist that statement is”.

Firstly, of course, one needs to ask; what conspiracy theorists like to say ‘Some Arabs with box cutters couldn’t have pulled this off’? Trying to cast those that doubt the US government’s official version of the events of 9/11 as ‘racists’ is a classic neoconservative tactic used because of the connotations of the word ‘racist’ has with ‘anti-Semitism’.

The other classic attribute that gives the website its distinctive neoconservative characteristic is the way it attempts to belittle and demonise those that advocate alternative scenarios to the events of 9/11. The website even has a page dedicated to attacking Professor Steven E. Jones and Professor David Ray Griffin as well as others that have put forward ideas that are not in line with the government’s version of events.

One has to ask who has paid for this professionally put together and very sophisticated yet transparently propagandising website. Only dedicated neoconservatives with a political agenda of trying to prevent the truth of the events of 9/11 being exposed would go to such great lengths as producing such an obvious propaganda website. One can only assume that those seeking the truth must be on to something for the neocons to put this much effort into trying to prevent the truth from being revealed.
posted by Damian Lataan
http://lataan.blogspot.com/

John McCain is an Unstable, Hot Headed Liar, Unfit to be President

Posted on

Monday, June 30, 2008

Len Hart

Calling a Republican a liar is redundant. It’s known by definition. As Will Rogers said of a New Deal plan to ‘teach hogs birth control’, it’s become a habit with them. McCain’s pathology is different. He’s thin-skinned, hot-tempered and out of control. McCain cannot be trusted with nukes. In an infantile temper-tantrum, McCain can be trusted to inflame the world at the end of a macho show of penis power!

McCain can’t get his stories straight and will throw a temper tantrum at the drop of hat –not to be trusted with nukes! For example, he is quoted on Huffington as favoring letting Wall Street enrich itself with the money’s that you pay into Social Security.

Without privitization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.

But for another audience, he told a completely different story:

I’m not for, quote, privatize Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.

–Huffington Post

His careless remarks of political expedience with regard to Social Security reveal him to be a typical ‘authoritarian’ conservative –a psychopath, in other words. He doesn’t really care about how the government misappropriates monies paid into SS of whether or not that money will be there when you are ready to retire. Among his biggest windys are the whoppers he told about Iraq.

The picture “strait talk” John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.

A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.

Sounds like “Mission Accomplished”, right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain’s claims about Iraq are completely false.

The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the “Strait Talk Express” have not blown out as a consequence.

It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”

The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that “General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee.” McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified “Green Zone” were “giving the old line of three months ago.”–McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media “Jerks” After Lies Are Exposed

McCain reminds one of Nixon who always like to portray himself has having been abuse by the mean ol’ media. I have news for McCAin and address the following observation to him personally: no one asked you to get into politics, unless, of course, it was a lobby group who wanted to own you! No one I know is obligated to you in any way. No one I know has a reason NOT to call you an lyin’ asshole if the monicker applies. It does:

During an interview yesterday, Fox News’s Carl Cameron asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if it was a “mistake” for McCain to say he knows little about the economy. But McCain denied that he had made any such suggestion, arguing that his past comments were taken “out of context”:

CAMERON: Realistically, was it a mistake for you to suggest that overall your attentiveness to the economy is subordinated by national security?

MCCAIN: As briefly as possible, when you’re on the back of the bus for hours with the media if they want to take a phrase out of context thats fine, thats one of the penalties you pay.

Watch it (beginning at 1:52):

Taken “out of context?” How many times can McCain be taken out of context? Aside from the fact that when viewed at face value, his comments speak for themselves, McCain has said he knows little about the economy on numerous occasions, as recently as last December:

– Seeking to explain his shift to the left on economic issues, McCain claimed: “I didn’t pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a ’supply-sider’ based on the fact that I really didn’t jump into the issue.” [Jan. 2000]

– “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” [Nov. 2005]

– “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” but “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.” [Dec. 2007]

In fact, McCain’s interview with Cameron wasn’t the first time he has denied claiming his economic knowledge is sub-par. NBC’s Tim Russert asked him about his “I still need to be educated” on economics claim last January but McCain dodged, saying “I don’t know where you got that quote.” When Russert asked McCain about the same quote three days later, McCain acknowledged he said it, but never claimed he was taken out of context. McCain simply replied, “Am I, am I smart on economics? Yes.”–McCain Claims Lack Of Economics Knowledge Comments Were Taken ‘Out Of Context’

No one ever called McCain an intellectual. Nevertheless, McCain must feel obliged to subscribe to GOP orthodoxy –‘supply side economics’. The GOP and thus GOP Presidential aspirants are always in need of any ideology that will justify the state theft of your money via unfair taxation, most prominently tax cuts which benefit only about ten percent of the population.

‘Supply-side’ economics is like a vampire. It shows up on the GOP dark side whenever a gopper is desperate to justify transferring your money to rich folk. Supply-side economics, otherwise known as ‘trickle down theory’, is awaiting someone with a sharp wooden stake who will drive it deep into the very heart of Republican orthodoxy. Thus far, I am reminded of the lyrics from “Hotel California” by the Eagles: “They stab it with their steely knives, but they just can’t kill the beast!”

John McCain is a recent convert to supply-side economics and still working on getting the talking points down. Speaking yesterday in South Carolina, the straight talker:

proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues.”

What? Every time? Okay, how about we go back and look at the last time taxes were raised — 1993. It’s true that conservatives predicted revenue would fall as a result of the tax hike. (Typical quote: “Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues” — Newt Gingrich.) But it didn’t exactly work out that way … The amazing thing is that New York Times, which printed McCain’s quote, made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the truth of his point. Just the typical, “McCain says earth is flat, and meanwhile in other news…” stuff. I realize that campaign reporting is hard, and reporters don’t usually have time to check on the truth of candidate’s statements. (And yes, this is a huge flaw with reporting, but that’s another story.) But this claim is so obviously false it could have been refuted after maybe thirty seconds of research. Didn’t the author (Michael Cooper) realize that tax hikes don’t always, or even usually, lead to reduced revenue? Does he remember the 1990s? Is he aware that the federal government raised taxes and started collecting dramatically higher revenues during World War II? (Taxes were raised and revenues quintipled.)–The New Republic

The typical GOPPER will believe that tax cuts raise revenue because it makes them ‘feel better’ about themselves, phrase heard from the floor of the 1992 GOP National Convention in Houston, TX. Of course, it’s not true. The opposite almost always happens; that misses the point. The point is the ideology is not believed because it’s true but because: 1) it gives the elite base the cover it needs to escape taxation; 2) it makes crooks feel better about being crooks and liars about being liars; 3) it enriches the elite one percent with pretensions of ‘intellectualism’ in a party that disdains the intellectual but is in need of one to quote during a debate! Tax revenues will rise over time anyway due to inflation and economic growth. There is no guarantee, of course, that ‘economic growth’ is, or ever has been, egalitarian. Certainly, when policy favors the nation’s elite economic growth, the elite alone will benefit. It’s a tautology and the record proves that the transfer of wealth and income upward began with the infamous tax cut of Ronald Reagan in 1982. It continues to this day, made worse, aggravated by Bush’s bone-headed ‘Presidency’.

Eagles: “Hotel California”
…still trying to stab the beast with their steely knives!

See:

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/