Archive for November, 2008

Tis The Season To Make A Real Change

Posted in Business, General, Identity Theft, Legal on November 29, 2008 by truthwillrise

The holidays are upon us. This time of the year, more than ever, a premium is placed on helping others. As with the current state of things in our economy, helping others is more vital than ever. For many of us this is a depressing time of the year because of the loss of a job or a business falling on hard times and it doesn’t seem like things are going to get better anytime soon.
When I encounter these people everyday, I realize how much work we as a people have and how much I have to do personally. I know most of these people are good, hard working folks that live their families and want better lives for them. I think they deserve that. Is that not why we get up and work everyday?
I have decided that I am devoting my life to helping and bettering others and I have been able to help many people but I see so many others that I can benefit. I have set my sites on bringing fifty families out of the “rat race” this year but I know I can do even more than that. I can show you exactly how to make a difference in your life but future generations as well but only if you want my help. It is vital that you look at the information I have for you. You must go to our websites and

This is your future and we can make it better. If you do not like where you are, you cannot change it by doing what you have been doing because that is what has gotten you to that point. Is it not time to try something different?

WeAreChangeLA holds Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg accountable

Posted in 9/11, Truth/Freedom on November 29, 2008 by truthwillrise


WeAreChangeLA Holds Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg accountable

November 10, 2008

On October 15, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg appeared together in Los Angeles at a press conference to endorse CA Prop 11. The slogan of the campaign was “Time to Hold Politicians Accountable.” Stewart Howe and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel of WeAreChange L.A. attended the press conference to give it a go at doing just that.


During the brief Q+A part of the press conference, Jeremy was able to get a question in that spoke to the American people’s general distrust of and dissatisfaction with their public officials. Included in the question was an assertion that at least 50% of the people in Mayor Bloomberg’s city of New York think there is a serious cover-up of 9/11 and that the Mayor has apparently positioned himself against the 9/11 family members who still seek truth and justice and the first responders who deserve the same.

Mayor Bloomberg felt the need to to jump in and respond to the question after Governor Schwarzenegger gave his answer. However, he did not reject the assertions or explain himself on those accounts.

After the press conference was over, Stewart went right up to Governor Schwarzenegger and asked him to clear up the concerns that many people have over his strange appearance on the June 25, 2007 cover of Time Magazine with Mayor Bloomberg, in which he conspicuously showed a death-skull belt buckle. Given the fact that Schwarzenegger’s father was a Nazi SA (brownshirt) officer, that he openly expressed his admiration for Hitler as an inspirational leader in earlier years, posed doing the “Heil Hitler” salute, and spoke about dreaming of being a dictator during an interview with Rolling Stone, one would think that he would, especially as Governor of the most populous state in the country, want to clear up any misunderstandings around his odd sense of fashion. Although he talked about his sense of fashion and his love for “public service,” he did not clear it up.

Additionally, Time Magazine, which was founded by Skull and Bones member Henry Luce, has a deep connection to the beginnings of the CIA, which recruited and stewarded many Nazi spies, scientists and psychologists to safety after WWII in order to put them in service of the free world by folding them into the freshly-inked National Security State. So, there is alot of subtext here that Schwarzenegger felt no need to clear up.

At the same time Stewart was speaking to Schwarzenegger, Jeremy was asking Bloomberg whether he supported a new investigation of 9/11. Bloomberg said “It’s been investigated” as he walked on by. Jeremy then presented Schwarzenegger with a packet of information that is evidence of the ongoing treasonous cover-up of the 9/11 attacks. Under the laws of misprision of treason in this country, one is supposed to report treason to the president, judges or governors. Being that Jeremy has already given the information to judges, he felt it was important to give it to the Governor of his state. Now, Schwarzenegger, if he does nothing with the information, is liable to be held to account for misprision of treason at the very least.

Jeremy also asked Schwarzenegger if he supported a new investigation of 9/11 and he didn’t answer and instead thanked Jeremy for coming. Jeremy asked again and did not receive an answer and so decided to call after Schwarzenegger about his deathskull belt buckle.

Neither Schwarzenegger nor Bloomberg appear to be serious about being leaders and stepping up to accountability. Any old charismatic thug can be an authoritarian. It takes a serious leader to inspire thought and deep courage in the people while being accountable to their own shortcomings. But hey, these guys look to be more like criminals than leaders.

Google ‘censoring’ anti-Obama bloggers?

Posted in News, Truth/Freedom on November 28, 2008 by truthwillrise


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Google ‘censoring’ anti-Obama bloggers?
Writer claims Internet giant banning stories that expose president-elect

Posted: November 28, 2008
1:35 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs

Is Google censoring anti-Obama stories?

Pamela Gellar of Atlas Shrugs claims the search engine giant has banned her groundbreaking articles about Obama – a technique many people refer to as “sandboxing.”

“There was no warning, no notice, nothing,” Gellar told WND. “They have basically sandboxed me.”

“Sandboxing” happens when Google strips a website’s rankings from its search engine results. According to some theories, this happens to new websites when Google puts them into a holding area known as a “sandbox” until the site gains credibility.

However, Atlas Shrugs is not new, and Gellar believes her stories have been intentionally suppressed by the Internet giant – especially ones about President-elect Obama. She said her exclusive stories about Obama’s birth certificate that once received thousands of hits every day will not come up in Google word searches.

“I was in the top five search results before the story got legs,” she said. “These stories drove 12,000 to 15,000 people to my site every day.”

But now a November earnings report from shows her Google clicks and revenue flat lining since Nov. 20. Daily page impressions dropped from an average of 20,000 and 45,000 to single digits – overnight. Also, her Google images hits are slowed to only 4,720 since that day, while Yahoo and other search engines list them in the hundreds of thousands.

“The media gives blogs the silent treatment,” she said. “The only thing we have is these searches. The Google word search is gone – all gone. When you are in my business, that’s how you build readership.”

On July 4, Gellar featured a story about a board-certified forensic expert who declared Obama’s online birth certificate a “forgery” and an “obvious fake.” She attributes most of her problems with Google to that report.

“I think that it’s the birth certificate story,” Gellar said. “All of the sudden, my numbers were down by 10,000.”

(Story continues below)



She has also featured reports on Obama’s support of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga and cases of alleged campaign finance fraud involving his campaign. Gellar believes Google is censoring her stories because it objects to their content.

“It’s a freedom of speech issue,” she said. “Who are they to decide what should be searched? They don’t like what I’m running so they ban me?”

Visitor to Geller’s website receive this “forbidden” message when they use the Google search engine on Atlas Shrugs

Gellar said she has contacted Google three times, and the company said it has filed “requests for consideration” to put her stories back on Google’s search pages.

“They want me to sit this out for six months,” she said. “Are they kidding? Based on what?”

Gellar said the top Google word searches used to be about Obama’s birth certificate. But now she said the searches only return “a bunch of speculating and hearsay” to make the stories appear to be unfounded conspiracy theories.

She believes the censorship could have something to do with Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s relationship with the president-elect. According to recent reports, Schmidt will soon be holding a position in the Obama administration.

Gellar said she has hired a cyber-crime consulting firm to remove her articles from the search engine’s “sandbox” and has asked her readership to help fight censorship with donations.

“Google cannot arbitrarily silence voices of freedom,” she said. “Blogs are the last vestige of free speech.”

Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens

Posted in 9/11, News, Truth/Freedom on November 28, 2008 by truthwillrise


Fox News Reports on Collapse of Building 7 Before It Happens

November 27, 2008

In this recently discovered clip, two Fox News 5 anchors talk about the collapse of Building 7 and are then interrupted by the building actually going down.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in

Posted in News, Truth/Freedom on November 24, 2008 by truthwillrise

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in
Obama’s White House

Jeremy Scahill
Friday, Nov 21, 2008

U.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith
people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts
will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal
politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will
inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best
immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like
can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he
appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign
policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised
over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we
learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his
administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of
President Bill Clinton’s White House. Although Obama brought some
progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team
is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s.
This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat
in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join
Obama’s team.

“What happened to all this talk about change?” a member of the Clinton
foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. “This isn’t
lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time.”

Amid the euphoria over Obama’s election and the end of the Bush era,
it is critical to recall what 1990s U.S. foreign policy actually
looked like. Bill Clinton’s boiled down to a one-two punch from the
hidden hand of the free market, backed up by the iron fist of U.S.
militarism. Clinton took office and almost immediately bombed Iraq
(ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged plot by Saddam Hussein to
assassinate former President George H.W. Bush). He presided over a
ruthless regime of economic sanctions that killed hundreds of
thousands of Iraqis, and under the guise of the so-called No-Fly Zones
in northern and southern Iraq, authorized the longest sustained U.S.
bombing campaign since Vietnam.

Under Clinton, Yugoslavia was bombed and dismantled as part of what
Noam Chomsky described as the “New Military Humanism.” Sudan and
Afghanistan were attacked, Haiti was destabilized and “free trade”
deals like the North America Free Trade Agreement and the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade radically escalated the spread of
corporate-dominated globalization that hurt U.S. workers and
devastated developing countries. Clinton accelerated the
militarization of the so-called War on Drugs in Central and Latin
America and supported privatization of U.S. military operations,
giving lucrative contracts to Halliburton and other war contractors.
Meanwhile, U.S. weapons sales to countries like Turkey and Indonesia
aided genocidal campaigns against the Kurds and the East Timorese.
The prospect of Obama’s foreign policy being, at least in part, an
extension of the Clinton Doctrine is real. Even more disturbing,
several of the individuals at the center of Obama’s transition and
emerging foreign policy teams were top players in creating and
implementing foreign policies that would pave the way for projects
eventually carried out under the Bush/Cheney administration. With
their assistance, Obama has already charted out several hawkish
stances. Among them:

– His plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;

– An Iraq plan that could turn into a downsized and rebranded
occupation that keeps U.S. forces in Iraq for the foreseeable future;

– His labeling of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist
organization; ”

– His pledge to use unilateral force inside of Pakistan to defend U.S.

– His position, presented before the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem “must remain undivided” — a remark
that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to

– His plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S.
counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;

– His refusal to “rule out” using Blackwater and other armed private
forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation
to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.

Obama did not arrive at these positions in a vacuum. They were
carefully crafted in consultation with his foreign policy team. While
the verdict is still out on a few people, many members of his inner
foreign policy circle — including some who have received or are bound
to receive Cabinet posts — supported the invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Some promoted the myth that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction. A few have worked with the neoconservative Project for
the New American Century, whose radical agenda was adopted by the
Bush/Cheney administration. And most have proven track records of
supporting or implementing militaristic, offensive U.S. foreign
policy. “After a masterful campaign, Barack Obama seems headed toward
some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding
the advice of Washington’s Democratic insider community, a collective
group that represents little `change you can believe in,'” notes
veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and
Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra
scandal in the 1980s.

As news breaks and speculation abounds about cabinet appointments,
here are 20 people to watch as Obama builds the team who will shape
U.S. foreign policy for at least four years:

Joe Biden

There was no stronger sign that Obama’s foreign policy would follow
the hawkish tradition of the Democratic foreign policy establishment
than his selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. Much has
been written on Biden’s tenure as head of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, but his role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq stands
out. Biden is not just one more Democratic lawmaker who now calls his
vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq “mistaken;” Biden was
actually an important facilitator of the war.

In the summer of 2002, when the United States was “debating” a
potential attack on Iraq, Biden presided over hearings whose
ostensible purpose was to weigh all existing options. But instead of
calling on experts whose testimony could challenge the case for war —
Iraq’s alleged WMD possession and its supposed ties to al-Qaida —
Biden’s hearings treated the invasion as a foregone conclusion. His
refusal to call on two individuals in particular ensured that
testimony that could have proven invaluable to an actual debate was
never heard: Former Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector Scott
Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, a 32-year veteran diplomat and the former
head of the U.N.’s Iraq program.

Both men say they made it clear to Biden’s office that they were ready
and willing to testify; Ritter knew more about the dismantling of
Iraq’s WMD program than perhaps any other U.S. citizen and would have
been in prime position to debunk the misinformation and outright lies
being peddled by the White House. Meanwhile, von Sponeck had just
returned from Iraq, where he had observed Ansar al Islam rebels in the
north of Iraq — the so-called al-Qaida connection — and could have
testified that, rather than colluding with Saddam’s regime, they were
in a battle against it. Moreover, he would have pointed out that they
were operating in the U.S.-enforced safe haven of Iraqi Kurdistan.
“Evidence of al-Qaida/lraq collaboration does not exist, neither in
the training of operatives nor in support to Ansar-al-Islam, ” von
Sponeck wrote in an Op-Ed published shortly before the July 2002
hearings. “The U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA know perfectly
well that today’s Iraq poses no threat to anyone in the region, let
alone in the United States. To argue otherwise is dishonest.”

With both men barred from testifying, rather than eliciting an array
of informed opinions, Biden’s committee whitewashed Bush’s lies and
helped lead the country to war. Biden himself promoted the
administration’ s false claims that were used to justify the invasion
of Iraq, declaring on the Senate floor, “[Saddam Hussein] possesses
chemical and biological weapons and is seeking nuclear weapons.”

With the war underway, Biden was then the genius who passionately
promoted the ridiculous plan to partition Iraq into three areas based
on religion and ethnicity, attempting to Balkanize one of the
strongest Arab states in the world.

“He’s a part of the old Democratic establishment, ” says retired Army
Col. Ann Wright, the State Department diplomat who reopened the U.S.
embassy in Kabul in 2002. Biden, she says, has “had a long history
with foreign affairs, [but] it’s not the type of foreign affairs that
I want.”

Rahm Emanuel

Obama’s appointment of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Chief of
Staff is a clear sign that Clinton-era neoliberal hawks will be
well-represented at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. A former senior Clinton
advisor, Emanuel is a hard-line supporter of Israel’s “targeted
assassination” policy and actually volunteered to work with the
Israeli Army during the 1991 Gulf War. He is close to the right-wing
Democratic Leadership Council and was the only member of the Illinois
Democratic delegation in the Congress to vote for the invasion of
Iraq. Unlike many of his colleagues, Emanuel still defends his vote.
As chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006,
Emanuel promoted the campaigns of 22 candidates, only one of who
supported a swift withdrawal from Iraq, and denied crucial Party
funding to anti-war candidates. “As for Iraq policy, at the right
time, we will have a position,” he said in December 2005. As Philip
Giraldi recently pointed out on, Emanuel “advocates
increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating
a domestic spying organization like Britain’s MI5. More recently, he
has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all
Americans between the ages of 18 and 25.”

While Obama has at times been critical of Clinton-era free trade
agreements, Emanuel was one of the key people in the Clinton White
House who brokered the successful passage of NAFTA.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

For all the buzz and speculation about the possibility that Sen.
Clinton may be named Secretary of State, most media coverage has
focused on her rivalry with Obama during the primary, along with the
prospect of her husband having to face the intense personal, financial
and political vetting process required to secure a job in the new
administration. But the question of how Clinton would lead the
operations at Foggy Bottom calls for scrutiny of her positions
vis-a-vis Obama’s stated foreign-policy goals.

Clinton was an ardent defender of her husband’s economic and military
war against Iraq throughout the 1990s, including the Iraq Liberation
Act of 1998, which ultimately laid the path for President George W.
Bush’s invasion. Later, as a U.S. senator, she not only voted to
authorize the war, but aided the Bush administration’ s propaganda
campaign in the lead-up to the invasion. “Saddam Hussein has worked to
rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his
missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program,” Clinton said
when rising to support the measure in October 2002. “He has also given
aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members …
I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our
national unity and for our support for the president’s efforts to wage
America’s war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. ”

“The man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons
has been stocking up on Clintonites, ” New York Times columnist Maureen
Dowd recently wrote. “How, one may ask, can he put Hillary — who voted
to authorize the Iraq war without even reading the intelligence
assessment — in charge of patching up a foreign policy and a world
riven by that war?”

Beyond Iraq, Clinton shocked many and sparked official protests by
Tehran at the United Nations when asked during the presidential
campaign what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with
nuclear weapons. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the
president, we will attack Iran,” she declared. “In the next 10 years,
during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on
Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Clinton has not shied away from supporting offensive foreign policy
tactics in the past. Recalling her husband’s weighing the decision of
whether to attack Yugoslavia, she said in 1999, “I urged him to bomb.
… You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the
major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend
our way of life?”

Madeleine Albright

While Obama’s house is flush with Clintonian officials like former
Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Defense Secretary William
Perry, Director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning Greg
Craig (who was officially named Obama’s White House Counsel) and Navy
Secretary Richard Danzig, perhaps most influential is Madeleine
Albright, Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of State and U.N.
ambassador. Albright recently served as a proxy for Obama,
representing him at the G-20 summit earlier this month. Whether or not
she is awarded an official role in the administration, Albright will
be a major force in shaping Obama’s foreign policy.

“It will take time to convince skeptics that the promotion of
democracy is not a mask for imperialism or a recipe for the kind of
chaos we have seen in the Persian Gulf,” Albright recently wrote. “And
it will take time to establish the right identity for America in a
world that has grown suspicious of all who claim a monopoly on virtue
and that has become reluctant to follow the lead of any one country.”

Albright should know. She was one of the key architects in the
dismantling of Yugoslavia during the 1990s. In the lead-up to the 1999
“Kosovo war,” she oversaw the U.S. attempt to coerce the Yugoslav
government to deny its own sovereignty in return for not being bombed.
Albright demanded that the Yugoslav government sign a document that
would have been unacceptable to any sovereign nation. Known as the
Rambouillet Accord, it included a provision that would have guaranteed
U.S. and NATO forces “free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded
access throughout” all of Yugoslavia — not just Kosovo — while also
seeking to immunize those occupation forces “from any form of arrest,
investigation or detention by the authorities in [Yugoslavia] .”
Moreover, it would have granted the occupiers “the use of airports,
roads, rails and ports without payment.” Similar to Bush’s Iraq plan
years later, the Rambouillet Accord mandated that the economy of
Kosovo “shall function in accordance with free-market principles.”

When Yugoslavia refused to sign the document, Albright and others in
the Clinton administration unleashed the 78-day NATO bombing of
Serbia, which targeted civilian infrastructure. (Prior to the attack,
Albright said the U.S. government felt “the Serbs need a little
bombing.”) She and the Clinton administration also supported the rise
to power in Kosovo of a terrorist mafia that carried out its own
ethnic-cleansing campaign against the province’s minorities.

Perhaps Albright’s most notorious moment came with her enthusiastic
support of the economic war against the civilian population of Iraq.
When confronted by Lesley Stahl of “60 Minutes” that the sanctions
were responsible for the deaths of “a half-million children … more
children than died in Hiroshima,” Albright responded, “I think this is
a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”
(While defending the policy, Albright later called her choice of words
“a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy, and wrong.”)

Richard Holbrooke

Like Albright, Holbrooke will have major sway over U.S. policy,
whether or not he gets an official job. A career diplomat since the
Vietnam War, Holbrooke’s most recent government post was as President
Clinton’s ambassador to the U.N. Among the many violent policies he
helped implement and enforce was the U.S.-backed Indonesian genocide
in East Timor. Holbrooke was an Assistant Secretary of State in the
late 1970s at the height of the slaughter and was the point man on
East Timor for the Carter Administration.

According to Brad Simpson, director of the Indonesia and East Timor
Documentation Project at the National Security Archive at George
Washington University, “It was Holbrooke and Zbigniew Brzezinski
[another top Obama advisor], both now leading lights in the Democratic
Party, who played point in trying to frustrate the efforts of
congressional human-rights activists to try and condition or stop U.S.
military assistance to Indonesia, and in fact accelerated the flow of
weapons to Indonesia at the height of the genocide.”

Holbrooke, too, was a major player in the dismantling of Yugoslavia
and praised the bombing of Serb Television, which killed 16 media
workers, as a significant victory. (The man who ordered that bombing,
now-retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, is another Obama foreign policy
insider who could end up in his cabinet. While Clark is known for
being relatively progressive on social issues, as Supreme Allied
Commander of NATO, he ordered bombings and attacks that Amnesty
International labeled war crimes.)

Like many in Obama’s foreign policy circle, Holbrooke also supported
the Iraq war. In early 2003, shortly after then-Secretary of State
Colin Powell’s speech to the UN, where he presented the
administration’ s fraud-laden case for war to the UN (a speech Powell
has since called a “blot” on his reputation), Holbrooke said: “It was
a masterful job of diplomacy by Colin Powell and his colleagues, and
it does not require a second vote to go to war. … Saddam is the most
dangerous government leader in the world today, he poses a threat to
the region, he could pose a larger threat if he got weapons of mass
destruction deployed, and we have a legitimate right to take action.”

Dennis Ross

Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross was
one of the primary authors of Obama’s aforementioned speech before
AIPAC this summer. He cut his teeth working under famed
neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in the 1970s and worked
closely with the Project for the New American Century. Ross has been a
staunch supporter of Israel and has fanned the flames for a more
hostile stance toward Iran. As the lead U.S. negotiator between Israel
and numerous Arab nations under Clinton, Ross’ team acted, in the
words of one U.S. official who worked under him, as “Israel’s lawyer.”

“The `no surprises’ policy, under which we had to run everything by
Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility
required for serious peacemaking, ” wrote U.S. diplomat Aaron David
Miller in 2005. “If we couldn’t put proposals on the table without
checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they
said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often,
particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our
departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement
acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one — Israel.”
After the Clinton White House, Ross worked for the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank, and
for FOX News, where he repeatedly pressed for war against Iraq.

Martin Indyk

Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Indyk spent
years working for AIPAC and served as Clinton’s ambassador to Israel
and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also
playing a major role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran.
In addition to his work for the U.S. government, he has worked for the
Israeli government and with PNAC.

“Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by appealing to the
most hard-line, pro-Israel elements in this country,” Ali Abunimah,
founder of ElectronicInifada. net, recently told Amy Goodman of
Democracy Now!, describing Indyk and Dennis Ross as “two of the most
pro-Israel officials from the Clinton era, who are totally distrusted
by Palestinians and others across the Middle East, because they’re
seen as lifelong advocates for Israeli positions.”

Anthony Lake

Clinton’s former National Security Advisor was an early supporter of
Obama and one of the few top Clintonites to initially back the
president-elect. Lake began his foreign policy work in the U.S.
Foreign Service during Vietnam, working with Henry Kissinger on the
“September Group,” a secret team tasked with developing a military
strategy to deliver a “savage, decisive blow against North Vietnam.”

Decades later, after working for various administrations, Lake “was
the main force behind the U.S. invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton
years,” according to veteran journalist Allan Nairn, whose
groundbreaking reporting revealed U.S. support for Haitian death
squads in the 1990s. “They brought back Aristide essentially in
political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the
economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among
Haitians, and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster
in Haiti.” Clinton nominated Lake as CIA Director, but he failed to
win Senate confirmation.

Lee Hamilton

Hamilton is a former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
and was co-chairman of both the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission.
Robert Parry, who has covered Hamilton’s career extensively, recently
ran a piece on Consortium News that characterized him this way:
“Whenever the Republicans have a touchy national-security scandal to
put to rest, their favorite Democratic investigator is Lee Hamilton. …
Hamilton’s carefully honed skill for balancing truth against political
comity has elevated him to the status of a Washington Wise Man.”

Susan Rice

Former Assistant Secretary of Sate Susan Rice, who served on Bill
Clinton’s National Security Council, is a potential candidate for the
post of ambassador to the U.N. or as a deputy national security
advisor. She, too, promoted the myth that Saddam had WMDs. “It’s clear
that Iraq poses a major threat,” she said in 2002. “It’s clear that
its weapons of mass destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and
that’s the path we’re on.” (After the invasion, discussing Saddam’s
alleged possession of WMDs, she said, “I don’t think many informed
people doubted that.”)

Rice has also been a passionate advocate for a U.S. military attack
against Sudan over the Darfur crisis. In an op-ed co-authored with
Anthony Lake, she wrote, “The United States, preferably with NATO
involvement and African political support, would strike Sudanese
airfields, aircraft and other military assets. It could blockade Port
Sudan, through which Sudan’s oil exports flow. Then U.N. troops would
deploy — by force, if necessary, with U.S. and NATO backing.”

John Brennan

A longtime CIA official and former head of the National
Counterterrorism Center, Brennan is one of the coordinators of Obama’s
intelligence transition team and a top contender for either CIA
Director or Director of National Intelligence. He was also recently
described by Glenn Greenwald as “an ardent supporter of torture and
one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom
immunity.” While claiming to oppose waterboarding, labeling it
“inconsistent with American values” and “something that should be
prohibited,” Brennan has simultaneously praised the results achieved
by “enhanced interrogation” techniques. “There has been a lot of
information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that
the agency has, in fact, used against the real hard-core terrorists,”
Brennan said in a 2007 interview. “It has saved lives. And let’s not
forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for
9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.”

Brennan has described the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program — the
government-run kidnap-and-torture program enacted under Clinton — as
an absolutely vital tool. “I have been intimately familiar now over
the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government
has been involved in,” he said in a December 2005 interview. “And I
can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as
producing intelligence that has saved lives.”

Brennan is currently the head of Analysis Corporation, a private
intelligence company that was recently implicated in the breach of
Obama and Sen. John McCain’s passport records. He is also the current
chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), a
trade association of private intelligence contractors who have
dramatically increased their role in sensitive U.S. national security
operations. (Current Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell
is former chairman of the INSA.)

Jami Miscik

Miscik, who works alongside Brennan on Obama’s transitional team, was
the CIA’s Deputy Director for Intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq
war. She was one of the key officials responsible for sidelining intel
that contradicted the official line on WMD, while promoting intel that
backed it up.

“When the administration insisted on an intelligence assessment of
Saddam Hussein’s relationship to al-Qaida, Miscik blocked the skeptics
(who were later vindicated) within the CIA’s Mideast analytical
directorate and instructed the less-skeptical counterterrorism
analysts to ‘stretch to the maximum the evidence you had,’ ”
journalist Spencer Ackerman recently wrote in the Washington
Independent. “It’s hard to think of a more egregious case of
sacrificing sound intelligence analysis in order to accommodate the
strategic fantasies of an administration. … The idea that Miscik is
helping staff Obama’s top intelligence picks is most certainly not
change we can believe in.” What’s more, she went on to a lucrative
post as the Global Head of Sovereign Risk for the now-bankrupt Lehman

John Kerry and Bill Richardson

Both Sen. Kerry and Gov. Richardson have been identified as possible
contenders for Secretary of State. While neither is likely to be as
hawkish as Hillary Clinton, both have taken pro-war positions. Kerry
promoted the WMD lie and voted to invade Iraq. “Why is Saddam Hussein
attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even
try?” Kerry asked on the Senate floor in October 2002. “According to
intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons … Iraq is
developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and
biological warfare agents.”

Richardson, whose Iraq plan during his 2008 presidential campaign was
more progressive and far-reaching than Obama’s, served as Bill
Clinton’s ambassador to the UN. In this capacity, he supported
Clinton’s December 1998 bombing of Baghdad and the U.S.-led sanctions
against Iraq. “We think this man is a threat to the international
community, and he threatens a lot of the neighbors in his region and
future generations there with anthrax and VX,” Richardson told an
interviewer in February 1998.

While Clinton’s Secretary of Energy, Richardson publicly named Wen Ho
Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, as a target in
an espionage investigation. Lee was accused of passing nuclear secrets
to the Chinese government. Lee was later cleared of those charges and
won a settlement against the U.S. government.

Robert Gates

Washington consensus is that Obama will likely keep Robert Gates,
George W. Bush’s Defense Secretary, as his own Secretary of Defense.
While Gates has occasionally proved to be a stark contrast to former
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he would hardly represent a
break from the policies of the Bush administration. Quite the
opposite; according to the Washington Post, in the interest of a
“smooth transition,” Gates “has ordered hundreds of political
appointees at the Pentagon canvassed to see whether they wish to stay
on in the new administration, has streamlined policy briefings and has
set up suites for President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team just
down the hall from his own E-ring office.” The Post reports that Gates
could stay on for a brief period and then be replaced by Richard
Danzig, who was Clinton’s Secretary of the Navy. Other names currently
being tossed around are Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, Republican Sen.
Chuck Hagel (a critic of the Iraq occupation) and Republican Sen.
Richard Lugar, who served alongside Biden on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.

Ivo H. Daalder

Daalder was National Security Council Director for European Affairs
under President Clinton. Like other Obama advisors, he has worked with
the Project for the New American Century and signed a 2005 letter from
PNAC to Congressional leaders, calling for an increase in U.S. ground
troops in Iraq and beyond.

Sarah Sewall

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Peacekeeping and
Humanitarian Assistance during the Clinton administration, Sewall
served as a top advisor to Obama during the campaign and is almost
certain to be selected for a post in his administration. In 2007,
Sewall worked with the U.S. military and Army Gen. David Petraeus,
writing the introduction to the University of Chicago edition of the
Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual. She was criticized
for this collaboration by Tom Hayden, who wrote, “the Petraeus plan
draws intellectual legitimacy from Harvard’s Carr Center for Human
Rights Policy, whose director, Sarah Sewall, proudly embraces an
`unprecedented collaboration [as] a human rights center partnered with
the armed forces.'”

“Humanitarians often avoid wading into the conduct of war for fear of
becoming complicit in its purpose,” she wrote in the introduction.
“`The field manual requires engagement precisely from those who fear
that its words lack meaning.”

Michele Flournoy

Flournoy and former Clinton Deputy Defense Secretary John White are
co-heading Obama’s defense transition team. Flournoy was a senior
Clinton appointee at the Pentagon. She currently runs the Center for a
New American Security, a center-right think-tank. There is speculation
that Obama could eventually name her as the first woman to serve as
defense secretary. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported:
“While at CNAS, Flournoy helped to write a report that called for
reducing the open-ended American military commitment in Iraq and
replacing it with a policy of `conditional engagement’ there.
Significantly, the paper rejected the idea of withdrawing troops
according to the sort of a fixed timeline that Obama espoused during
the presidential campaign. Obama has in recent weeks signaled that he
was willing to shelve the idea, bringing him more in line with
Flournoy’s thinking.” Flournoy has also worked with the
neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

Wendy Sherman and Tom Donilon

Currently employed at Madeline Albright’s consulting firm, the
Albright Group, Sherman worked under Albright at the State Department,
coordinating U.S. policy on North Korea. She is now coordinating the
State Department transition team for Obama. Tom Donilon, her
co-coordinator, was Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs
and Chief of Staff at the State Department under Clinton.
Interestingly, Sherman and Donilon both have ties to Fannie Mae that
didn’t make it onto their official bios on Obama’s website.
“Donilon was Fannie’s general counsel and executive vice president for
law and policy from 1999 until the spring of 2005, a period during
which the company was rocked by accounting problems,” reports the Wall
Street Journal.


While many of the figures at the center of Obama’s foreign policy team
are well-known, two of its most important members have never held
national elected office or a high-profile government position. While
they cannot be characterized as Clinton-era hawks, it will be
important to watch Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, co-coordinators
of the Obama foreign policy team. From 2000 to 2005, McDonough served
as foreign policy advisor to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and
worked extensively on the use-of-force authorizations for the attacks
on Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which Daschle supported. From 1996 to
1999, McDonough was a professional staff member of the House
International Relations Committee during the debate over the bombing
of Yugoslavia. More recently, he was at the Center for American
Progress working under John Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff
and the current head of the Obama transition.

Mark Lippert is a close personal friend of Obama’s. He has worked for
Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, as well as the Senate Appropriations
Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. He is a lieutenant in
the Navy Reserve and spent a year in Iraq working intelligence for the
Navy SEALs. “According to those who’ve worked closely with Lippert,”
Robert Dreyfuss recently wrote in The Nation, “he is a conservative,
cautious centrist who often pulled Obama to the right on Iraq, Iran
and the Middle East and who has been a consistent advocate for
increased military spending. `Even before Obama announced for the
presidency, Lippert wanted Obama to be seen as tough on Iran,’ says a
lobbyist who’s worked the Iran issue on Capitol Hill, `He’s clearly
more hawkish than the senator.’ ”


Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to bring change to Washington. “I
don’t want to just end the war,” he said early this year. “I want to
end the mindset that got us into war.” That is going to be very
difficult if Obama employs a foreign policy team that was central to
creating that mindset, before and during the presidency of George W. Bush.

“Twenty-three senators and 133 House members who voted against the war
— and countless other notable individuals who spoke out against it and
the dubious claims leading to war — are apparently not even being
considered for these crucial positions,” observes Sam Husseini of the
Institute for Public Accuracy. This includes dozens of former military
and intelligence officials who spoke out forcefully against the war
and continue to oppose militaristic policy, as well as credible
national security experts who have articulated their visions for a
foreign policy based on justice.

Obama does have a chance to change the mindset that got us into war.
More significantly, he has a popular mandate to forcefully challenge
the militaristic, hawkish tradition of modern U.S. foreign policy. But
that work would begin by bringing on board people who would challenge
this tradition, not those who have been complicit in creating it and
are bound to continue advancing it.

(Original article)

http://www.alternet .org/story/ 107666/?page= entire

Daily Grind: A letter to OBAMA supporters

Posted in Truth/Freedom on November 24, 2008 by truthwillrise


Daily Grind: A letter to OBAMA Supporters

Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:16 am (PST)

NL Commentary

Dear Obama supporters,

I write this letter with urgency and grave concern. In 2006, my gut
told me that nothing would happen if the Democrats were elected to the
House and Senate as a majority with the mission to provide a check to
the Bush Administration. Still I went to the polls and voted a
straight ticket for the Democratic Party. We all later watched in
horror as Nancy Pelosi uttered the words “impeachment is off of the
table,” soon after becoming Speaker of the House-elect. The next two
years were no better as the Dems broke key campaign promises in the
areas of ending torture, withdrawing the troops and restoring civil
liberties. In fact, during that time torture was depoliticized, so
was the war and the Big Brother grid intensified.

As you watch the nominations of the Obama Administration cabinet
designees, most your guts have to be telling you that something in
terribly wrong. I mean if you were looking to CHANGE the direction of
this country’s foreign policy, one would think that our next Secretary
of State (a role that acts as America’s TOP DIPLOMAT) would be someone
who didn’t originally support the Iraq war, correct? Instead, this
new administration selects one of the biggest Democratic Party war
hawks in Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton, who repeatedly said, during a
bitter Democratic primary campaign, that all options are open when it
comes to Iran (including pre-emptive nuclear strikes). Furthermore,
why Obama would recruit one of his most bitter rivals to serve in the
#3 post his administration is beyond me? It definitely brings a new
meaning to the phrase, ‘keep your friends close but your enemies
closer,’ doesn’t it?

Next you have a possible Bush holdover for Secretary of Defense in
Robert Gates. Why does the phrase, ‘Stay the Course’ immediately come
to mind? You are telling me the new administration is strongly
considering extending control to the person who is currently in charge
of the Pentagon. Obama is actually contemplating nominating a person
who is at present serving an administration that lied this country
into an illegal war? That’s CHANGE? I thought Obama said he would
pull us out of Iraq. Why keep the guy who has led the strategy to
keep us in Iraq, if you are serious about withdrawal?

Former Clinton Administration staffer Rahm Emanuel has been named
Chief of Staff designee. Emanuel is another war-hawk who voted for
the Iraq war and remains proud of it. The Attorney General nominee.
Eric Holder, was Deputy Attorney General under the Clinton
Administration. You might best recall that one of Holder’s final
duties as Acting Attorney General under Clinton in 2001, was executing
the highly controversial Presidential pardon Mark Rich. Rich was the
fugitive financier who fled to Switzerland in 1983, prior to being
indicted for tax evasion, fraud and participating in illegal oil deals
with Iran. As #2 at the Justice Department behind Janet Reno, Holder
and AG Reno were also involved in malfeasance related to the WACO and
Ruby Ridge murders.

Responsible for overseeing ALL of America’s borders will be Homeland
Security Secretary nominee, Janet Napolitano. As Governor of Arizona
she has done NOTHING to enhance the borders of the that state. Yes
she is a fresh face to Washington, but I am not sure if its a good
idea to give her MORE responsibility given her track record on border
security. Regarding the border fence, she famously conceded “build a
fence 32 feet and someone will get a 33 foot ladder.” Former Senator
Tom Daschle’s nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services is
a veteran of the partisan political wars during the Clinton era. As
former Senate minority leader, Daschle is far from a fresh face in
Washington. Still, no real CHANGE.

And last but not least, in the middle of a financial crisis which has
been orchestrated by the bankers, Obama selects the President of the
New York Federal Reserve as Treasury Secretary. Timothy Geithner is
one of the primary architects of the Bush Administration’ s response to
this financial crisis. He is one of the criminals that just stole
$700 billion. Again we have NO CHANGE because the cat guarding is
still guarding the canary. Adding insult to injury former Clinton
Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers has been selected as Obama’s top
economic adviser. Summers put this economic collapse in motion by
pressing Congress to pass legislation that killed a Depression-era law
that prevented the commingling of banks and investment institutions.
Following the passage of this legislation, creative investment tools
like mortgage backed securities were born. It is an understatement to
say that these tools have significantly contributed to the recent
financial collapse.

The spin machine AKA the corporate owned mainstream news media has
branded this the “team of rivals.” However, even the most die hard
Obama supporter must be miffed with the ushering in of the “old
guard.” That being said, most of Obama’s supporters still want to
give him a chance, afterall he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. Fair
enough. But as I close, two final questions come to mind. To those
that voted for HOPE and CHANGE, will you be mature enough to admit
that you were conned if this administration proves to be fraudulent?
And if so, will we collectively allow the false left-right
dictatorship to continue by allowing the baton pass back to another
controlled Republican movement that will undoubtedly have a refreshed
cry for “CHANGE” (aka Contract with America)? Or will we all be able
to stand together to reclaim this Republic from a global elite that is
slitting the throats of the citizens of this country?

Change You Can Believe In?

Posted in Truth/Freedom on November 22, 2008 by truthwillrise

I am throughly disgusted and astonished at the blind lovefest for the president-elect, Barack Obama. While I am glad that these people are excited about politics ,in their excitement they neglected the most important aspect of any election,namely the issues. People got caught up in the well worded speeches and the catchy campaign slogans, which is understandable in a sense considering the direction that the current administration has taken the country over the past eight years. This lack of attention to the issues has me particularly concerned me because I have been paying attention to what he and people in his camp and other prominent people have been saying (such as Colin Powell and Joe Biden, but more on that later), and it did and continues to alarm and concern me on many levels.
Several months ago, While we were not paying attention an important act called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed. This act was sold to the American people as using wiretapping to spy on “terrorists” but it has been turned on the American people,a clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights, and it gives complete immunity given to the telecom companies. The now President-elect Obama initially said that he was against domestic wiretapping, however he voted in favor of the legislation.
We are all familiar with the $700 billion banker bailout bill.Pres. Bush, McCain and Obama got in front of America and grandstanded and told the country how this bill had to be passed for the good of America. When this unconstitutional bill passed(after Treasury Sec. Paulson threatened congressmen with martial law if they didn’t pass the bill), the bailout money was not utilized for that which it was asked. It was being used for junkets, executive salary bonuses, and buying banks. Several members of congress (it was the subject of congressional hearings)and others spoke out against what was going on; Mr.Obama was not among these voices who spoke out in favor of the American people.
I hope President-elect Obama sticks to closing the black eye that is Guatanamo Bay. That will be one of few positive moves we would have to look forward to under the new administration. Some coming attractions of the new regime include a civilian national security squad as powerful and well funded as our military, taxes on carbon, potential war with Pakistan, and expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement just to name a few. I encourage and suggest you look into these issues for yourself so you can see how they will affect us individually and collectively as a nation and world. Also pay attention to who our new President is surrounding himself with. In a speech in October, which the audio of is posted on this blog, Vice President elect Joe Biden said that within months of Obama taking office there will be an international,generated crisis to test the new president. He also said they will have to do things that will be unpopular with the American people. What is this generated crisis? What unpopular decisions will have to be made? Colin Powell said on an interview on “Meet the Press”, that there will be an “event” on January 21 or 22 that they do not even know about yet. You might want to ask yourself what these people are talking about!
A further look at the potential key members of an Obama administration is like reading a CFR members’ list. Many of them are formers members of the Bush and Clinton administrations. Does that sound like change, bringing in members of the old guard? It seems like more of the same to me.
You may get change but it won’t be change you want and certainly not change you can believe. Business as usual in a different way is NOT change!

Howard Zinn:” I Don’t Care” If 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Posted in 9/11 on November 22, 2008 by truthwillrise

Howard Zinn: “I Don’t Care” If 9/11 Was An Inside Job


Another gatekeeper illustrates the intellectual cowardice of the establishment left

Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, November 18, 2008

World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn recently told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement.

Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7.

Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, “I don’t know much about the situation and the truth is, I don’t care that much about it, that’s passed….that’s a diversion from what we really have to do,” adding that debating who was behind 9/11, “gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation”.

Moore attempted to ask Zinn a follow up question about allowing the perpetrators to go free but was largely shouted down by Zinn’s fawning army of left-wing sycophants.

Watch the clip below.

Zinn’s comments echo similar sentiments expressed by fellow left-wing luminary, Noam Chomsky, who has repeatedly expressed arrogance and contempt towards the 9/11 truth movement while invoking apathy towards the contention that there was government complicity in the attacks, despite the fact that the 9/11 attacks happening exactly as the government maintains was key to launching the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the massive rollback in civil liberties that has occurred over the last seven years.

During a 2006 Internet forum event, Chomsky claimed that the 9/11 truth movement peddled “arcane and dubious theories” and had distracted activists from pursuing “crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC,” presumably belittling the deaths of around 2,000 Americans, along with hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis, as well as thousands of U.S. troops in the wars that followed that could not have been launched without the pretext of 9/11.

When a critic asked Chomsky why he was so dismissive of the supposition that 9/11 was a false flag event, pointing out numerous other examples throughout history including the bombing of the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and Pearl Harbor, Chomsky merely reiterated his insolence, stating, “The concept of “false flag operation” is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I’d suggest that you look at each of them carefully.”


Chomsky actually dismissed U.S. government complicity in 9/11 a mere four months after the event, and over a year before it was again invoked as a reason to invade Iraq, when he told an audience at a FAIR event at New York’s Town Hall, 22 January 2002, “That’s an internet theory and it’s hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don’t see any point in talking about it,” in response to a question about U.S. government foreknowledge.

Note that Professor Chomsky also vehemently maintains that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, even despite polls showing that around 80 per cent of the American public believe otherwise.

Chomsky was presented with convincing evidence for a wider plot by JFK assassination experts as far back as 1969 and according to Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, Chomsky indicated that he believed there was a conspiracy, but has failed to voice his conclusion for nearly 40 years.

It’s painfully clear that the likes of Zinn and Chomsky are intellectual cowards who, despite being abundantly aware of the fact that both 9/11 and the JFK assassination represent far wider conspiracies than the official version of events dictates, they are afraid of using their prominent soapboxes to bring either subject to wider attention for fear of whatever reprisals might ensue. As Vincent Salandria enunciates, this makes them worse than disinformation agents.

“I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent,” states Salandria, “But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency.”

Indeed, at the time of the release of Oliver Stone’s JFK movie, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and another liberal luminary, Alexander Cockburn, went on a seemingly orchestrated media campaign in an attempt to convince the public that the JFK assassination was not a wider conspiracy and also that it didn’t matter even if it was.

“When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion,” notes one blogger.

The same rhetoric was utilized when questions about 9/11 reached a crescendo. Cockburn, Zinn and Chomsky not only dismiss clear evidence that the official story is demonstrably false, but in addition attempt to generate apathy around the whole issue, classic gatekeeper behavior in preventing the left from becoming active in pursuing the truth about 9/11.

Get Ready For The Obama “Green Brigades”

Posted in News, Truth/Freedom on November 21, 2008 by truthwillrise



Get Ready For The Obama “Greeen Brigades”

Nightmare Global Warming Bill To Return In January

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, November 21, 2008

A previously defeated bill that would reduce emissions of that evil, life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants absorb, carbon dioxide, is set to return in January under an Obama administration hell-bent on passing legislation that would inflict the equivalent of a new great depression on America while creating a new infrastructure of “green brigades” and informants to regulate every aspect of our behavior.

“The US Senate will take up two sweeping global warming bills in January, in the latest sign that Barack Obama’s election could quickly reverse years of US footdragging on climate change,” reports AFP.

“The….legislation will direct the US Environmental Protection Agency to set up a cap-and-trade system to stem greenhouse gas emissions.”

Obama reiterated his endorsement for the bill on Tuesday during a speech in which he again called for an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.


The only way this can be achieved of course is with a giant stealth tax not only on businesses, but on individuals, backed by the giant strong arm of tyrannical enforcement by hoards of “climate cops” sticking their noses into our private lives, as is already embryonically being metered out in Britain.

“The time to start is now,” said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, vowing to step up to Obama’s challenge to combat climate change and create millions of “green jobs” in the reeling US economy.”

How many of these “green jobs” will be staffed by “green brigades” tasked with regulating and surveilling every aspect of your behavior to ensure your compliance with the state-mandated religion of phony environmentalism, while the state itself does everything to accelerate or ignore the real environmental problems like GM crop contamination, deforestation, genetic splicing, chemtrail spraying, cancer-causing cellphone pollution, as well as the plethora of crap being put in our water, food and vaccines like sodium fluoride, MSG, aspartame, mercury, pesticides, and rat poison?

All of these real problems are pushed aside by the all-mighty threat of “climate change,” despite the fact that the climate has always changed throughout eons of history, with no contribution by man.

How many of Obama’s promised “national civilian security force,” a cadre we are guaranteed will be as strong or stronger than the U.S. Army, will be assigned to spy on their neighbors for enviro-crimes and report them to the local green commissariat?

The cost to the U.S. economy if the bill is passed, as revealed by an Environmental Protection Agency investigation, would be $2.9 trillion, 6.9 percent shaved off the country’s GDP, a figure comparable to the Great Depression, along with millions of jobs lost.

And all for what? A reduction of carbon emissions by 80 per cent will result in a maximum temperature decrease of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, underscoring the fact that natural climate change has throughout history eclipsed any effect man can have on temperature variations.

And why the hell should we want to lower temperatures anyway? Here in Britain we had our first October snow since the 1930’s as the country again braces itself for Arctic temperatures this weekend while top scientists warn of a new ice age within 10 years.

Arctic sea ice has expanded 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since last summer, Alaskan glaciers have grown for the first time in 250 years, while record low temperatures have hit parts of America across the country.

Meanwhile, climate scientists allied with the IPCC were caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record. They later had to admit their “error” after it was revealed that they had used temperature records from September, a naturally hotter month, and merely passed them off as representing October temperatures.

Global warming fearmongers like the World Wildlife Fund are having to resort to deception as a clear trend of global cooling unfolds. In a recent report, the WWF cited shrinking Arctic ice coverage to suggest climate change is “faster and more extreme” than first thought, while failing to acknowledge that Arctic sea ice expanded over an area bigger than the size of Germany during the year of 2008.

Without question, developing alternative energy methods and encouraging the use of solar and wind power for means of self-sufficiency and reducing dependency on oil and fossil fuels is a fantastic notion and should be widely supported. But this isn’t about helping the environment, it’s about exploiting people’s legitimate concern for the planet by diverting their attention and getting them to enthusiasticallty partake in their own enslavement while mandating their fellow citizens do the same.

Welcome to another dose of the “change you can believe in,” trillions more of taxpayer’s money thrown at a scam that has nothing to do with saving the environment and everything to do with raping the middle class and the poor while erecting a gargantuan police state system of informants and enforcement to carry out the elite’s new feudalist agenda.

Your Life Change Starts HERE!

Posted in Business, General, Identity Theft, Legal on November 21, 2008 by truthwillrise

The economy is in an unprecedented (albeit manufactured) state of turmoil. Job losses are becoming commonplace as major company after major company announces lay offs seemingly daily. However I’m not here to depress you with all the negative news of this world; I am bringing hope and a solution to these problems. Unlike a growing segment of American companies, my business has never been better. This is anything but a tumultuous time for us. While these other colonies are closing stores and cutting staff, we are expanding and bringing more people on board. We help people better their lives and that is why we continue grow at the rate we do( we will do over a half billion dollars this year and we will double over the next 3-5 years). Whatever your goals are , be it more money, time freedom, get out of debt, be more charitable or many other aspirations, we can and want to help you achieve them. For us, it is not about our success but it is about seeing others attain their dreams. This is your time to go out and make it happen in your life. You are reading this at this very moment for a reason . Take advantage of this moment by logging on to or We are here for you and your success.