neocon

Zionist Neocon PNAC Prick Frank Gaffney Jr. Comes to Murfreesboro Attempting to Prop Up the Mosque Psyops

Posted on

 A witness in court today accused the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro’s leaders, including Imam Ossama Bahloul, of being supporters of Sharia law.

“I see several things that are a red flag from a security standpoint,” Frank J. Gaffney Jr. said during a hearing before Chancellor Robert Corlew III. “They have engaged in activities that should be worrisome to this community.” {more}

“I don’t hold myself out as an expert on Sharia Law,” Gaffney told the court on the witness stand. “But I have talked a lot about that as a threat.”

“Sharia (law) is the enemy-threat doctrine we face today,” Gaffney said. “And that threat has trickled down to local governments.”

“I’m here to warn this community of seditious acts of Sharia Law,” {more}

The Murfreesboro Tennessee mosque ‘debate’ (see here, here and here) continues with the opposition breaking out one of the ‘big guns’ of the zionist neocon ‘clash of civilizations’ permanent war  ‘us vs. them’ psychological warfare operation. None other than Frank Gaffney Jr.; Israel first, anti-American think tanker, media whore and hate shill for elitist fun and profit.

Someone backing  the plaintiffs suing Rutherford County to stop the government from issuing any more building permits to allow the Muslim congregation from building a larger community center with a mosque gets Gaffney to ‘testify.’  It was a desperate move because the locals they hired to file the lawsuit are a bunch of screw up self promoters. So it’s call in the jewish self proclaimed Muslim ‘expert’ to give the talking points an air of authority.

Who is this Gaffney?

One of the original Project for a New American Century signatories for Rebuilding America’s Defenses who got his ‘new Pearl Harbor’ and wars with Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond.

President, CEO, and founder of the Center for Security Policy — “a small think tank funded mainly by U.S. defence contractors, far-right foundations, and right-wing Zionists.

Gaffney says that today’s main threat to peace and security is “Islamofascism,” which is a terms he says “makes clear that the war is about much more than Iraq and Afghanistan” and includes those countries—namely, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, and South Africa—which provide direct or indirect support for the Islamofascists “in their death struggle with us.”


That’s enough, you get the picture.

I do like the idea of Gaffney on the witness stand but with him on trial for his life. He should have to testify as to his lies, his criminal accomplices and bosses, his treason to this country and his contributions/complicity to the murder of thousands of Americans on 9/11 and in illegal wars. He has the blood of a million plus Muslims on his hands.

May justice one day prevail.

——-

Channel 5 Nashville – Sept. 27, 2010

Advertisements

SARAH PALIN’S ANSWERS: VERY TROUBLING

Posted on

https://i2.wp.com/www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/images/Chuck_Baldwin_com_hdr.gif

By Chuck Baldwin
September 16, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gave her first exclusive interview as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate to ABC’s Charles Gibson last week. Her answers were very troubling, especially to those of us who believe in constitutional government. On foreign policy, especially, Palin reveals herself to be just another neocon; one who would enthusiastically promote Bush’s preemptive war doctrine.

Speaking of the Bush doctrine, it was extremely enlightening that Sarah Palin demonstrated surprising ignorance as to what the Bush Doctrine is. Gibson asked: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” Palin’s response: “In what respect, Charlie?” Continued questions revealed that Sarah Palin was totally ignorant of the Bush doctrine.

When Gibson properly defined the Bush doctrine as being the determination of President Bush to unilaterally, preemptively launch anticipatory military attacks and invasions against foreign countries (without a Declaration of War from Congress, I might add), Palin said the President “has the obligation, the duty” to launch such attacks. No wonder John McCain likes her so much.

Palin went on to make further statements that must have made John McCain proud. When asked if she would be willing to take America to war with Russia in order to defend Georgia, she responded by saying, “Perhaps so.”

Egad! Do John McCain and Sarah Palin envision–even desire–war with Russia? John McCain is already on record as supporting sending troops to Georgia; now Sarah Palin suggests that even war with Russia is a possibility. Over what? Has Russia deployed troops along our borders? Has Russia threatened to invade the United States? Are McCain and Palin truly willing to launch a war with a nation that has thousands of ICBMs in its nuclear arsenal, when our own security has not been threatened? And just how many other countries are McCain and Palin willing to defend with American toil and blood? All of Europe?

Instead of promoting European states such as Georgia joining NATO, America should promote dismantling NATO. The reason for NATO’s existence ended when the cold war with the former Soviet Union ended. It is past time for European states to take responsibility for their own defense. To promote American hegemony in Russia’s backyard (which is exactly what we are doing by promoting the expansion of NATO) not only serves to reignite the cold war, it could inflame an all-out, very hot war. Is this what McCain and Palin want?

With Palin’s willingness to launch a possible war with Russia, I suppose it is a small thing that she has no problem with the United States invading smaller countries such as Pakistan. To quote Sarah Palin, “We have got to have all options out there on the table.”

Many people familiar with John McCain have tried to warn the American people about the warmongering, hot-tempered senator. To quote one of McCain’s fellow POWs, Phillip Butler (who was a POW for 8 years, 2 1/2 years longer than McCain), “I can verify that John [McCain] has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly, that is not the finger I want next to that red button.”

Only one time during Sarah Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson did she refer to the U.S. Constitution, constitutional government, or her responsibility as Vice President to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is very troubling. Can it be that Sarah Palin is simply another politician who is ignorant and unconcerned regarding constitutional government? If so, the fact that she is a social conservative would make this dereliction no less egregious.

Speaking of social conservatism, Sarah Palin’s response to Charles Gibson’s question regarding abortion is also troubling. Everyone knows that John McCain is extremely weak on the life issue. He openly and repeatedly supported embryonic stem cell research. Ms. Palin says she opposes it. So, how would this conflict affect her position as McCain’s Vice President? It wouldn’t.

According to Palin, she would not let a “personal opinion” interfere with a McCain administration’s policy that differed from hers. In other words, she would support McCain’s pro-embryonic stem cell research decisions. I am sure this would also be true as John McCain increases federal funding for abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, which is something that McCain has also repeatedly done. Pray tell, how many other “personal opinions” is Sarah Palin willing to sacrifice in order to be John McCain’s running mate? Already my previous column’s cogitations are being borne out.

Since my last column, I have discovered that Sarah Palin did nothing to prevent the state of Alaska from being a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. The La Frontera web site credits Lou Dobbs as noting that, according to an August 14, 2006 report by the Congressional Research Service, at least two Alaskan cities have don’t ask, don’t tell sanctuary policies in place for illegal aliens: Anchorage and Fairbanks. Beyond that, Alaska has a statewide policy that forbids state agencies from using resources to enforce federal immigration law.

It makes perfect sense that Sarah Palin would embrace (or do nothing to oppose) John McCain’s pro-illegal immigration policy, as this is one of the issues he is most passionate about. It is absolutely inconceivable that John McCain would ever select a running mate that did not share (or that would oppose) his pro-illegal immigration convictions.

Of course, Charles Gibson never bothered to inquire concerning Sarah Palin’s attitudes toward the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), free trade deals (such as NAFTA, FTAA, etc.), the burgeoning North American Community, the NAFTA superhighway, etc. It really doesn’t matter. I think we all know where Governor Palin comes down on all of the above. She will continue to support America’s participation in and financial support for the U.N.; she will, as former Presidents and Vice Presidents have done, ingratiate herself with the CFR. Good grief! Her boss, John McCain, is a longstanding member of the CFR. She will enthusiastically support free trade deals, which destroy American jobs and encroach upon American independence and sovereignty; she will not oppose the North American Community, or any other form of globalism. And if called on, she will promote the NAFTA superhighway.

In other words, Sarah Palin will offer no resistance to the escalating New World Order (America’s greatest threat), her conservative leanings on social issues notwithstanding.

Sarah Palin’s answers did reveal one positive: she seems to be solid on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is encouraging, because with the way that both Republicans and Democrats are leading America, it may not be long before we will need to actually exercise that right.

*Disclaimer: I am currently a candidate for President of the United States on the Constitution Party ticket. Click here for my official campaign web site.

© 2008 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin467.htm

Sarah Palin: The Xena of the War Party

Posted on

September 5, 2008
antiwar.com
https://i1.wp.com/www.inentertainment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/xena-warrior-princess-season-1-6-discs-dvd.jpg https://i2.wp.com/timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/03/with_dead_bear.jpg

The neocons embrace the politics of celebrity

by Justin Raimondo

The Palin-mania that is sweeping the GOP reminds me of the publicity surrounding “American Idol,” the popular American television program that catapults complete unknowns on to the national stage and gives them a chance at stardom: the anticipation, the gossip, the frenzy (and partisanship) of the fans. In the last days of the old Republic, this is what American politics has degenerated into: “reality” TV.

Prior to being plucked from obscurity by the neocons who run the McCain campaign, Sarah Palin was a complete unknown. Today, she is the object of a burgeoning cult that proclaims her to be the virtual incarnation of the Republican renewal. And never did a party require renewal like the GOP. What with G.W. Bush’s bottom-of-the-barrel poll numbers, after eight years of nightmarish mismanagement on the home front and frenzied recklessness abroad, dispirited conservative intellectuals and activists have been asking themselves “What went wrong?” Now, they don’t have to bother with such worrisome introspection, their identity crisis has been indefinitely delayed, all due to the appearance of a messiah on the horizon – Sarah, the new Wonder Woman of the Right.

So where did she come from, and why has such an obscure figure – formerly mayor of a small town in Alaska, and only lately elevated to the governorship – been raised up so quickly, and mysteriously, like Venus sprung from the sea-foam?

McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman, the last surviving member of the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party, whose neoconservative credentials, electoral appeal in certain key areas, and ability to provoke the Obama-crats made him the natural choice. Karl Rove, however, is too smart for that: he knew there would be a floor fight over it, and the McCainiac-neocon faction could very well lose – torpedoing the campaign before it got out of the harbor.

How they prevailed on the headstrong McCain to back off is not known: perhaps the candidate suffered a sudden spasm of common sense, or even diplomacy. He did back off, however, and then they were left with – nothing. Romney, Pawlenty, or some other boring white guy wasn’t good enough for the McCainiac high command: no, they wanted something more.

They knew they had to secure the base, while retaining the cross-party ideological punch Lieberman would have delivered. Their task was to capture the Clinton Democrats, who, prior to Hillary’s late conversion to the antiwar cause, were defined ideologically by their more cautious, and even hawkish, approach to the Iraq war issue. Obama staked his claim to the antiwar franchise early on, and Hillary’s refusal to second-guess or apologize for her “yes” vote in the Senate on the war question cost her the nomination. By the time she got on board the get-out-of-Iraq train, it had already left the station. The Democrats promised “change” in the foreign policy realm in the 2006 congressional election: they won, but didn’t deliver. Obama reminded Democratic voters of that promise: whether he’ll keep it, if elected, is another question altogether.

Yet there are still all those Clinton voters out there, who weren’t put off by her unapologetic stance on the war, or her more bellicose statements on Iran: these are the old Reagan Democrats, whom the neocons regard as their natural constituency. Hillary’s butch persona, especially during the latter days of her doomed campaign, when she became a veritable street-fightin’ gal, is another major theme the McCainiacs latched onto. By some alchemy of ideology and identity politics, the grand strategists of the McCain campaign came up with a formula and then looked around for someone who fit the bill.

McCain and his top advisors are ideologues who care about one thing and one thing only: war. The glory of it, the utility of it, the necessity of it. It’s the McCain panacea, like “free silver” was to William Jennings Bryan and socialism was to Eugene Debs. It’s his answer to everything: it solves all problems, and, more importantly, stifles all criticism. If you doubt his veracity, question his good intentions, or point out his inconsistencies, you’re attacking a war hero, doubting the divine wisdom suffering is supposed to impart.

Religion also played an important role in the choice of Palin: she’s a member of a dispensationalist sect, within the Pentecostalist tradition, a “born again” Christian who believes in the Rapture and the centrality of Israel in world affairs.

This latter belief is a theological verity with the dispensationalists, who make up the rank-and-file of the GOP’s electoral machine: after the Rapture, when the anointed are raised up to heaven and the rest of us are left on earth, the church will be represented by the Chosen People of God – the Jews. According to the biblical prophecy, they will gather together in the land of Israel, their historic home, and this signals the coming of the End Times. Israel, for the dispensationalists, is the key issue: its interests must be defended at all costs, even above the national interests of the US. Israel is, in short, a non-negotiable item, and it’s easy to see how this fits very neatly into the neoconservative agenda.

According to news reports, Palin was diverted away from a fundraiser for a pro-life group headed up by Phyllis Schlafly so she could attend a grilling session conducted jointly by AIPAC and Lieberman, but this hardly seemed necessary. After all, the woman has a little Israeli flag in her office. I’m sure, however, her interrogators gave her a few useful pointers. Maybe they asked her about that pastor who came to her church and delivered a sermon explaining that Jews were doomed to suffer eternally from terrorist attacks in Israel until and unless they accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Yes, the lady has her own Jeremiah Wright. As Rachel Maddow remarked the other day – in between bouts of panicky hysteria over Palin’s instant stardom – the parallels between Palin and Obama are pretty striking.

The McCainiacs chose Palin out of jealousy: they wanted an Obama of their own, and since they couldn’t have one, they settled on Palin – the Bizarro Obama. Yes, she’s fresh, new, a self-anointed outsider in this Year of the Maverick – but she’s the complete opposite of Obama in every other imaginable way. She’s aggressive, even a bit snarly, while he’s soft-spoken and calm, a reversal of gender roles well-suited to Bizarro World – albeit one the writers for Superman Comics in the late-fifties and early sixties never imagined.

Oh, the irony! A campaign that put out a television ad comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton has now created a celebrity candidate of its own: Sarah Palin, the Caribou-hunting tough-talking feisty little lady from Alaska, with the showgirl legs and the spine of steel. The Brits are already likening her to Maggie Thatcher.

Sarah, who looks – and acts – an awful lot like Xena, the Warrior Princess, is the perfect messenger for the GOP’s credo of unmitigated militarism. Her speech to the Republican convention was, in large part, a continuation of the theme of the previous night: aggressive nationalism rationalized by religious fervor. The references to God were interspersed with worshipful references to all things military along with a full catalogue of all the current neocon targets: not only Iraq, but Iran, Russia, and “dangerous enemies” who are oil-rich (the Saudis?). The anti-Russian trope has been taken up with special alacrity by the McCainiacs, who are touting Palin’s position as commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard and her proximity to the Russkies to highlight her readiness to take the helm in the Situation Room. I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear tales of Commander Palin’s derring do when confronted with previously unreported Russian incursions across the Bering Strait.

The Palin choice is really all about the internal politics of the GOP, as much as it is about the hubris of McCain’s handlers. With the party led over the cliff by the neocons, whose Iraq adventure has cost them control of Congress and likely the White House, it was necessary to start anew. By reaching back into the party grassroots, and playing the gender card, the neocons could retain control of the GOP instead of being blamed for its demise – and, perhaps, hold on to the White House.

It’s a big gamble, because Palin’s unreadiness to be President, in the event of McCain’s untimely demise, is all too apparent. Far from injecting a youthful note into the campaign, Palin’s physical presence next to the Old Man only underscores his advanced age – and the prospect of President Palin staring us in the face. If that doesn’t scare voters, then nothing will.

Palin’s role is the traditional one assigned to the vice president, as candidate and office-holder: she is the attack dog, in what will be a campaign very much concerned with foreign policy issues. Expect her to be the point-woman on the alleged threat represented by Russia: after all, it wasn’t so long ago that the Alaskans suffered under the Czars’ yoke, and, to add insult to injury, were sold to the Americans for a truly paltry sum. If I were an Alaskan, I’d resent that, and there’s evidence Palin did, too: at least that’s one explanation for her flirtation with the Alaska Independence Party, which advocates secession from the US. But her secessionist days are over, I believe: in the future she’ll be attacking the sucessionist Ossetians as Russian agents-of-influence and defending US intervention there, as in Iraq, as a mission divinely ordained.

~ Justin Raimondo
Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13412

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

Don’t count the Greater Evil out yet

from The Greanville Journal
by Norman Solomon

Why does God insist on making pretty Republicans? Who’s he trying to kid?

The “all-American” family ideal in Palin’s parents TV room, literally covered with animal pelts and carcasses. Killing animals profusely comes naturally to these types who, as diehard dominionists, regard nature as something to exploit utterly for the benefit of “man.”

Read the rest

“Vetting Problems”? Ah, Maybe Not…

Posted on

Posted by willyloman on September 2, 2008

https://i1.wp.com/media.ft.com/cms/250488a0-7770-11dd-be24-0000779fd18c.jpg

by Scott Creighton

We are reading more and more reports about how the McCain camp’s choice of Gov. Palin as his VP running-mate isn’t living up to their expectations; how their “vetting” process must have been flawed; and how McCain really wanted someone else in the first place. I wonder if this isn’t the outcome they fully expected, and wanted, in the first place.

You have to admit, there for awhile, the story was compelling; McCain picks a relative unknown who was the first woman to serve as Gov. of Alaska, to be his running mate, making her the first woman to fill that roll in the republican party. She is relatively young, dynamic, attractive, and she is a mother of 5; the quintessential “girl next door makes good” story. Wow. What a headline grabber. And that is just what it did.

The timing of the marketing-launch of this Disneyesque “Princess Sarah” fable couldn’t have been more convenient for the McCain camp; right after a historic speech given by Barack Obama, a history making presidential choice, in his own right. Palin’s nomination dragged the focus of the spotlights right off of the democratic nominee and placed their burning glare square on the face of Gov. Palin and her family.

Obama’s speech and Hillary’s support of his nomination wasn’t the only thing that got lost in the shuffle when Palin was given the nod. So was the democrats new-found unity.

Some dems literally went crazy when her name was announced. They figured that the selection of a woman, any woman, was simply pandering to the female vote by the McCain people and that it was done to take advantage of the hordes of disenfranchised Hillary supporters on the left. That is understandable. Rather than having a woman rise to the ranks of this nomination own the merits of her accomplishments, here they had, staring them in the face, yet another example of a woman being used by men to fulfill a specific need.

So when a story surfaced, that may or may not have been based in fact, there were allot of “progressives” that seem to have temporarily abandoned their higher moral ground to delve into the murky, shallow waters of gotcha politics. Again, understandable. But not the progressives finest moment.

Yeah, the choice of Sarah Palin really shook things up a bit. But now, she’s stealing headlines for different reasons. Now, as the press vets this choice, all sorts of things are popping up about her associations and her life. This is to be expected, after all she was an unknown with relatively little experience in the national spotlight. For the McCain camp not to have expected this, would have been a huge mistake for them.

I doubt they make mistakes that big,… by accident.

In the last few days we have seen a huge rise in the article coming from the republican controlled MSM that tend to suggest that, for whatever reason, the general population of the right-wing consensus isn’t very happy about this choice. Quite frankly I can’t see where those stories are coming from. The right-wing bloggers seem to be defending her quite well, except for the fact that she has little experience. But Bush didn’t have much either, for that matter. Her stance on many of the superficial right-wing issues is perfectly lined up and she has acted accordingly though-out her career.

But still the right-controlled MSM keep pumping out the stories about how the right isn’t happy with her selection. Seems kinda odd that they would be selling that story line way before the mood really develops in conservative land. But they are. Almost as if they need to create that mood.

Over the last three days I have read a total of 3 articles from headline news sources, some of the same ones selling the “right not happy” story, that quote John McCain as saying that he didn’t want this choice in the first place. He really wanted Lieberman, a pro-choice former democratic senator.

Lieberman was in the running, in the end of the selection process, and many thought (including me) that he would be tapped. In fact, I thought it in Jan. of 2007. And I wrote it. But, a slew of Op-Eds came out from leading neo-cons, just one week before the selection of Palin, and here we are.

Kinda curious those Op-Eds came out now as opposed to months ago when Lieberman was running around with McCain on the campaign trail and whispering the right answers in McCain’s ear. He was clearly the quiet front-runner for the spot then. It seems odd that all of this disapproval would surface, publicly, right before John tapped Palin to be VP. These neo-cons usually keep their advice private, you know.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out just how curious it is that less than a week after the history making selection of Gov. Palin, the McCain camp lets slip out John’s wish to have picked someone else. And the republican MSM spin machine’s willingness to run with it while Palin is literally giving speeches that day.

No, this is way to contrived to be happenstance. Like other events (read “New Pearl Harbor”) that just seemed to happen just at the right time for the neo-cons, this one starts to smell a bit scripted, if you will. It’s like someone is writing the history of our nation as if it were a bad episode of “Dallas” (or Reno 9/11, take your pick) complete with dirty family secrets and plots within plots for the bored super-rich.

In the end, you would have to accept one of the biggest political machines in the history of this nation, never even picked up a paper and read the first thing about Palin, for this to be a “vetting” error. Does that make sense? You might want to think it does, but after these bastards have literally gotten away with murder and torture and crushing the constitution, and they have the dems in congress saying “they haven’t committed any crimes” and our “progressive” candidate voting FOR the retroactive immunity, I think we had better drop the “they’re incompetent” mindset. They are far, far from incompetent.

But that is the story the right controlled MSM is selling us. That is the story they are pushing down our throats without ever giving any consideration to the possibility that the McCain camp chose this woman BECAUSE they knew they could get out of it, and then when they announced their second choice, even though he is now an independent pro-life candidate, it would be an easier sell to the right.

Of course, they got all of that and the chance to “one-up” Barack’s moment in the sun. And who eagerly helped them accomplish this cold-blooded bait-and-switch?

Why the ‘progressive” blog-o-sphere, that’s who. The same “progressives” that never really considered who would be taking her place, in the end, the the 4th Branch of Government office Dick Cheney and his lawyers skillfully crafted over the past 8 years. Pretty clever those little neo-cons, huh?

And all it costs is the humiliation of a family, and reprinting some bumper stickers.

No, I stand corrected. It’s more like Beverly Hills 90210. The guys writing this crap can’t be old enough to have seen Dallas and 90210 had deeper plot lines. Not that I ever watched, mind you.

Source: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/vetting-problems-ah-maybe-not/#more-1465

NEOCON WARMONGER KEEN TO PROVOKE RUSSIA IN EUROPE USING THE BALTIC STATES AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL – AGAIN.

Posted on

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Fred Kagan, the American military strategist, calls for beefed-up Baltic defences against Russia

Military strategist Fred Kagan has the ear of hawks within the US administration Photo: AP

by Damian Lataan

Fred Kagan, a senior neocon who instigated the idea of the ‘surge’ policy in Iraq that some have hailed as a success, is at it again only this time he’s looking to further provoke the Russians by insisting that NATO positively demonstrates it support and presence in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania lest the Russians feel tempted to reinvade them as Kagan thinks they did in Georgia.

Kagan, a well known neoconservative propagandist, is deliberately attempting to recreate the atmosphere of fear and loathing that dominated during the Cold War years. The Baltic States that consist of three small European nations have historically, especially during the last century, been used as a bit of a political football due to their geographical position relative to Germany and Russia.

In 1939 the Baltic States were ceded to Russia as part Stalin’s deal with Hitler when they carved up Eastern Europe between them at the beginning of the Second World War. However, when Hitler turned on Stalin and attacked Russia, the Baltic States quickly fell to German control. Then, toward the end of the war as Russia advanced westward, the Baltic States reverted back to Soviet Russian control. It wasn’t until 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union that the Baltic States regained their independence. As a result of this predominately Soviet Russian control over the years, the people of the Baltic States had become extremely anti-communist and, far more importantly in the twenty-first century since the demise of communism, anti-Russian, and it is this fact that the likes of Kagan are exploiting for their own ends.

So, what’s behind Kagan’s thinking here? The answer lies in what Kagan has proffered as an explanation for this strategy; he ‘says that the West needed to match words with deeds if it was to stop Russia turning into an “intolerable, aggressive imperialistic” power’. The reality, of course, is that it is not Russia that is becoming an “intolerable, aggressive imperialistic” power, but the US.

The circumstances that led to the crisis in Georgia is totally different from the geo-political situation of the Baltic States relative to Russia, yet Kagan, in his relentless hatred of all things Russian, is quite content to place the Baltic States into the line fire yet again by abusing the Baltic States well-known resentment of the Russians to bolster the neocons anti-Russian rhetoric. Kagan knows that the Baltic States are unlikely to refuse Western help but would be far better off simply proclaiming neutrality or simply be non-aligned like Sweden and Finland.

Kagan’s stirring up of old Baltic-Russian antagonisms is transparent and belies the neocons trues objectives of reviving the old Cold War animosities that were the bread and butter of the US military-industrial complex which in turn ensured US predominance as a so-called superpower.

posted by Damian Lataan
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2008/08/neocon-warmonger-keen-to-provoke-russia.html

The Supply-Side Plot to Overthrow the Welfare State

Posted on

Peter Chamberlin’s blog

The American “conservative” movement, as seen in the friends and allies of the Heritage Foundation is the vanguard of the New World Order. They rally around the cherished ideas of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as the centerpiece of their movement. “Supply-side economics,” the popular name for the concept accredited to the pair of charismatic leaders, is hailed as a great success, because of the new “robust” economy which it has allegedly produced. The key to any disinformation movement is the acquisition of the skill to say “black” is really “white.” In reality, the “robust” economy is circling the drain, even as you read these words.

A sturdy partner to Heritage in this movement to remake America into a new fascist society, is Hillview College, a primary incubator for producing new generations of young conservatives. This month’s edition of “Imprimus,” Hillview’s monthly newsletter is a transcript of a speech of British arch-neoconservative John O’Sullivan, Executive Editor of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Mr. O’Sullivan’s speech was a lovefest, celebrating the near demi-god status of “Lady Thatcher,” Reagan’s sturdy shrewish partner in decimation.

John O’Sullivan

O'Sullivan



Statue ofMargaret Thatcher at Hillsdale College

Margaret Thatcher: A Legacy of Freedom


“I was already a ‘Thatcherite’ of the first hour.

Reaganism and Thatcherism are the same Anglo-American conservative philosophy of

Lady Thatcher’s own tribute to the President: “Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.

[this should have read without firing a shot with our own hands]

‘Ordered liberty’ applied in somewhat different national circumstances.”

[“A concept in constitutional law that the due process requirements applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution do not incorporate all the provisions of the first 10 amendments (the so-called Bill of Rights), but only those measures essential for the preservation of a scheme of “ordered liberty.” All that is meant is that due process contains within itself certain minimum standards which are ‘of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.’” 332 U.S. 46, 65 n. 28 quoting 302 U.S. 319, 325.

“A loosely used term, diversely applied in scholarly literature and judicial opinions, “ordered liberty” suggests that fundamental constitutional rights are not absolute but are determined by a balancing of the public (societal) welfare against individual (personal) rights. In this dialectical perspective, the thesis is “order,” its antithesis “liberty”; the synthesis, “ordered liberty,” describes a polity that has reconciled the conflicting demands of public order and personal freedom.”]

O’Sullivan continued:

“Loss-making industries were closed down or reduced in size. Manufacturing industries shed labor

Privatization transformed inefficient state-owned industries into dynamic private sector enterprises.

Two-thirds of Britain’s state-owned industries were sold to the private sector, resulting in more efficient industries and wider capital ownership.

[but with much less industry]

Privatization expertise became one of the City of London’s most profitable services over the next two decades..

Her message was one of ordered liberty…in a wider commonwealth of English-speaking peoples.”

The “ordered liberty” of “Lady Thatcher” and Ronald Reagan, that O’Sullivan was referring to was that of re-programmed societies composed of millions of re-programmed minds which were produced from the mind-control experiments practiced by the City of London’s Tavistock Institute. Sigmund Freud was considered to be the prophet of Tavistock’s proponents of “scientific dictatorship” which emerged from the immoral morass of the Frankfurt School in Weimar Germany. These were the psychologists, social scientists and economists who claimed the right to plan mankind’s fate. The movement founded by these intellectuals, introduced the world to the corrosive concept of “relativism,” the revolutionary idea which stated that there were no absolute values. The poison they produced was effectively used to wage war against the people of the United States and the world, who were targeted for economic and psychic destruction.

There at the Frankfurt School, the union of Marxism with psychotherapy and social sciences produced “cultural Marxism,” the evil twin of “neoconservatism.” Through the application of Hegel to the American political process, using the “shock doctrine,” they perfected the black arts by bouncing people’s lives back and forth between the two radical doctrines (which were both manufactured by the same group of controllers), a new radicalized nationalist ideology was forged out of a contagion of fear, through the “strategy of tension” and the contamination of the American national psyche with the false psychology of “learned helplessness.” Our minds and our economic well-being were targeted with destruction, so that they would then have the opportunity to reshape us in the image that suited the plans for world domination.

By: Peter Chamberlin

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/7421

One More Propagandist Shill Down, Many More to Go

Posted on

Of course there is always another willing to take their place.
***

Get prepared for the usual revisionism and praise of the life of a neocon shill.
The blood money doesn’t always ensure a long life.
Early death is not appropriate for war criminals. We were looking forward to the trials and justice.
Even the worst of us have our good points. Hopefully Snow’s family experienced his good side even if the rest of us didn’t.

Tony Snow smiles as he is introduced by President Bush as his new Press Secretary in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington in this Wednesday, April 26, 2006 file photo. Fox News is reporting Saturday July 12, 2008 that conservative commentator and former White House press secretary Tony Snow has died of cancer. He was 53. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert, FILE)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Over at the Huffington Post, comments on the article were closed right from the start to avoid the embarrassment of their readers’ squeals of delight.

Update: Comments are now allowed but only with “approval”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

some accolades for Tony Snowjob:

*******
As a press secretary, boy could he spin. He slopped lipstick on the GOP pig like few could.

*******
Game of Life Says:

One of the best liars chimpy hired.

Thanks for your service and for giving the wh news straight.

Thanks for spinning chimpy’s war.

Thanks for your insight in pushing war instead of peace.

*******
Snow has fallen

While I didn’t agree with his politics, I’m sure his family will miss him. RIP. Say hi to Hunter S. Thompson for me.

*******
Now if only we could get rid of his boss…

*******
Today our nation – and the world – is suffering because of people like Mr. Snow and their willingness to play handmaiden to the great benighted scoundrels of our time.

*******

Tony was actually a more entertaining and knowledgeable liar than current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino.

Dana Perino, George W. Bush and Tony Snow.
Dana Perino, George W. Bush and Tony Snow.