Archive for December 20, 2008

Ron Paul: Fear Based Bailouts Constitute Economic Terrorism

Posted in Business, General, New World Order, Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise



Congressman warns that auto-bailout could lead directly to fascism in America

Steve Watson
December 19, 2008

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has hit out at US monetary policy, warning that fear based politics are being used to promote the bailout culture in the same way they were used to sell the Iraq war.

“Governments that want to take over, undermine our liberties and gain more power always use the fear factor. They did this leading up to the war in Iraq, they do it on foreign policy, now they’re doing it on monetary, economic and financial problems.” Paul told the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show Wednesday.

“They do that all the time, that is their technique, always to build a tremendous fear in the hearts of the people. Terrorize the people and say that ‘we are your saviors and we’re the only ones that can take care of it’.” The Congressman stated.

Paul pointed out that the use of the fear factor was never more evident than in the run up to the passage of the $750 billion bailout bill earlier this year when it emerged that representatives had been threatened with an economic crash and physical martial law in America.

When asked if this constituted economic terrorism, Paul replied “Of course it is, and those responsible should be held accountable.”

The Congressman also warned that the bailout of the auto industry could have dire consequences.

“It is extremely dangerous because although we have been creeping in that direction, this is an endorsement of nationalization. If they keep token ownership with the corporations, which they probably will, then it’s called fascism.” Paul said.


efoods“I think everybody knows we’re in a crisis now and they have now gotten to the point where they don’t trust the government, which is healthy.” The Congressman told listeners.

“A lot of people are begging and pleading and they’re lining up. But the average guy outside of Washington, especially so many of the young people are realizing that this has all been a hoax and this is the time to really expose that hoax.”

“We have a real opportunity to direct attention to the real culprit and that is those who control the monetary system. Those who counterfeit our money and cause the financial bubbles and then recessions, and now are working real hard on a depression.” Paul continued.

“The only thing that can counteract this is a different philosophy. A convincing argument that free markets, sound money and no Federal Reserve and limited taxes, the things that made America great.”

“The system that they are trying to patch together right now will not work. We don’t need more regulatory agencies, all we need is the enforcement of fraud laws.” Paul concluded.

Listen to the full interview below:


CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory ‘Arrogant’

Posted in "Global Warming", Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise


CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Warming

Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
Friday, Dec 19, 2008

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

<object width=”518″ height=”419″><param name=”movie” value=”” /><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true” /><embed src=”” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”518″ height=”419″ /></object>


CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”



Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”

Lehr is a senior fellow and science director of The Heartland Institute, an organization that will be holding the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York March 8-10.

Another CNN meteorologist attacked the concept that man is somehow responsible for changes in climate last year. Rob Marciano charged Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” had some inaccuracies.

“There are definitely some inaccuracies,” Marciano said during the Oct. 4, 2007 broadcast of CNN’s “American Morning.” “The biggest thing I have a problem with is this implication that Katrina was caused by global warming.”

Marciano also said that, “global warming does not conclusively cause stronger hurricanes like we’ve seen,” pointing out that “by the end of this century we might get about a 5 percent increase.”

His comments drew a strong response and he recanted the next day saying “the globe is getting warmer and humans are the likely the main cause of it.”



Kissinger Calls For New International System Out Of World Crises

Posted in New World Order, News, Police State/Martial Law, Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise



Kissinger Calls For New International System Out Of World Crises

Says global necessities should foster an “age of compatible interests”

Steve Watson
December 19, 2008

Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger has repeated his routine call for a new international political order, stating that global crises should be seen as an opportunity to move toward a borderless world where national interests are outweighed by global necessities.

Speaking with Charlie Rose earlier this week, Kissinger cited the chaos being wrought across the globe by the financial crisis and the spread of terrorism as an opportunity to bolster a new global order.

“I think that when the new administration assess the position in which it finds itself it will see a huge crisis and terrible problems, but I can see that it could see a glimmer in which it could construct an international system out of it.” Kissinger said, referring to the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations.

The former National Security advisor and Secretary of State compared the current world climate to the period immediately following the second world war, which led to the creation and empowerment of global bodies such as the UN and NATO.

“If you look back to the end of the second world war, many people now think that the period between the end of 1945 and 1950 was in many ways the most creative period or one of the most creative periods of foreign policy, but it started with chaos and fear of Russian invasion of Europe and governments that were very weak.” Kissinger stated.

“The new administration is really coming into office at a strange period in this sense,” he continued. “It looks like a period of horrendous crisis all over the world. And we ourselves are in a severe crisis financially, but at the end of it our relative position in the world is actually stronger than it has been in the sense that Russia, China, India all have strong reasons to contribute to a quiet international environment because of the preoccupation they must have with their domestic affairs.”

“They do not wish and have good reasons not to wish for an international atmosphere of crisis. So Paradoxically, this moment of crisis is also one of great opportunity.” Kissinger commented.


efoodsInterviewer Charlie Rose, who has previously listened to Kissinger’s calls for a new world order, recognized the direction the conversation was taking and urged Kissinger to elaborate:

“When you talk about a new structure, I’m not sure, you’ve used the term new world order, what is it? Is it simply a world order that is defined by new interest and new mutuality of interest?” Rose asked.

“That’s certainly how you have to start. I know the view that you start by converting the whole world to our political philosophy. I don’t think that can be done in one or two terms of an administration. That is an historic process that has its own rhythm.” Kissinger replied.

“There are so many elements in this world at the moment that can only be dealt with on a global basis, and that’s unique,” Kissinger continued. “Proliferation, energy, environment, All of these issues necessitate a global approach, so you don’t have to invent an international order. So every country has to mitigate its pure national interests by the global necessities, or define it’s national interests by global necessities But it cannot push its own technically selfish interests only by throwing its own weight around.” he stated.

Kissinger also related that he has been struck by how much the move toward a new global order has been enhanced by the recent crises.

“The jihadist crisis is bringing it home to everybody, that international affairs cannot be conducted entirely by drawing borders and defining international politics by who crosses what borders with organized military force.” he said.

“This has now been reinforced by the financial crisis, which totally unexpectedly has spread around the world. It limits the resources that each country has for a foreign policy geared to an assertion of its own pure interests.”

Kissinger claimed that the key players in international politics, India, China, Russia, America, Europe, should recognize they have parallel concerns and work together to forge what he termed an “age of compatible interests”.

“I’m not saying that leaders will be up to all the opportunities that I may perceive but I think they can start moving in that direction and I’m actually fairly hopeful that we will be moving in that direction.” Kissinger said.


Will Obama “Change” U.S. Foreign Policy? Part II

Posted in News, Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise

Will Obama “Change” U.S. Foreign Policy? Part II

Posted by Kenn Jacobine on Wed, 12/17/2008 – 12:19pm in

As noted in this column on November 8, Barack Obama’s first two presidential acts were not encouraging for those who believed him during the campaign when he said his administration would bring “Change We Can Believe In”. The appointment of Democratic neo-cons, Joe Biden as vice-president and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff raised serious questions as to Obama’s commitment to “change” U.S. foreign policy. But, even this writer was willing to give the president-elect the benefit of the doubt until such time as he made more appointments. Well, that time has come. Obama has made three more foreign policy appointments. Each of those appointments indicates no change in direction, but a continuance of failed past policies.

First of all, Robert Gates will stay on as Secretary of Defense. Gates, a career CIA guy has been a vocal critic of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan. He supported the invasion of Iraq and bought into the fraudulent excuses for attacking. Additionally, at a time when Russo-American relations need repairing, Obama is keeping a veteran Cold Warrior as head of defense. Lastly, Gates is no Rumsfeld, but he still is connected with the Bush regime and its reign of terror around the world. At the end of the day, Gates is nothing more than an establishment choice for the important position at Defense.

Another Obama appointment was Marine general James Jones as national security advisor. Jones is a good friend of John McCain’s and served as an outside advisor to him on national security issues. As a matter of fact, McCain would have appointed Jones to a similar post in his administration. Clearly the two are like minded, which calls into question why Obama would want Jones around.

Lastly, there is the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. During the campaign, the biggest and perhaps only substantive issue that she and Obama differed on was Iraq policy. She voted to give the president the authority to invade and was slow to call for withdraw. This was not the first time her hawkish inclination reared its ugly head. In a 1999 interview with Talk magazine, the former first lady was quoted as saying she urged her husband to use NATO to bomb Serb targets to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. “I urged him to bomb….What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?” The actions and verbiage of Mrs. Clinton seem more like those of a Bush appointee, which doesn’t bode well for the idea that there will be change in foreign policy from the new administration.

No, it is clear from Obama’s appointments that U.S. foreign policy will not change much from the Bush years. It is telling that not a single top official of Obama’s foreign policy/national security team opposed the war with Iraq–or the fraudulent claims leading up to it. He has chosen establishment figures that have the approval of the ruling elite. Recently, Senator Lieberman, a big supporter of McCain during the campaign was quoted as saying, “Everything that President-elect Obama has done since election night has been just about perfect, both in terms of a tone and also in terms of the strength of the names that have either been announced or are being discussed to fill his administration”. With an endorsement like that we can be assured that on the last Election Day the American people voted to replace one belligerent administration with another.

Kenn Jacobine teaches History, English, and Information Technology in a Global Society for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia. Visit his website at: The View from Abroad.

Will Obama “Change” U.S. Foreign Policy

Posted in News, Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise

Will Obama “Change” U.S. Foreign Policy?

The national sham, better known as the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, is behind us. 24 months and more than $2 billion later, Barack Obama is our new leader. He ran on a platform of “change”.

by Kenn Jacobine
Sunday, November 9, 2008To be precise his campaign theme was “Change We Can Believe In”.  Clearly, after eight years of the Bush Administration this mantra appealed to many Americans and with good reason.  But before we get too excited, like many Americans have, about the “change” he will bring to America, let’s look at his first two presidential appointments.  They should certainly put a damper on the idea that things will be different in terms of foreign policy from the new administration.

In his first presidential act, over the summer, Obama chose Senator Joe Biden to be his vice-presidential running mate.  This is the same Joe Biden who had to withdraw from the 1988 presidential race after it was revealed he plagiarized a speech from British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock.  That was a long time ago and everyone is entitled to redemption for past sins.  However, Biden’s most recent positions on foreign policy issues are what is really concerning and perhaps an indication that Obama did not mean change in terms of current U.S. foreign policy.

A quick review of Biden’s foreign policy record in the last ten years reveals that he is as hawkish as some well known Republicans.  In 1999, he joined forces with one such Republican, John McCain (funny how politics does make for strange bedfellows), in the Senate to sponsor the resolution authorizing NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.  This aggression included an 11 week bombardment against Serbia and Montenegro.

Then in 2003, Biden not only voted to give the president authorization to invade Iraq, but he vigorously supported the president’s false claims about WMDs and Saddam’s ties to Osama bin Laden.  As Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, he suppressed antiwar testimony to the committee leading up to the attack.

Last year, Biden was a cosponsor (with Senators McCain and Lieberman) of a Senate resolution that called for U.S. support for the independence of the autonomous Serbian region of Kosovo.  He showed his hypocrisy a short time later by lambasting Russia for its liberation of South Ossetia after Georgian troops invaded the autonomous region of Georgia and attacked Russian peacekeepers.  His sharp rebuke of Russia was reminiscent of Cold War days.  In terms of foreign policy, it is ironic that Biden found himself on Obama’s ticket and not McCain’s.  Or perhaps it is a sign that Obama will continue with the failed foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

Obama’s second presidential appointment came just a day after his election victory, with his appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.  Rahmbo, as he is known, is also a hawk when it comes to war issues.  Out of nine Democratic members of Congress from Illinois, he was the only one to vote to give the president authorization to invade Iraq.  He has voted for unconditional funding of the war and voted against efforts to set a timetable for U.S. withdraw from Iraq.  His record on the Iraq War is comparable to John McCain’s.

Beyond Iraq, Rahmbo would also like to see action taken against Iran.  He has voted against measures to prevent Bush from attacking that country and even joined the administration in launching inflammatory remarks about Iran’s nuclear threat.

His strong positions toward attacking Arab countries clearly come from his love of Israel.  After all, his father, Benjamin, was a member of the terrorist/freedom fighter (depending on your perspective) group Irgun which launched attacks against Palestinian and British civilians in Palestine in the 1940s.  Rahm himself has been critical of the Bush Administration for criticizing Israel’s assassination policies and human rights abuses.  He was a leading proponent of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and questioned Amnesty International’s motives in reporting Israeli violations of international humanitarian law.

Now, many will say that these appointments by President-elect Obama are political and do not necessarily indicate a direction that his administration will take in foreign affairs.  But, the old axiom is true, “you judge a man by the company he keeps”.  Modern vice presidents do play a large role as confidants and advisors to the president.  As Dick Cheney has proven, they are very influential partners to presidents who lack the foreign policy experience they possess.  And let’s not forget that vice presidents are one heartbeat away from the top job.

As the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel will be President Obama’s gatekeeper.  He will in large part determine who has the president’s ear.  He will also have more influence on the president than others in the administration by virtue of his position and close friendship with Obama. 

There is no question that president-elect Obama’s first two appointments call into question his commitment to change as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned.  By choosing two Democratic neo-cons as vice president and chief of staff, he not only validated the belief that there was not a quarter’s (adjusted for inflation) worth of difference between him and McCain, he has alarmed many of his progressive supporters on the left.  At some point in the near future, perhaps with his selection of defense secretary, it will be clearer whether Obama will change U.S. foreign policy or continue the failed policies of the Bush Administration.  My hunch is that those Americans, who are paying attention, will have their excitement zapped from them as they realize that they have replaced one belligerent administration with another.
Kenn Jacobine teaches History, English, and Information Technology in a Global Society for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia.  Visit his website at: The View from Abroad.


Posted in Police State/Martial Law, Truth/Freedom on December 20, 2008 by truthwillrise




By James P. Tucker Jr.

Alittle-noted provision of the recently passed Defense Authorization Act allows President Bush to send in the military to police any trouble spot in this country regardless of the wishes of state governors.

On Oct. 17, President Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

The act grants the military the authority to seek from Congress $462.8 billion. In addition, Senate and House conferees added another $70 billion in supplemental defense spending bringing the overall total of the act to an unprecedented $532.8 billion. The supplemental funding provides billions of dollars to help reset Army and Marine Corps equipment, which is wearing out faster than planned because of the war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq.

A highly controversial and little-known aspect of the act ?contains a widely opposed provision to allow the president more control over the National Guard [by adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future president to use the military to restore order without the consent of the nation?s governors, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Ver.) said.

Americans certainly do not need to make it easier for presidents to declare martial law, Leahy said. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders.

The act ?subverts solid, long-standing Posse Comitatus statutes that limit the military?s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the president to declare martial law, Leahy said. This had been slipped in as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on these proposals.

There is good reason, Leahy said, for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the states, when we make it easier for the president to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty.

The law allows the president to employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any state or possession of the United States, that the president determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the state or possession are incapable of maintaining public order to suppress in any state, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy.

Or other condition? is a critical line in the new law, skeptics say. The president can send the National Guard into any community for any even frivolous reasons, they argue.

The Founders, as expressed in the written history of the times published speeches and letters were anxious to never have a national police force for fear it would be used to centralize power at the federal level and weaken the role of states. The president can now, effectively, deploy a national police force to any location in the country on a whim.

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act reads: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the military as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years or both.

(Issue #46, November 13, 2006)


Please make a donation to American Free Press