Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, November 6, 2009

The Empire strikes back – right when when public support for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan sinks to all time lows, an anti-war Islamic extremist with links to suicide bombers goes on a shooting rampage at a U.S. army base, reinvigorating support for the war on terror and demonizing opposition to it as anti-American extremism. The scam would be believable if it wasn’t so perfectly staged.
Without getting into convoluted conspiracy theories about mind control and whatever else, not that they aren’t without merit, the facts we already know about Hasan and his behavior prior to the deadly shootings just screams out “patsy” and “set-up” and almost exactly mirrors other terror scams the Empire has run in the past.
Just like the would-be liquid bombers that were supposedly planning on bringing down multiple airliners in August 2006, who were caught on CCTV buying bulk supplies of cake in the very hours before the plot, Hasan’s pre-shooting behavior contradicts completely the idea that he was preparing for a deadly rampage.
Shortly before the massacre, Hasan was caught on camera shopping at the convenience store located on the army base – laughing and joking. Is this the behavior of a man psychologically readying himself for the high-intensity horror of gunning down dozens of his colleagues, or someone unaware of what was to follow?
We learn that Hasan “Showed no signs of worry or stress when he stopped at 7-Eleven for his daily breakfast of hash browns, said Jeannie Strickland, the store’s manager.” ” He came in (Thursday) morning just like normal,” she said, “nothing weird, nothing out of the ordinary.”
CNN feverishly seized upon the CCTV footage and began broadcasting it relentlessly because Hasan is seen wearing Arab garb and Muslim headdress, fitting the carefully pre-arranged stereotype perfectly.

The Smiling Assassin? Hasan’s pre-rampage behavior is completely at odds with the idea of him preparing to massacre more than a dozen of his colleagues.
Just like the 7/7 bombing patsies who were filmed laughing and joking, getting into arguments and generally doing everything a terrorist would want to avoid, Hasan’s pre-attack behavior should set alarm bells ringing.
Just like the 7/7 bombing patsies and the liquid bombing patsies, the description of Hasan by those reinforcing the official characterization of him as a vengeful jihadist is completely at odds with how his own family members described him.
Hasan’s cousin laughed when an interviewer asked him if the shooter was “violent.”
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

“He was just normal, loved sports, never got into trouble.” He said his family was “shocked and baffled” by the incident.
“His parents didn’t want him to go into the military,” Mr. Hasan said. “He said, ‘No, I was born and raised here, I’m going to do my duty to the country.’ ”
The backdrop behind Hasan’s alleged motive for the rampage also represents an inch-perfect staging for subsequent characterization of those opposed to the war on terror as lunatics, crackpots and extremists.
In the hours after the event, we were told that Hasan was upset about being deployed to Iraq at the end of the month. This then mutated into the notion that Hasan was “anti-war” and later we were informed that he was “facing an FBI investigation for expressing sympathy with suicide bombers.” The fact that this was known by authorities six months ago and still Hasan was not only allowed to remain at the Army base, but also invited to participate in Homeland Security exercises only raises more red flags.
Then the lurid details really began to pour in to reinforce the Islamic terrorist stereotype – Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar!” before opening fire, he made “outlandish comments concerning U.S. foreign policy.”
As Michael Yaki highlights, the media characterization of Hasan as a Muslim terrorist was assumed by default, and almost from the first moment it seemed as though news anchors were reading from a script prepared well in advance.
“Once the name of the protagonist was established, the blogs lit up and the talking heads immediately turned to the “terrorist” word. Anderson Cooper repeatedly referred to Hasan as an “American Muslim.” I somehow don’t see Cooper referring to the Columbine killers, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris as “American Protestants.” Yet, front and center, the media began their speculation on whether Hasan was a “recent convert” to Islam, what websites he visited, and whether “outside influences” — code words for Imams and terrorist recruiters — had compelled him to walk onto the base and begin his shooting rampage. Indeed, the media was playing {and replaying} up the fact that he was shown wearing “traditional” Arab garb earlier in the day as he bought some coffee, although other footage from the day before showed him wearing hospital scrubs — which thus far has never made the endless loop on CNN.”
Pointing out the fact that every other killer in U.S. history was described as a “mass murderer” and not a terrorist, Yaki slams the media’s contrived and “implied presumption (that) Hasan appears to be terrorist unless proven otherwise.”
Why were initial reports of three shooters reversed? Why were two alleged shooters taken into custody but quickly released? Was Hasan framed?
When the dust settles on yesterday’s tragic events at Fort Hood it may indeed turn out to be the case that Nidal Malik Hasan was a lone nut seeking to exact revenge for what he saw as perpetual war crimes being carried out against the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is the case, it doesn’t make such crimes acceptable nor does it mean all people who oppose the war on terror are likely to go on a shooting rampage.
However, from all the evidence that has emerged thus far, and in comparing it with other terror scams in the past where patsies have been deliberately groomed and set up to be the fall guys for false flag attacks, everything we know about yesterday’s events suggests that there is infinitely more to the story of Nidal Malik Hasan than meets the eye.

Washington’s Blog
October 29, 2009

Congressman Brad Sherman: “I’m not looking for a TARP on steroids with oversight. I’m looking for an end of TARP.”

On September 25th, I wrote:

Paul Volcker and senior Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron both testified to Congress this week that the government is trying to make bailouts for the giant banks permanent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing Wednesday in The Hill, Congressman Brad Sherman pointed out that :

In my opinion, Geithner’s proposal is “TARP on steroids.” Section 1204 of the proposal [the proposal being the "Resolution Authority for Large, Interconnected Financial Companies Act of 2009"] allows the executive branch to use taxpayer money to make loans to, or invest in, the largest financial institutions to avoid a systemic risk to the economy.

Geithner’s proposal reminds me of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the $700 billion Wall Street bailout adopted last year, but the TARP was limited to two years, and to a maximum of $700 billion. Section 1204 is unlimited in dollar amount and is a permanent grant of power to the executive branch. TARP contained some limits on executive compensation and an array of special oversight authorities. Section 1204 contains absolutely no limits on executive compensation and no special oversight.

When I asked Geithner whether he would accept a $1 trillion limit on the new bailout authority (if the executive branch wanted to spend more, it would have to come back to Congress), he rejected a $1 trillion limit, insisting that the executive branch be able to respond without coming back to Congress.

Both TARP and the Treasury proposal have vague provisions under which taxpayers might possibly recover any money lost through a special tax on the financial services industry. Under the Treasury proposal, only the very largest institutions could benefit from a bailout, but the special tax, if ever collected, would fall chiefly on medium-sized institutions.

Thus, the medium-sized institutions will be at a competitive disadvantage for two reasons. First, the largest institutions will be able to borrow money more cheaply because their creditors will believe that if the institution is unable to pay, the taxpayers will. Second, if there ever is a bailout benefitting a very large financial institution, the tax will be imposed on the medium-sized institutions.

Sherman is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee and a certified public accountant, so he has a good nose for analyzing proposed financial regulations.

Last week, Sherman made the following comments to the Washington Independent regarding Congress’ proposed bill on the too big to fails:

That is a huge gravy train to the top 20 [financial institutions] because it allows them to borrow money at a lower rate. Think of what this does to moral hazard.

I’m not looking for a TARP on steroids with oversight. I’m looking for an end of TARP.

The House Committee on Financial Services will hold a hearing on the bill tomorrow, with Tim Geithner, Sheila Bair, John C. Dugan (Comptroller of the Currency), Daniel K. Tarullo (Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System), John E. Bowman (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), Richard Trumka (President, AFLCIO), and others as witnesses.

As the Washington Independent points out, Sherman is going to try to take Tarp off of steroids:

Sherman said he intends to offer a series of amendments addressing the issue during the Financial Services panel’s markup of the bill, which has yet to be scheduled. Included will be a provision to cap the president’s bailout authority at $1 trillion, and another to strip out the resolution authority language entirely. A potential third proposal — to create an oversight panel like that monitoring TARP funds — is one he’s leaning against.

David Pilditch
Daily Express
Ocotber 29, 2009

A son hailed a hero for tackling two teenage burglars, stabbing one of them to death, was charged with murder yesterday.

Omari Roberts, 23, was widely praised after tackling Tyler Juett, 17, and a 14-year-old accomplice when he caught them breaking into his mother’s home.

He chased the 14-year-old off, then returned to the house to find Juett still there. They scuffled and Juett suffered a six-inch stab wound that severed vital arteries.

Juett was rushed to hospital but later died from his injuries.

Read entire article

ALIPAC
October 29, 2009

“The Attack on the Dobbs Family Was An Attack On All Americans That Value Our 1st Amendment Rights!” — William Gheen of ALIPAC.us

Friends of ALIPAC,

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

We have just learned that someone has fired a gun at the home of Lou Dobbs, with his wife just a few feet away from the incident. The gunfire followed a series of threatening phone calls.

Lou Dobbs is being targeted by the pro-illegal alien groups and pundits who feel that Dobbs is stopping Amnesty from passing.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti Defamation League, the National Council of La Raza, Media Matters, and Geraldo Rivera of Fox News are using false information to foment hatred towards Lou Dobbs or any American who speaks out against Amnesty or illegal immigration.

They have pushed for Lou Dobbs to be fired and since CNN has refused to do that some people are now turning to violence to try and achieve their goals.

The lies and hate coming from these radical pro-illegal alien groups is now manifesting in the form of gunfire fired into the occupied home of an innocent multi-racial family.

Lou Dobbs is a great American who is standing up for the people of the United States and sharing information with the public that the elites want censored.

Here is the Audio of Lou Dobbs telling the tale of this gunfire into his home.

Please share this video with others, make supportive comments, and add to your favorites to spread the word!

Mary Benton
Click2Houston
October 29, 2009

The Houston Police Department launched a new creative campaign to crack down on dangerous and aggressive drivers, KPRC Local 2 reported Wednesday.

The plan calls for putting plainclothes officers in different locations around the city to spot drivers who are speeding, not wearing seat belts, or changing lanes erratically.

In one tactic, senior Houston Police Officer William Dodson will dress in street clothes and stand at a street corner with a sign in his hand.

Some people could mistake him for a vagrant, but on closer inspection, they will see that the sign is reminding people to wear their seat belts.

Read entire article

OTTAWA — Most Canadians are skeptical of the swine flu threat and of the vaccine to fight it, a survey suggested on Monday as the country’s largest-ever vaccination program in Canada got underway.

Fifty-one percent of 1,000 Canadians surveyed by polling firm Strategic Counsel for the daily Globe and Mail newspaper said they would not get vaccinated against the deadly A(H1N1) flu virus, while 49 percent said they wanted a flu shot.

The poll gave no margin of error because the respondents answered voluntarily through an online survey. A similar survey in July showed 62 percent saying they planned to get a swine flu shot.

The split reflects lingering concerns that the vaccine developed by GlaxoSmithKline has not been fully tested and that the influenza outbreak is not very serious, pollster Tim Woolstencroft told the newspaper.

“There has been a real drop-off in the desire to have the vaccination shot,” he said, due mostly to safety concerns and the view that health officials “have been crying wolf too many times” about the threat posed.

The swine flu has so far contributed to 86 deaths in Canada, more than 1,500 hospitalizations and close to 300 critical care ward admissions, according to Health Canada.

Even so, 59 percent of respondents said they believe the swine flu is no more dangerous than the common cold. Only seven percent thought it could be life-threatening.

Aboriginals, youths and medical staff — groups believed to be most at risk of serious infection — received the first round of swine flu shots on Thursday.

A national vaccination campaign kicked off Monday.

Martin Zimmerman
The Los Angeles Times
October 26, 2009

Circulation at U.S. newspapers fell more than 10% during the last six months as readers fled to the Internet at a faster pace.

The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported today that the average weekday circulation of the nearly 400 daily papers that reported sales slid 10.6% between April and September compared to the same six-month period in 2008. That was bigger than the 7.1% decline recorded during the previous six months.

Of the nation’s five biggest daily papers, four reported circulation declines. The Wall Street Journal displaced USA Today as the nation’s largest daily, notching a slim 0.6% gain in subscribers to reach slightly more than 2 million. USA Today’s circulation fell 17% to 1.9 million as the Gannett Co. paper, which gets many of its sales at hotels and airports, was hit by the slump in travel.

Read entire article

ABC News
October 26, 2009

Not there yet, but the roundtable seemed to think that the legalization of marijuana is coming. John Podesta even suggested (in jest?) taxing marijuana could be a way to pay for health care. The times they are a-changin’.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, October 26, 2009

Police in Britain have defined political activism as “domestic extremism” and are treating people who attend demonstrations as criminals, cataloguing them on multiple national databases as well as tracking their vehicle license plates to enable them to be targeted for stop and search harassment.

People of any political persuasion protesting any cause whatsoever, right or left-wing, are having their details stored on a network of nationwide intelligence databases overseen by three national police units exclusively devoted to spying on those who are even mildly politically active in Britain.

“The hidden apparatus has been constructed to monitor “domestic extremists”, reports the London Guardian. “Detailed information about the political activities of campaigners is being stored on a number of overlapping IT systems, even if they have not committed a crime.”

The police units in control of the system are headed up by the “terrorism and allied matters” committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), illustrating once again that the British government equates peaceful protest with domestic terrorism.

“Vehicles associated with protesters are being tracked via a nationwide system of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras,” reports the Guardian. “One man, who has no criminal record, was stopped more than 25 times in less than three years after a “protest” marker was placed against his car after he attended a small protest against duck and pheasant shooting. ANPR “interceptor teams” are being deployed on roads leading to protests to monitor attendance.”

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

The system, funded to the tune of £9 billion by the taxpayer, also employs spies to infiltrate and inform on protest groups.

The following Orwellian statement is the the government’s response to criticism that the databases contain vast numbers of people who have no criminal record.

“Just because you have no criminal record does not mean that you are not of interest to the police,” said Anton Setchell, national co-ordinator for domestic extremism for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo). “Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.”

In other words, everyone who attends a protest, criminal record or not, is on the database and is regarded as a “domestic extremist” by the government.

Superintendent Steve Pearl, the front man for one of the units within Acpo tasked with surveilling protesters told the Guardian that the system was set up after intense pressure from big business, particularly pharmaceutical giants, as well as banks, who demanded that demonstrators be targeted after a minority of animal rights activists engaged in criminal acts.

As another Guardian report on the story explains, just like their counterparts across the pond, British authorities have rebranded lawful protests as “domestic extremism” and now treat any attempt to further a campaign, change legislation or domestic policy as probable cause for criminal surveillance.

Police are provided with mug shots of protesters, known as “spotter cards,” (see above) enabling them to identify key members of protest groups, despite the fact that these individuals have no criminal records.

As comedian Mark Thomas discusses today in his Guardian piece, despite the fact that he was merely attending an arms fair for the purpose of researching for a book, his mug shot is featured on the “police spotter card,” while companies inside the fair who were openly selling illegal torture devices were completely ignored by the government and the police.

“The very phrase “domestic extremist” defines protesters in the eyes of the police as the problem, the enemy. Spying on entire groups and organisations, and targeting the innocent, undermines not only our rights but the law – frightfully silly of me to drag this into an argument about policing, I know,” writes Thomas.

“Protest is part of the democratic process. It wasn’t the goodwill of politicians that led them to cancel developing countries’ debt, but the protests and campaigning of millions of ordinary people around the world. The political leaders were merely the rubber stamp in the democratic process. Thus any targeting and treatment of demonstrators (at the G20 for example) that creates a “chilling effect” – deterring those who may wish to exercise their right to protest – is profoundly undemocratic.”

This is what spying on and treating protesters as extremists and criminals is all about. The government has created a chilling atmosphere where people are scared to exercise their rights because of the fear they will be targeted by the authorities. This is an end run around freedom as it is just as good as outlawing protest altogether. This is how tyranny throughout history always begins – first the state demonizes protesters as extremists and discourages anyone from joining their ranks through fear and intimidation. Once the number of dissidents has been reduced to a tiny minority, the authorities then have free reign to stamp the boot down and eliminate free speech altogether.

The only way to counter this is to shake off the psychological shackles of intimidation, get past our fear and be more vocal than ever in exercising free speech and our right to protest – because the alternative and what it may entail is nightmarish to even consider. If you care about living in anything like a free society with any modicum of free speech whatsoever, then the message is simple – use it or lose it.