Steven Gaal

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV= Dear John, Yes many,many problems.......but seen before === loss of compassionn,empathy,and soul. This loss to the person done in a new/novel way. Study finds violent games 'emotionally desensitizing' --------------------o---------------------------- link http://gamepolitics....t-drone-sorties (gamers replace pilots to control drones) link http://games.yahoo.c...-185852905.html What' the problem with drones again? Trying to ban drones is like trying to ban machine guns in warfare. You take a knife to a gun fight and your going to lose. It's not the weapon, its the cause it is used for. Not long ago they were considered toys - toy airplanes boys and grown men flew in the fields for fun. Arthur Young, unlike Sikorsky and others, developed his helicopter - Bell 47A - the MASH helicopter - using remote controlled models - and no test pilots died or were injured in the process. He was also a pacifist, who was pleased with the use of his helicopter as a medivac in Korea, and disappointed it was weaponized in Vietnam, but acknowledged he had no control over how it was utilized. As for the use of USA drones for surveillance and attack missions, they don't put anyone who controls them in direct jeopardy, and are very effective, as has been shown in their use in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and now Somalia (surveillance only), and give a significant advantage over the bad guys, who are also attempting to utilize armed drones to attack civilian targets, as the arrest of a suspect on such charges in USA last month shows. Drones are here to stay and aren't going anywhere, whether or not people protest them and whether or not the people of Colorado allow the military to practice using them there. BK For more on Drones: US sends drones to Libya How the rebels bought a drone on the internet The Drones Arms Race Revolutionary Program: USA Sends DRONES to Libya Revolutionary Program: Lost one MQ 8B Fire Scout VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV=oo= VVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Bad guys.....eye of beholder................... --------------o----------------........................ The civilian victims of the CIA's drone war A new study gives us the truest picture yet – in contrast to the CIA's own account – of drones' grim toll of 'collateral damage' Sameeda Gul, 6, who was injured in a drone strike in Pakistan in 2009. Photograph: Getty Images I would not deny that the pilotless plane, flying bomb, or whatever its correct name may be, is an exceptionally unpleasant thing, because, unlike most other projectiles, it gives you time to think. What is your first reaction when you hear that droning, zooming noise? Inevitably, it is a hope that the noise won't stop. You want to hear the bomb pass safely overhead and die away into the distance … – George Orwell, "As I Please", Tribune, 30 June 1944 George Orwell wrote of V2 attacks on London in 1944. Yet, there are many more in Britain who identify with that voice, speaking 67 years ago, than with events that are a regular reality in Pakistan today. This week, a new report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism gives us the best picture yet of the impact of the CIA's drone war in Pakistan. The CIA claims that there has been not one "non-combatant" killed in the past year. This claim always seemed to be biased advocacy rather than honest fact. Indeed, the Guardian recently published some of the pictures we have obtained of the aftermath of drone strikes. There were photos of a child called Naeem Ullah killed in Datta Khel and two kids in Piranho, both within the timeframe of the CIA's dubious declaration. The BIJ reporting begins to fill in the actual numbers. It's a bleak view: more people killed than previously thought, including an estimated 160 children overall. This study should help to create a greater sense of reality around what is going on in these remote regions of Pakistan. This is precisely what has been lacking in the one-sided reporting of the issue – and it doesn't take an intelligence analyst to realise that vague and one-sided is just the way the CIA wants to keep it. The BIJ's study is everything that the CIA version of events is not: transparent, drawn from as many credible sources as possible and essentially open. It is clear about where its material comes from and what the margin of error may be. You should look, and you should engage, not just with the bare numbers, but also some of the stories: the attack on would-be rescuers by drones that had lingered, circling over the site of a previous strike, and opened fire – on the cruel assumption that any Good Samaritan must be a Taliban Samaritan; or the teenager who lost both legs when his family home was hit. Sadaullah was 15 when the missiles, aimed at a militant leader who was never there, struck a family gathering, killing his wheelchair-bound uncle and two cousins. When he woke up in hospital, he was missing both legs and an eye. "The injured who survive with their severed limbs, they often tell me, 'you cannot really call me lucky'," says his lawyer Mirza Shahzad Akbar. "This is not London or Islamabad. There are no facilities for the disabled in Waziristan; such people can have zero opportunities ahead of them in life." The primary question the CIA should answer is how it comes to be conducting an undeclared and illegal war in Pakistan, which is nominally a US ally. But beyond this, every time we read news of the latest drone strike in Pakistan, we need an honest assessment of the civilian casualties – and of whether we feel comfortable with an unaccountable spy agency carrying out killings on a military scale (the CIA's strikes now outweigh the firepower used in the opening round of the Kosovo war). We also need to think about what it is like for ordinary people to live under George Orwell's circling threat, wondering whether it is going to strike, or to die away into the distance. And to note what lengths the CIA will go to silence human rights lawyers such as Akbar, who are trying to break the cycle of violence by bringing victims' cases against the CIA through the courts. Or we could think in terms of enlightened self-interest: what do these strikes do to people's views of the US and its allies? Sixty-seven years after Orwell warily wondered whether he would be the next victim, how many angry relatives of a Waziristan child are plotting an attack on London or Washington, DC? The BIJ study begins to bring the CIA's covert war out of the shadows. Since we may all become collateral damage, we should be grateful to them. link http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/11/civilian-victims-cia-drones VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Somalia hot air from Bill Kelly, a prime DOD cheerleader. No fact check,just repeating State Dept. line. ========o=========== link http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27360 link http://www.presstv.ir/detail/204501.html

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV= Dear John, Yes many,many problems.......but seen before === loss of compassionn,empathy,and soul. This loss to the person done in a new/novel way. Study finds violent games emotionally desensitizing --------------------o---------------------------- link http://gamepolitics.com/2009/03/04/raf-may-replace-pilots-gamers-combat-drone-sorties (gamers replace pilots to control drones) link http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/study-finds-violent-games-emotionally-desensitizing-185852905.html

A 51st State for Armed Robotic Drones ? ? ? ================= what ?? ===================================== by David Swanson Weaponized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), also known as drones, have their own caucus in Congress, and the Pentagon's plan is to give them their own state as well. Under this plan, 7 million acres (or 11,000 square miles) of land in the southeast corner of Colorado, and 60 million acres of air space (or 94,000 square miles) over Colorado and New Mexico would be given over to special forces testing and training in the use of remote-controlled flying murder machines. The full state of Colorado is itself 104,000 square miles. Rhode Island is 1,000 square miles. Virginia, where I live, is 43,000 square miles. The U.S. military (including Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) is proceeding with this plan in violation of the public will, new state legislation on private property rights, an exceptionally strong federal court order, and a funding ban passed by the United States Congress, and in the absence of any approved Environmental Impact Statement. Public pressure has successfully put the law on the right side of this issue, and the military is disregarding the law. I spoke with Jean Aguerre, whose organization "Not 1 More Acre" ( http://not1moreacre.net ) is leading the pushback against this madness. Jean told me she grew up, during the 1960s, on the vast grasslands of southeast Colorado, where the Comanche National Grasslands makes up part of a system of grasslands put in place to help the prairie recover from the dust bowl. The dust bowl, Aguerre says, was the worst environmental disaster in the United States until BP filled the Gulf of Mexico with oil. The dust bowl had been brought on by the government's policy of requiring homesteaders to plow the prairie. The recovery programs created large tracts of land, of 100,000 acres and more, owned by "generational ranchers," that is families that would hand the ranches off to their children. Aguerre said she grew up on a ranch of incredible beauty and natural wealth, with a 165-million-year-old dinosaur track way and petroglyphs from 12,000 years back. Grasslands are the most threatened ecosystems in the world because they are so accessible, Aguerre says, and the only intact short grassland left in this country is the one being targeted for the "51st state." Round One began in the 1980s. Fort Carson, an Army base in Colorado Springs, had been kept open after World War II and now began looking for more land. The people of the area were opposed. The U.S. Congressman representing the area agreed to oppose any landgrab. But Senator Gary Hart took the opposite position. As a result, during the early 1980s, the Army Corps of Engineers started telling ranchers to sell out or risk seeing their land condemned and taken from them. The ranch next to Aguerre's is called Wine Glass Rourke. It was sold to a shill, as Aguerre describes the buyer. He ran the place into the ground with too many cattle, she says, and then sold it to the military, "And they were off and running!" With condemnations the military put together 250 thousand acres. Ranchers, along with their cattle, were moved off their own land by federal marshals. "We didn't know when we'd be next," Aguerre says of her own family. Luckily for the people of Colorado and New Mexico, and all of us, Aguerre got involved in politics. She became a political director for Congressman Tim Werth who later became a U.S. senator. Aguerre took him to see the Wine Glass Rourke ranch and told him "Let's take it back." Werth dedicated his staff to the effort for three years, resulting in the transfer to the Forest Service of 17,000 key acres. The Army used its new land less than twice a year for maneuvers, but caused horrible environmental damage whenever it did. That was the case for about 30 years, until the activity of recent years made everything that came before look sensitive and sustainable. In the meantime, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were theorizing the transformation of the U.S. military into a force for robotic warfare. Aguerre believes it was in 1996 that a decision was made that the military would need a robotic warfare center. Around 1999 the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was created. This precedes the more specific Site Environmental Impact Statements. The U.S. public, just like the public of any foreign nation where new U.S. bases are being planned, was told nothing. In 2006, Aguerre was working in Oregon when friends started asking her to come home and help because something big was happening. An Army land expansion map had been leaked that showed plans for taking over 6.9 million acres, the whole southeast corner of the state. Aguerre thought she would come home for two weeks but has never left. An Environmental Impact Statement for the site was about to be released, and Aguerre knew that meant the project was pretty far along. She formed organizations and found a lawyer in Colorado Springs named Steve Harris to help. The two of them, she says, were absolutely dedicated to NEPA and FOIA. NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. "NEPA is intended to prevent our government taking our world apart piece by piece without our knowing it," explains Aguerre. Aguerre and others persuaded the area's county commissioners to vote against the military's plans in 2006, and the state legislature to pass a private property rights bill in January 2007 -- a bill that required approval of such plans by the state legislature. Ken Salazar was the military's hired servant. He had been Attorney General of Colorado from 1999 to 2005. He was a U.S. Senator from 2005 to 2009. President Barack Obama has made him Secretary of the Interior. Around 2007, Jean Aguerre recounts, Salazar held a public meeting in Pueblo, Col., with about 300 ranchers packing the room. He turned his palms up to the ceiling and announced: "I will lift the golden curtain that falls at the end of El Paso county so that prosperity can flow onto the eastern plains." This meant that military spending was economically beneficial. Military expansion, people were being told, was good for them -- even if it stole their families' land, and regardless of what momentum it created for the launching and continuing of wars. "Instead of putting together frameworks for nonproliferation," says Aguerre, "Ken Salazar worked to destroy the last intact short grass prairie because the money was too good." Senators Wayne Allard, who would join the military lobbyist company the Livingston Group within weeks of leaving the Senate, and Ken Salazar passed an authorization for taking land as part of the 2007 John Warner Defense Authorization Act. "None of the ranchers knew they were in line to be condemned for the second damn time," says Aguerre. John Salazar, Ken's brother, at this time represented Colorado's third congressional district, while Republican Marilyn Musgrave represented the fourth. Musgrave was persuaded by ranchers that there was no need for the government to take their land. Aguerre worked with Musgrave's staff to draft a one-sentence funding ban. Aguerre and her allies then organized massive public pressure to recruit John Salazar as a Democratic co-sponsor. Ken Salazar failed in his effort to block this measure in the Senate. The ban passed both houses and became law, but it must be renewed every year. In 2009, Aguerre and her allies won a federal court ruling throwing out the military's Environmental Impact Statement with harsh and unequivocal language -- "one of the strongest court orders under NEPA," says Aguerre. By 2008, the military had begun using its land a lot more, and the court ruling did not stop them. The funding ban, too, is not stopping increased activity. This past year, the funding ban was missing from a committee chairman's markup in which it had appeared in previous years. Not 1 More Acre and its allies pressured Third-District Congressman Scott Tipton. People from all over the country phoned his office. They were told that as non-constituents their views did not matter. Aguerre advised people to reply: "When you pick my pocket you don't ask what district I'm from." Tipton was won over, and the funding ban, for what it's worth, remains for now. Nonetheless, says Aguerre, the military is proceeding with and increasing trainings and environmental destruction daily . Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado and Tom Udall of New Mexico don't receive high marks from Jean Aguerre. "Mark Udall on Armed Services and Michael Bennet on Agriculture sit with their thumbs in their pie. Udall has never once come to southeastern Colorado and looked young ranchers in the eye and said 'this is why we need this military takeover of your lands.'" Aguerre continues: "And Tom Udall puts out this pap the other day, mumbo jumbo about the Air Force. It's not Air Force; it's Special Operations. Aguerre said that her group and others are preparing a comment letter seeking legal standing to challenge the Air Force, and potentially to pry loose more information from the iron grip of our "transparent" government. Aguerre points out that the Air Force Special Operations Command Environmental Assessment was written by SAIC, a global military contractor that also makes voting machines. "We found out that the state national guard is completely involved in UAV warfare," says Aguerre. "So when your house floods and you don't have the national guard there, they may be remotely piloting something somewhere else." Aguerre says that in 2006 she knew of four countries that were manufacturing armed UAVs, and that now she knows of 56. So, the argument that drones keep "people" out of harm's way (with people redefined to mean U.S. citizens) doesn't hold up very solidly. We have also already had a suicide bomb attack on a drone piloting location and had drone pilots commit suicide, not to mention the risks of long-term blowback, the damage being done to the rule of law, and all the human beings killed and injured from among the non-U.S. 95% of humanity. Aguerre asks scientists who love unarmed UAVs to consider the full effect of supporting such technology. I would ask environmentalists to consider the full effect of not resisting the destruction of what Not 1 More Acre describes as: • unique bioregions of canyonlands, forested mesas, grasslands and riparian systems providing habitat for diverse flora and fauna found nowhere else on Earth and the largest block of native prairie remaining on the High Plains; • restored Dust Bowl lands – Comanche, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands — offering robust safe haven to threatened and endangered species of plants and animals, including rare insects and reptiles yet to be named; • wild rivers and complex wetlands vital to native fish, migrating birds, unique wildlife and environmental health. I would ask opponents of drone warfare to consider the likely impact of setting aside 60 million acres of air space for testing drones. "We cannot allow the sacrifice of our democracy to politicians who are bought by military contractors," says Aguerre. "If they are able to get this 51st state for robotic warfare, I think the economy will be irretrievably lost. These are unbelievably beautiful and pristine lands. Our rural areas are where the genetically modified seeds are being planted, where the lands and mountains are being mined, and where the military is going to destroy an area the size of a state, because the rural people are so few. Gary Hart was able to attack the last short grass prairie without political cost." Why is there no political cost? Because "we can't get the word out." Let's help get the word out by sharing this link: http://not1moreacre.org

“Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage. And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.” ― Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

very much related -----------------* The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order ============================================= October 18, 2011 By RICHARD K MOORE ============================================= When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland had been the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically. In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favour investors over landowners. It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism. The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world. Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain. This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ‘explain’ the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandisement of monarchs and nations. A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time ‘explaining’ World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives. In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests. Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments. From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the elite banking gang (the ‘banksters’) is both absolute and subtle… Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. – President Woodrow Wilson The End of Growth – Banksters vs. Capitalism It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialisation has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally the paradigm of perpetual growth has reached the point of diminishing returns. Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalisation, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatisation, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world. For almost forty years, the capitalist system was kept going by these various mechanisms, none of which were productive in any real sense. And then in September 2008 this house of cards collapsed, all of a sudden, bringing the global financial system to its knees. If one studies the collapse of civilisations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Is our civilisation falling into that trap? We had two centuries of real growth, where the growth-dynamic of capitalism was in harmony with the reality of industrial growth. Then we had four decades of artificial growth – capitalism being sustained by a house of cards. And now, after the house of cards has collapsed, every effort is apparently being made to bring about ‘a recovery’ – of growth! It is very easy to get the impression that our civilisation is in the process of collapse, based on the failure-to-adapt principle. Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the bankster elite are well aware of that fact – and they are adapting. Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the banksters to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared. Thus, capitalism was not allowed to die a natural death. Instead it was brought down by a controlled demolition. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalisation, privatisation, currency markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of real-estate bubbles and toxic derivatives. Finally, the Bank of International Settlements in Basel – the central bank of central banks – pulled the plug on the life-support system: they declared the ‘mark-to-market rule’, which made all the risk-holding banks instantly insolvent, although it took a while for this to become apparent. Every step in this process was carefully planned and managed by the central-banking clique. The End of Sovereignty – Restoring the Ancien Régime Just as the financial collapse was carefully managed, so was the post-collapse scenario, with its suicidal bailout programs. National budgets were already stretched; they certainly did not have reserves available to salvage the insolvent banks. Thus the bailout commitments amounted to nothing more than the taking on of astronomical new debts by governments. In order to service the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial system that was being bailed out! It’s not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the banksters were too powerful to fail: they made politicians an offer they couldn’t refuse. In the USA, Congress was told that without bailouts there would be martial law the next morning. In Ireland, the Ministers were told there would be financial chaos and rioting in the streets. In fact, as Iceland demonstrated, the sensible way to deal with the insolvent banks was with an orderly process of receivership. The effect of the coerced bailouts was to transfer insolvency from the banks to the national treasuries. Banking debts were transformed into sovereign debts and budget deficits. Now, quite predictably, it is the nations that are seeking bailouts, and those bailouts come with conditions attached. Instead of the banks going into receivership, the nations are going into receivership. In his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how the third world has been coerced over the past several decades – through pressure and trickery of various kinds – into perpetual debt bondage. By design, the debts can never be repaid. Instead, the debts must be periodically refinanced, and each round of refinancing buries the nation deeper in debt – and compels the nation to submit to even more drastic IMF diktats. With the orchestrated financial collapse, and the ‘too big to fail’ scam, the banksters have now crossed the Rubicon: the hit-man agenda is now operating here in the first world. In the EU, the first round of nations to go down will be the so-called PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The fiction, that the PIGS can deal with the bailouts, is based on the assumption that the era of limitless growth will resume. As the banksters themselves know full well, that just isn’t going to happen. Eventually the PIGS will be forced to default, and then the rest of the EU will go down as well, all part of a controlled-demolition project. When a nation succumbs to debt bondage, it ceases to be a sovereign nation, governed by some kind of internal political process. Instead it comes under the control of IMF diktats. As we have seen in the third world, and is happening now in Europe, these diktats are all about austerity and privatisation. Government functions are eliminated or privatised, and national assets are sold off. Little by little – again a controlled demolition – the nation state is dismantled. In the end, the primary functions left to government are police suppression of its own population, and the collection of taxes to be handed over to the banksters. In fact, the dismantling of the nation state began long before the financial collapse of 2008. In the USA and Britain, it began in 1980, with Reagan and Thatcher. In Europe, it began in 1988, with the Maastricht Treaty. Globalisation accelerated the dismantling process, with the exporting of jobs and industry, privatisation programs, ‘free trade’ agreements, and the establishment of the regulation-busting World Trade Organisation (WTO). Events since 2008 have enabled the rapid acceleration of a process that was already well underway. With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery program, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected ‘solution’. As the nation state is being dismantled, a new regime of global governance is being established to replace it. As we can see with the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the new global system will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic process. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, which will take their orders, directly or indirectly, from the bankster clique. In his book, The Globalization of Poverty, Michel Chossudovsky explains how globalisation, and the actions of the IMF, created massive poverty throughout the third world over the past several decades. As we can see, with the dramatic emphasis on austerity following the collapse and bailouts, this poverty-creation project has now crossed the Rubicon. In this new world system there will be no prosperous middle class. Indeed, the new regime will very much resemble the old days of royalty and serfdom (the ancien régime). The banksters are the new royal family, with the whole world as their dominion. The technocrats who run the global bureaucracies, and the mandarins who pose as politicians in the residual nations, are the privileged upper class. The rest of us, the overwhelming majority, will find ourselves in the role of impoverished serfs – if we are lucky enough to be one of the survivors of the collapse process. Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government. – Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderbergers meeting The End of Liberty – The Global Police State For the past four decades, since about 1970, we’ve been experiencing a regime-change process, from an old global system to a new global system. In the old system, first world nations were relatively democratic and prosperous, while the third world suffered under police state tyranny, mass poverty, and imperialism (exploitation by external powers). As discussed above, the transition process has been characterised by ‘crossing the Rubicon’ – the introduction of policies and practices into the first world, that were formerly limited, for the most part, to the third world. Thus debt bondage to the IMF crossed the Rubicon, enabled by the collapse-bailout scam. In turn, mass poverty is crossing that same Rubicon, due to austerity measures imposed by the IMF, with its new bond-holding powers. Imperialism is also crossing the Rubicon, as the first world comes under the exploitative control of banksters and their bureaucracies, a power nexus that is external to all national identities. Unsurprisingly, police state tyranny is also crossing the Rubicon: the imposition of third world poverty levels requires third world methods of repression. The anti-globalisation movement can be taken as the beginning of popular resistance to the process of regime change. Similarly, the police response to the Seattle anti-globalisation demonstrations, in November 1999, can be taken as the ‘crossing of the Rubicon’ for police state tyranny. The excessive and arbitrary violence of that response – including such things as holding people’s eyes open and spraying pepper into them – was unprecedented against non-violent demonstrators in a first world nation. Ironically, that police response, particularly as it was so widely publicised, actually strengthened the anti-globalisation movement. As demonstrations grew in size and strength, the police response grew still more violent. A climax of sorts was reached in Genoa, in July 2001, when the levels of violence on both sides began to resemble almost a guerilla war. In those days the anti-globalisation movement was dominating the international news pages, and opposition to globalisation was reaching massive proportions. The visible movement was only the tip of an anti-systemic iceberg. In a very real sense, general popular sentiment in the first world was beginning to take a radical turn. Movement leaders were now thinking in terms of an anti-capitalist movement. There was a political volatility in the air, a sense that, just maybe possibly, enlightened popular sentiment might succeed in shifting the course of events. All of that changed on September 11, 2001, the day the towers came down. The anti-globalisation movement, along with globalisation itself, disappeared almost totally from public consciousness on that fateful day. Suddenly it was a whole new global scenario, a whole new media circus – with a new enemy, and a new kind of war, a war without end, a war against phantoms, a war against ‘terrorism’. Earlier we saw how the orchestrated financial collapse of September 2008 enabled certain ongoing projects to be rapidly accelerated, such as the dismantlement of sovereignty, and the imposition of austerity. Similarly, the events of September 2001 enabled certain ongoing projects to be greatly accelerated, such as the abandonment of civil liberties and international law. Before the towers had even come down, the ‘Patriot Act’ had already been drafted, proclaiming in no uncertain terms that the police state was here (in the USA) in force and here to stay – the Bill of Rights was null and void. Before long, similar ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation had been adopted throughout the first world. If any anti-systemic movement were to again raise its head in the first world (as it did, for example, recently in Greece), arbitrary police powers could be brought to bear – as much as might be necessary – to put the resistance down. No popular movement would be allowed to derail the banksters’ regime-change designs. The anti-globalisation movement had been shouting, ‘This is what real democracy looks like’. With 9/11, the banksters replied: ‘This is what real oppression looks like’. The events of 9/11 led directly to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in general helped create a climate where invasions of sovereign nations could be readily justified, with one excuse or another. International law was to be as thoroughly abandoned as was civil liberties. Just as all restraint was removed from domestic police interventions, so was all restraint being removed from geopolitical military interventions. Nothing was to stand in the way of the banksters’ regime-change agenda. The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society… dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values… this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behaviour… Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the stepping-stones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society… In addition, it may be possible – and tempting – to exploit for strategic political purposes the fruits of research on the brain and on human behaviour. – Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, 1970 The Post-Capitalist Era – New Myths for a New Culture 2012 might not be the exact year, but it’s difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that – and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come. Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system. Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonised in a new mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonised – a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to monotheism. With the rise of European nation states, the Catholic Church was demonised, and Protestantism introduced. When republics came along, the demonisation of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonised. This will be very important, in getting people to accept arbitrary totalitarian rule… In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no long-term coherence; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did anyone ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions for the whole globe. Capitalism is about growth, progress, and change. Under capitalism the virtues of ambition, initiative, and competitiveness are praised, because those virtues serve the dynamics of capitalism. People are encouraged to always accumulate more, and never be satisfied with what they have. Under capitalism, people need to have a bit of liberty, and a bit of prosperity, so that the dynamics of capitalism can operate. Without some liberty, ambition cannot be pursued; without some prosperity, how could accumulation be pursued? In the post-capitalist world, the capitalist virtues will be demonised. This will be very important, in getting people to accept poverty and regimentation… The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently corrupt and wasteful. Anarchy reined in the marketplace, as corporations blindly pursued profit, with no concern for human needs or for the Earth. How much more sensible are our production brigades, producing only what is needed, and using only what is sustainable. Capitalism encouraged greed and consumption; people struggled to compete with one another, to ‘get ahead’ in the rat race. How much wiser we are now, to live within our ration quotas, and to accept our assigned duties, whatever they might be, in service to humanity. In this regime change, ushering in the post-capitalist era, we’re seeing a conscious orchestration of economics, politics, geopolitics, and mythology – as one coordinated project. A whole new reality is being created, a whole new global culture. When it comes down to it, the ability to transform culture is the ultimate form of power. In only a single generation, a new culture becomes ‘the way things are’. And what, we might inquire, might stand in the way of any future manipulations of the cultural regime that the bankster royal family might contemplate? Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning – and it is in childhood that culture is transmitted to the next generation. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, we’ll most likely see the ‘final solution’ of social control, which is for the state to monopolise child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives, just fellow members of the hive. The family must be demonised. Already, here in Ireland, there are daily TV spots dramatising the plight of children who are being abused or neglected by their parents… How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of child abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognised for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught discipline and healthy values. RICHARD K MOORE, an expatriate from Silicon Valley, retired and moved to Ireland in 1994 to begin his ‘real work’ – trying to understand how the world works, and how we can make it better. Many years of researching and writing culminated in his widely acclaimed book Escaping the Matrix: How We the People Can Change the World (The Cyberjournal Project, 2005). His cyberjournal email list has been going since 1994 (cyberjournal.org). The book’s website is http://escapingthematrix.org, while his website http://quaylargo.com/rkm/ contains an extensive biography plus list of his articles. Richard can be contacted via email at rkm@quaylargo.com. The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 128 (September-October 2011).

Libya's liberation: interim ruler unveils more radical than expected plans for Islamic law Libya's interim leader outlined more radical plans to introduce Islamic law than expected as he declared the official liberation of the country. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV= link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8844819/Libyas-liberation-interim-ruler-unveils-more-radical-than-expected-plans-for-Islamic-law.html

related ===========================ooo http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/sc_gop_operative_ap_story_showing_impact_of_voter_id_on_blacks_proves_exactly_why_law_is_needed.php?ref=fpblg ==============================o===============================V Ryan J. Reilly October 20, 2011, 1:50 PM 794042 Updated: Oct. 20, 3:15PM The Associated Press put out a story this week showing that South Carolina’s voter I.D. law “appears to be hitting black precincts in the state the hardest.” One person who really loved the story was Wesley Donehue, the CEO of Donehue Direct and a political strategist for the South Carolina Senate Republican Caucus, who took to Twitter to write that the story “proves EXACTLY why we need Voter ID in SC.” It wasn’t long until Donehue’s tweet was bouncing all around the progressive twittersphere. In subsequent tweets, Donehue clarified that he wasn’t talking about the fact that the story showed, for example, that “among the state’s 2,134 precincts there are 10 precincts where nearly all of the law’s affect falls on nonwhite voters who don’t have a state-issued driver’s license or ID card, a total of 1,977 voters.” Rather Donehue said the story “has proven that a bunch of non-South Carolinians are voting in SC elections. Did they vote in other states too?? FRAUD!” We just chatted with Donehue about the voter ID Twitter flap. He told us that he was involved in planning the strategy to pass the state’s voter ID law. “If you take that one tweet out of context, of course it makes me look like a racist,” Donehue told TPM. “But if you have any common sense at all and read the entire thing you’ll see what my point is.” “He was using that particular box as an example for all black boxes, and I’m saying hold up, wait, this box is different because you’ve got so many out-of-state people, and that’s why they don’t have state IDs,” Donehue said. “Now granted, they can go vote, but that’s not the point. The point is he’s using a college box — whether it be black or white — to use as an example for all black boxes, and that just doesn’t make any sense.” Donehue said he agreed that voter ID laws would likely suppress voter turnout amongst college students. “[The AP author] was saying ‘look, half of the people in this box don’t have IDs,’ and I’m just saying that’s not because they’re black, that’s because they’re not from South Carolina,” Donehue said. “Whether they’re students, black, white, it doesn’t matter: you can’t use that specific example.” Donehue said that college students “will have to prove they live in South Carolina.” “The argument is that since they live in South Carolina nine months out of the year, they should have a say in what goes on in the state,” Donehue said. “Listen, if that’s true, then become a resident of the state. If you’re going to live here nine months and have a say in what goes on in the state of South Carolina then go become a South Carolina resident and get yourself a South Carolina ID.” The Justice Department is currently reviewing South Carolina’s voter ID law to determine whether it is discriminatory.

###########################oooooooo############################V its pure science link http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

one link http://info-wars.org/2011/10/18/us-begins-huge-military-maneuvers-aimed-at-iran/ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV one link http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7RQQ%2fDHVRAqFn3fjOsDtLiwTkQ%2bhUKDEfstWdQydH848HS5JGxnabvGlmL0Xoy9rMcImPPBX2LPEgfXa2%2f3wKOXdyEYbno9Ep8gZEqpZhRfU%3d VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV OK .... one plus one = WHAT ?? warming flute like a kiss warming breeze Daffodill,Iris,Bud,Birth, the warming Sun and seed warming dance with shivering lyrically mute,Spring the forbidden fruit,love refused from seasons missed ++++++++++++++++++++++o+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ======================o=================================== Israel: Top NATO/EUCOM Military Chief In Secretive Talks http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=239676 Jerusalem Post September 27, 2011 EUCOM chief visits Israel for talks with Gantz By Yaakov Katz -Next spring…the two armies will hold a massive ground forces exercise in spring of 2012 called “Austere Challenge,” which will seek to increase inter-operability between the IDF and the US Army. The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces for the event of a future large-scale conflict in the Middle East. Commander of the United States European Command (EUCOM) Admiral James Stavridis visited Israel on Monday for high-level talks with IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz. Stavridis has visited Israel a number of times in recent years since Israel is under the jurisdiction of EUCOM, as opposed to the United States Central Command, which is responsible for American military operations throughout the Middle East. The IDF and the US Embassy in Tel Aviv refused to comment on the visit, which for some reason was held under a media blackout. Stavridis met with a number of top IDF officers including OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Golan and OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Tal Russo. Stavridis’s visit came a month after Lt.-Gen. Mark Hertling, commander of the US Army in Europe, visited Israel. Talks with Stavridis were expected to focus on US-Israeli military cooperation, which includes a number of major military exercises that will be held over the coming year. Next spring, for example, the two armies will hold a massive ground forces exercise in spring of 2012 called “Austere Challenge,” which will seek to increase inter-operability between the IDF and the US Army. The drill, which is unprecedented in its size, will include the establishment of US command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces for the event of a future large-scale conflict in the Middle East. Shortly before Austere Challenge, scheduled for May, EUCOM and the IDF will also hold the Juniper Cobra missile defense exercise, which will include the Arrow 2 and Iron Dome systems as well as America’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The exercise is expected to include the actual launching of interceptors from these systems.

very much related, lefty ?????????? OBAMA ??????????????? link http://smashabanana.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-does-doj-refuse-to-prosecute-crimes.html

PBS on Tue 11/18/11 ======o======================================= related ,LEFTY ??? Obama ???? link http://vivirlatino.com/2011/10/17/maria-hinojosa-talks-about-her-documentary-lost-in-detention.php link http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/race-multicultural/lost-in-detention/will-latino-voters-turn-their-back-on-obama/

When you share the information in the above first link with many USA Christians they dont want to process the info and get angry. RELATED BELOW #####################VoV##########ooo############ Christian Zionism, Evangelicals and Israel Gary M. Burge, Ph.D. Gary Burge earned his Ph.D. at King's College in Aberdeen, Scotland and is professor of New Testament at Wheaton College & Graduate School in Wheaton, Illinois. He is the author is The Anointed Community: The Holy spirit in the Johannine Tradition (1987), Who Are God's People in the Middle East? (1993), Interpreting the Gospel of John: Guide to New Testament Exegesis, No. 5 (1998), and Whose Land? Whose Promise (2003). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there ever were doubts about the ongoing presence and influence of Christian Zionism in Israel, you only had to visit Jerusalem earlier this month to witness the Christian Embassy's one week Tabernacles Festival. On Tuesday the 14th 15,000 people paraded outside Jerusalem's Old Walled City. The predominant colors for clothes were red, white and blue, and many Americans wore necklaces sporting a Star of David, a Menorah and a Christian fish symbol. American flags were distributed liberally to cheering parade-watchers. A delegation from the South wore gallon-sized cowboy hats and steer-horned belt buckles while they carried a large banner, "Oklahoma loves Israel." The city predicts that the assembly pumped about $10 million into the struggling Israeli tourist economy. Who are these people and what do they stand for? And how do they link their religious faith, politics and commitment to Israel? The Bible and the Romance of Palestine It would be wrong to think of Christian Zionism as a recent phenomenon invented by Gary Bauer and Tim LeHaye. Some scholars think that its roots go as far back as the pilgrims who saw their journey as a re-creation of the Israelite pilgrimage to the Holy Land. They did not apply this to Judaism, however, but took the Biblical story as an allegory for their own pilgrimage. Nevertheless this created a sympathetic understanding of the religious refugee that is seated deeply in the American psyche and likely shapes many of us even today. The more important story begins in the 19th century. Religious interest in Ottoman Palestine grew dramatically during the Victorian era as travelers - romantic travelers - sought adventure by ship, train and horseback. And they came to Palestine in great numbers. The 1880s found a number of influential preachers there too. Rev. DeWitt Talmage pastured the Brooklyn Tabernacle in New York and returned home from such a pilgrimage to publish his Twenty Five Sermons from the Holy Land. In it he offered a romantic picture of a Jewish renaissance in the country. He praised philanthropists such as Montifiore and Rothchild for financing the return of Jewish life there. Here is a sample from one of his sermons: "[Many who are] large-hearted have paid the passage to Palestine for many of the Israelites, and set apart lands for their culture; and it is only a beginning of the fulfillment of Divine prophecy, when these people shall take possession of the Holy Land. The road from Joppa to Jerusalem, and all the roads leading to Nazareth and Galilee, we saw lined with processions of Jews, going to the sacred places, either on holy pilgrimage, or as settlers. All the fingers of Providence nowadays are pointing toward that resumption of Palestine by the Israelites." In 1891 George Adam Smith wrote his popular The Historical Geography of the Holy Land and there portrayed an empty, biblical land awaiting the return of Judaism. Such publications resonated with a growing public interest in Palestine and the Bible, especially in Britain,. And during WWI when the prospect of the fall of the Ottomans, Jewish Zionist leaders influenced by men such as Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) could capitalize on these British interests. The little letter of Nov. 2, 1917 from the British foreign office - now called the Balfour Declaration - is likely the final synthesis of this religious vision and politics in Britain. Dispensationalism Among conservative Christians in Britain, this unity of political destiny and religious fulfillment was given its theological form in the hands of an Irish pastor J.N. Darby. As Herzl was the father of Jewish Zionism, one could argue that Darby was the father of Christian Zionism. Darby's system - soon called Dispensationalism - taught a literal fulfillment of prophesies in the near-present age. He used the biblical books of Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation to weave a consistent picture of the Last Days. The church is raptured, the anti-Christ arises, Armageddon erupts, and Christ returns to establish his kingdom on earth. But above all, the revival of Israel is the catalyst of the End Times. Despite eight missionary trips to America, Darby was greeted here with indifference. But when leading evangelists such as Dwight Moody, Billy Sunday and Harry Ironsides saw how the drama and fear and hope in this scenario influenced audiences, Darby's views caught on like wildfire. In 1881, for instance, Horatio and Anna Spafford and 16 friends opened the American Colony in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City to watch - as they put it - "prophesy being fulfilled." William Blackstone (1841-1935) was a Chicago evangelist and student of Moody. In 1878 he published Jesus is Coming which was America's first Dispensational best-seller. The book went through three editions and was translated into 42 languages. In 1890 Blackstone was visiting Jewish settlements in the Holy Land and organizing conferences in Chicago to restore Jews to Palestine. Blackstone worked closely with Jewish Zionists and in 1918 was hailed by the Zionist Conference of Philadelphia as a "Father of Zionism." In 1956 Israel memorialized him by naming a forest in his name. In 1909 Cyrus Scofield published a popular study bible, the Scofield Reference Bible, and in its footnotes readers throughout America inherited Darby's theological program. (To date over 2 million of them have been sold.) In 1917 five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, the Turks handed Jerusalem over to Britain to the amazement of prophesy watchers. In 1918 dispensationalists organized their first prophesy conferences and they continued for decades. Before long - throughout the 1920s and for the next 40 years - Dispensationalism tied to Israel and prophesy became the litmus test of evangelical orthodoxy. Dispensationalism had a variety of detractors over time and today we cannot think of all evangelicals as dispensationalists. Nevertheless, while formal Dispensationalism with its complex view of the covenants has lost a large following, what remains is the skeleton of its eschatology. Technically called pre-tribulation, pre-millennialism it defends Darby's basic outline: Israel returns to the Holy Land, the church is raptured, a tribulation brings Armageddon, and Christ returns. This framework remained prominent for evangelicals but throughout the 1940s dispensationalists began to believe that the birth of Israel was imminent. When it occurred in 1948, Dispensationalists were euphoric. The key piece was now in place. Israel's swift victory in 1967 - hailed by many as a divine miracle - sparked even more zeal for prophesy. Writers such as Walvoord and Ryrie viewed modern history through this Biblical lens for a new generation. In 1970 Hal Lindsey then published The Late Great Planet Earth which popularized and dramatized the unfolding of political events in Israel and how the Bible predicted them. To date, Lindsey's original book has sold 25 million copies. More recently Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' popular Left Behind series fictionalizes this eschatology and has sold over 50 million copies in 11 volumes. These remarkable numbers of publishing sales are important because they show that among countless Christians in America, there is a residual eschatology at work - and most of them have no idea where it came from. Just ask someone who goes to church how they think the world will end. Many will recite Lindsey to you claiming that this is what the Bible teaches. Christian Zionism Today a movement called Christian Zionism has harnessed these disparate parts. Its advocates have shed much of Dispensationalism's theological program but have kept its eschatology. Christian Zionism weds religion with politics and interprets biblical faithfulness in terms of fidelity to Israel's future. Its spokespersons are today well-known among those on the Christian Right: Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Ed McAteer, Gary Bauer, and Kay Arthur. Those committed to Christian Zionism share the same five core beliefs: (1) The Covenant. God's covenant with Israel is eternal and unconditional. Therefore the promises of land given to Abraham will never be overturned. This means that the church has not replaced Israel and that Israel's privileges have never been revoked despite unfaithfulness. (2) The Church. God's plan has always been for the redemption of Israel. Yet when Israel failed to follow Jesus, the church was born as an afterthought or "parenthesis." Thus at the rapture the church will be removed and Israel will once again become God's primary agent in the world. We now live in 'the times of the Gentiles' which will conclude soon. This means that there are two covenants now at work, that given through Moses and the covenant of Christ. But the new covenant in no way makes the older covenant obsolete. (3) Blessing Modern Israel. We must take Gen. 12:3 literally and apply it to modern Israel: "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." Therefore Christians have a spiritual obligation to bless Israel and "pray for the peace of Jerusalem." To fail to bless Israel, to fail to support Israel's political survival today, will incur divine judgment. (4) Prophesy. The prophetic books of the Bible are describing events of today and do not principally refer to events in Biblical times. Therefore when we look at, say, Daniel 7, if we possess the right interpretative skills, we can see how modern history is unfolding. This quest for prophesy has spawned countless books interpreting Middle East history through the Bible. (5) Modern Israel and Eschatology. The modern state of Israel is a catalyst for the prophetic countdown. If these are the last days, then we should expect an unraveling of civilization, the rise of evil, the loss of international peace and equilibrium, a coming antichrist, and tests of faithfulness to Israel. Above all, political alignments today will determine our position on the fateful day of Armageddon. Since the crisis of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been easy to persuade the public that history is unraveling precisely as dispensationalism predicted. It would not be difficult to offer fatal criticisms of this theological framework. Many biblical scholars have already done so. For instance, the covenant's promises are conditional and their blessings are revoked when there is faithlessness. The Babylonian exile is the best example of this. But in addition the New Testament is making a stunning claim about genuine continuity between the covenants, that Christians are the children of Abraham and heirs of his promises. But the most important critique - and here I think we discover the Achilles' heel - is that Christian Zionism is committed to what I term a "territorial religion." It assumes that God's interests are focused on a land, a locale, a place. From a NT perspective, the land is holy by reference to what transpired there in history. But it no longer has an intrinsic part to play in God's program for the world. This is what Stephen pointed to in his speech in Acts 7. The land and the temple are now secondary. God's wishes to reveal himself to the entire world. And this insight cost Stephen his life. Such an understanding is a far cry from the views of Christian Zionists like Ed McAteer who recently commented, "Every grain of sand, every grain of sand between the Dead Sea, the Jordan River, and the Mediterranean Sea belongs to the Jews." Stephen would be alarmed. Blessing Israel The theological commitments of Christian Zionism are therefore not new. But today they are boldly proclaimed and closely linked to a political agenda in America. And today evangelicals are told that we hold a spiritual obligation to "bless Israel." When pastors such as John Hagee of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, can deliver $1 million to Israel, a new definition of evangelical missions is at work. But blessing Israel is not simply a matter of giving money. It is also found in political advocacy. For instance, when Israel invaded the West Bank in April, 2002 following the Passover bombings, President Bush urged Ariel Sharon to withdraw from Jenin. Christian Zionists mobilized an email campaign that produced 100,000 letters for Washington. And it worked. Bush never said another word. Leaders like Jerry Falwell thus see their mission as protecting Israel politically. On CBS's 60 Minutes (June 8, 2003) he remarked, "It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel's only safety belt right now." Falwell continued, "There is nothing that would bring the wrath of the Christian public in this country down on this government like abandoning or opposing Israel in a critical matter. And when the chips are down Ariel Sharon can trust George Bush to do the right thing every time." These words were as much warning to Bush as anything since Bush's political analysts believe that Falwell's "Christian public" is a core constituency. Today the same strategy is at work. On May 19, 2003, 23 Christian Zionists sent President Bush a letter outlining what was wrong with his Roadmap to Peace and urging him to end it. Its signatories included Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, John Hagee, James Kennedy and others. In a similar manner Gary Bauer spoke at this year's AIPAC convention. Even Pat Robertson can rebuke Israel's foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, on his nationally syndicated "700 Club." In recent days no one has matched House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R, Texas) for his zeal to bless Israel. Delay is often sought in Washington as a spokesperson for Christian Zionism. And he is forthright in his commitment even when it contradicts the president. On July 30 of this year he addressed the Israeli Knesset and his views were so extreme that the Labor Party leader Danny Yatom commented afterwards, "Geez, Likud is nothing compared to him!" Another legislator commented, "Until I heard him speak, I thought I was the farthest to the right in the Knesset!" Delay announced that he was an "Israeli at heart" and then upon his return home challenged the Bush's Roadmap openly. He has appeared at meetings of the influential Christian Coalition with Benny Elon, the leader of the pro-ethnic cleansing Moledet Party arguing that a "transfer" of Palestinians out of Israel could be justified on Biblical authority. Recently the Los Angeles Times condemned DeLay for using "the considerable power of his office" to "promote his personal apocalyptic views." But in addition to blessing Israel, Christian Zionists are clear that those who fail to bless will be punished. Kay Arthur appeared with Falwell on CBS's 60 Minutes and there surprised her audience when she suggested that the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin was linked to his involvement in the Oslo Peace Accord. In June CBN (The Christian Broadcasting Network which produces Pat Robertson's 700 Club) published a news item warning America about natural disasters that will be God's punishment on America. The day after Mahmoud Abbas was sworn in and the Roadmap was set in motion, CBN told us that the next day began the worst month of tornadoes in America's history. Their best example happened on Oct. 30, 1991, when former President Bush (Sr.) met with Israelis and Palestinians to discuss compromises. CBN commented, "That same day, thousands of miles away, a powerful storm was brewing off the coast of Nova Scotia. On October 31, what would be called 'the perfect storm' smashed into New England pummeling the president's Kennebunkport, Main, home with waves 30 feet high. It was a storm so rare that the weather patterns required to create it only happen once every 100 years." The deduction was clear: Bush had angered God in his negotiations and God had sent America punishing weather in response. As odd as all of this may sound, it is consistent with the theological worldview embraced by Christian Zionists who believe that Christian faith and politics must be wed in Israel. To deny this synthesis is not only to contradict the Bible, but it is to stand in the way of what God is doing in history, a history foretold millennia ago by the Biblical prophets. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GLOBAL RESEARCH HAS ANOTHER VIEWPOINT (3 articles below RE: Riots) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PART 1 ===========PART 1 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ UK's Police Complaints Commission: We may have given misleading information on police shooting that sparked riots Release of information in early stages of Mark Duggan investigation Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS [London's Metropolitan Police Service] officers on the evening of 4th August. The IPCC's [independent Police Complaints Commission] first statement, issued at 22.49 on 4th August, makes no reference to shots fired at police and our subsequent statements have set out the sequence of events based on the emerging evidence. However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital. Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVo PART 2 =========== Part 2 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVo Her Majesty's Democracy": Britain's Parliament demands Violent Repression of Youth Riots by Julie Hyland Yesterday’s emergency debate in the British parliament, recalled in emergency session following the eruption of youth riots earlier this week, was a contemptible spectacle. The disturbances that have swept large parts of London and other cities and towns across England are the direct product of the vast growth in poverty, deprivation and police brutality faced daily by many working class youth. Everyone knows that these conditions are of the outcome of deliberate policies pursued by Labour and Conservative governments alike over the last three decades, as they have competed to satisfy the financial oligarchy and super-rich at the expense of working people. And everyone is well aware that the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat government’s austerity measures—driven by the self-same class interests—will lead to even greater social devastation and inequality. But any reference to this reality was strictly off limits. In the face of an unprecedented eruption of raw social anger by young people, the assembled politicians could not muster a serious, intelligent response of any note. With much of London, Birmingham, Manchester, and other inner-city areas on virtual police lock-down, it denounced working class youth and shrilly demanded that the state prepare for violent repression of the population. In his opening statement, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected that the disturbances were in any way connected to the police killing of 29-year old Mark Duggan last Thursday in Tottenham. Duggan’s death was “used as an excuse by opportunist thugs in gangs”, he claimed, to carry out “criminality”. It is now known that Duggan was shot and killed in a pre-planned operation, and that police claims they had opened fire in self-defence are lies. His death was only the latest in the toll of some 340 fatalities that have occurred in police custody over the last decade or so, for which not a single police officer has been convicted. Cameron is indifferent to police lawlessness, however. The purpose of his statement was to insist that the disturbances were solely the result of “criminality” and “immorality” amongst young people, who must be dealt with ruthlessly. The riots had shown that “pockets of society” were “frankly sick”, the prime minister said, marked by “mindless selfishness”, and a “complete lack of responsibility.” Not only is this a slander against working class youth. Such statements more properly apply to the prime minister himself. After all, it is less than one month since this smug, multi-millionaire old Etonian was implicated in the lawless activities of Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World, which included phone hacking and the bribery and corruption of police officers. For years, the political establishment had kept quiet about News International’s “criminality on an industrial scale”—all eager to please the multi-billionaire, arch reactionary media baron lest he reveal the dirt he had on them. Even now Murdoch, his CEOs and the corrupt police officers involved have escaped prosecution. Cameron’s charge, moreover, applies equally to the “pocket” of the City of London, where the greedy, self-serving activities of the banks and super-rich have literally trashed the British economy. Billions of pounds have been looted from public funds and handed over to the City, without any bank, hedge-fund operator, financial speculator, or those supposed to have “regulated” their activities, held to account. As one young person interviewed on Sky TV noted, “The politicians say that we loot and rob. They are the original gangsters. They talk about copycat crimes. They’re the ones that’s looting, they’re the originals.” According to the government, however, it is only working class youth—the victims of this criminality on the part of the ruling elite—that should feel the “full force of the law” when their justifiable anger erupts. Pledging that “nothing is off the table”, Cameron announced that the police swamping operation in the inner-cities—16,000 in London alone—is to be extended to the weekend, and that an emergency reserve of riot police is on standby. Plastic bullets were already authorised for use, and contingency plans were in place to deploy water cannon at 24 hours’ notice if necessary. Cameron also insisted that he did not rule out calling in the army in the event of further disturbances. “It is the government’s responsibility to make sure that every future contingency is looked at, including whether there are tasks that the army could undertake that might free up more police for the front line,” he said. A range of punitive social “sanctions” are to be enforced against anyone involved in the disturbances—including evicting them from council housing, and stripping them of welfare benefits. Curfews, the interception of electronic communications and “anti-gang” measures are also on the table. These efforts to terrorise working class youth and their families on pain of utter destitution received the full support of Labour leader Ed Miliband. “There can be no excuses, no justification” for the rioting, he insisted. The saturation presence of police in the inner-cities should be extended indefinitely, Miliband urged, until the police were satisfied the situation was “under control”. There must be “swift, effective and tough action to send a message about the penalties and punishment” for anyone involved. As Miliband spoke, mass arrests continued in London and elsewhere. Police battered down doors and raided homes in some of the most deprived areas of the capital, detaining anyone suspected of being involved in the disturbances. All-night sittings are underway in several magistrates courts in England to process the 2,000 or so people so far arrested. Amongst the first before the courts was an 11-year-old boy accused of stealing a rubbish bin from a department store; others were charged with similar petty offences, such as stealing cigarettes, clothes, food and electronic items. Contrary to official claims that those involved in the disturbances were “underworld criminals”, many of those arrested have no previous convictions. Predominantly young people, they include college and university students, unemployed graduates, and many employed in low-wage jobs such as call centres. Despite the lack of previous convictions, many have been refused bail. Those charged with “disorder”, in particular, are being referred for sentencing at crown courts, where they could face up to ten years in prison. Even these measures are not enough for some. Earlier, one Conservative Member for the European Parliament had urged, “Time to get tough. Bring in the Army. Shoot looters and arsonists on sight”. During the parliamentary debate, Conservative Sir Peter Tapsell urged that Britain should take the US approach to disturbances. During the 1960s when demonstrators had protested against the Vietnam War, they were held en masse in a Washington stadium. Those involved in the disturbances in London should be similarly be rounded up and kept in Wembley football stadium, he demanded. It should be noted that during the inner-city rebellions in Brixton, Tottenham, Liverpool and elsewhere in the 1980s, there was widespread acknowledgement that inner-city deprivation and police brutality were to blame. The right-wing government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was forced to convene an inquiry under Lord Scarman, who reported that “complex political, social and economic factors” created a “disposition towards violent protest”, and recommended remedial action. There is no trace of this today. The Labour Party is a corrupt, right-wing, big-business party. The various so-called “lefts” and “liberals”—indifferent to social deprivation and horrified at the spectre of social unrest lest it impinge on their privileged lifestyles and bulging stock portfolios—are no different. The Labour MP Dianne Abbot was just one of those who gave her full support to the police clampdown. Abbot made her political career on the backs of the inner-city riots in the 1980s, exploiting the legitimate concerns of black workers and youth at police brutality. It was the failure of the police to intervene early enough in the current disturbances that gave the green light to “every little hooligan in London” to go out and loot, she said. The rottenness and corruption of Labour, the “left” and the trade unions is entirely responsible for the fact that the legitimate grievances of young people have taken the form of an explosion of rage and violence. These organisations have either become open advocates of big business, in the case of Labour, or experts at directing workers’ struggles into the dead end of an orientation to the Labour Party. Walled off from any role in political life, working class youth have been unable to fight their deepening social oppression, until their anger exploded in response to recent acts of police brutality. The riots are in the final analysis the reflection of the government’s corruption and utter imperviousness to the basic needs of the working class. Serious lessons must be drawn from the events of the past days. The concerns of young people—poverty, war and state repression—mean breaking the monopoly of the three big business parties over political life by unity with working people in the fight for the building VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVooooVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoo PART 3 ============ PART 3 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoo Riots in Britain: Back to the Future by William Boles link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25961 (go to for links in article) Exactly thirty years ago Brixton exploded with rage against the de facto occupation of Brixton by the Met police. And, as I write this, all kinds of madness is going down in various parts of London and elsewhere. The Scarman Report was one of the most influential reports in postwar Britain, yet despite criticism of the police they escaped blame for the events in Brixton. For years black youth had been subjected to intense racist policing. The riots erupted at the end of the first week of an operation called ‘Swamp 81′ in which the area had been flooded with more than 100 plainclothes cops. In two days they stopped more than 1,000 people and arrested over 100–twice the normal weekly average. As the Daily Mirror said, ‘Nobody rules the streets of London, Brixton, or even Railton Road except the Metropolitan Police.’ Riots started after extremely high levels of police harassment. — ‘Can the police be reformed?‘, Socialist Review, March 1999[1] Predictably, the politicians and the police have been alleging that it was “criminal elements from the outside” or, “copycat criminal activity” that caused the ‘lootin’ anna burnin’ in Tottenham and elsewhere over this past weekend. How true this is or what relevance it has to this working class North London community is not explained. And what does ‘outside’ mean anyway? “Was Saturday night an orgy of mindless violence or a cry of rage from a marginalised, disaffected part of society?” — ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?‘ BBC News 7 August 2011 But we’ve been here before, many times. Back at the beginning of the 1980s when under the Thatcher government Brixton, Toxteth in Birmingham, Tottenham and other communities exploded with rage, against the ‘sus laws’[2], used primarily against young black people and the deaths of black people at the hands of the police. A “cry of rage from a marginalised, disaffected part of society”? Why are they ‘marginalised’? Why are they disaffected? “Police have condemned a wave of “copycat criminal activity” across London in a second night of looting and disorder following riots in Tottenham.” — ‘Copycat crime across London after Tottenham riot’, BBC News, 8 August 2011 Back in 2003 I wrote the following and as things have not basically changed, I see no reason why these words are not as relevant today as when I first wrote them: Throughout the 1960s and 70s, attacks, especially on Black youth and Asians with the indifference and outright connivance of the police rose to unprecedented levels, with Black resistance stiffening throughout the 1970s, culminating in the ‘riots’ of the 1980-81. And just as now, Afro-Caribbean children suffered the institutional effects of an education policy that imprisoned them in ESN (Educationally Sub-Normal) schools. “It was clear that the state’s version of ‘multi-culturalism’ had failed because it was directed not at those sections of society that needed support, the Black and Asian community, but at the white power structure. [A]ll…it had done was create a “race relations industry”. “Multi-culturalism deflected the political concerns of the black community into the cultural concerns of different communities, the struggle against racism into the struggle for culture. /../ “Underlying the whole of the state’s project was a divisive culturalism that turned the living, dynamic, progessive aspects of black people’s culture into artefact and habit and custom — and began to break up community.” — ‘Communities of Resistance – black struggles for socialism’ by A. Sivanandan, Verso Books 1990 /../ y 1981, under the impact of Thatcherism, the lid blew off and as Sivanandon so succinctly puts it, “[T]he youth of the benighted inner cities, black and white, Afro-Caribbean and Asian, came together again, not so much in joint struggle as in a blinding moment of spontaneous insurrection against the impossibility of their common condition.” The state’s reaction was dramatic. Commissions of Inquiry were set up including that of Lord Scarmon’s into the Brixton ‘disorders’ and their causes. Labour’s Urban Aid programme was exhumed and funding for black ‘self-help’ groups increased dramatically. These so-called ethnic projects were in reality, a continuation of those initiated under the Labour government and as Sivanandon puts it, “[T]he Tories were not averse to taking lessons from their masters in social control.” The core of the approach to the ‘problem’ of British-born blacks had its roots at Bristol University’s Social Science Council on Ethnic Relations that identified the ‘problem’ as one of ‘ethnic identity’. The youth, according to the report of the Home Affairs Committee on Racial Disadvantage were, “caught between the cultural expectations of their parents (the first generation immigrants) and the social demands of the wider society…. West Indian boys have conflicted identifications with the general representatives of their own ethnicity and the native white population.” In other words, “Identity is all.” And furthermore as part of the importation of the US approach to the ‘problem’ of ethnic minorities, we read that it’s not institutional racism that’s the problem, but it’s, “because of the impact of British social conditions on the matriarchal extended family structure of the West Indian immigrants.” Like I didn’t grow up within an extended family structure along with millions of other working class kids of my generation? The report goes on to list all the ‘problems’ that the black community has including, “‘Young West Indians…are ‘a people of the street… They live their lives on the street, having nothing better to do: they make their protest there: and some of them live off street crime.’ And this hostility of black youth…has…’infected older members of the community [where they have] time to engage in endless discussion of their grievances.’” The objective being to excuse the state of its institutional racism and instead blame the West Indian community of an “inherent disability”. As Sivanandon puts it, “Racism, for Scarmon, was in the mind — in the attitudes, prejudices, irrational beliefs — and these are to be found on both sides of the divide, black and white. Institutional racism was a matter of black perception, white racism was a matter of prejudice…and so [it shifted] the object of anti-racist struggle from the state to the individual, from changing society to changing people.” Enter RAT (‘Racism Awareness Training’), an entirely apposite acronym. RAT began its smelly life as HAT (Human Awareness Training) on a military base in Florida as a response to the black rebellions of the 1960s. RAT grew out of the Kerner Commission (1968) that declared that racism was a white problem, and that it was “white institutions that created it, white institutions maintain it and white society condones it.” An entire, new industry devoted to ‘racism awareness’ was created with a plethora of literature, organisations and businesses to bring about “changing the behaviour of whites” through to “increasing the capabilities of non-white groups. But the principle responsibility was ‘with the white community rather than within the non-white communities.’” An entire, new range of ‘pathologies’ emerged as a result including racism defined as “prejudice plus institutional power” and finally “cultural racism”. The ‘bible’ of the RAT syndrome was an education thesis of Judy Katz who defined the problem as “Systematic handbook of excercises for the re-education of white people with respect to attitudes and behaviorisms.” In other words, racism was a “psychological problem”. Widely used in the US in the education system, RAT finally made its way to the UK in a modified form. Under the impact of the RAT syndrome, the entire focus of the state’s ‘fight’ against racism shifted to the psychological domain. So for example, Home Affairs now described racial disadvantage (the UK term for affirmative action) as “it cannot be unfair to give help to those with a special handicap.” To sum up RAT, Sivanandon describes their psychobabble as follows; “[Racism] is a combination of mental illness, original sin and biological determinism…. Racism, according to RAT, has its roots in white culture, and white culture, unaffected by material conditions or history, goes back to the beginning of time.” By on the one hand divorcing racism from class and on the other by personalising the effects of racism, the state absolved itself of responsibility. It also sidestepped the connection between racism and fascism for failing to recognise the link. But Martin Webster of the National Front knew when he said “the social base of the NF is made up of the desperate and dispossessed among the white working class.” — ‘An institutional state of denial‘ By William Bowles, 27 October 2003 The lessons not learned Clearly nothing at all has changed in the intervening thirty years. The economic deprivations of the 1970-80s has returned with a vengeance and along with it the rise of neo-fascism and the inevitable reactions of those most heavily impacted by the cuts, especially young working class, both black and white. Tottenham which falls under the control of Haringey Council has seen its youth services budget cut by more than 75%. There are more than 50 people for each unfilled job in the borough, 10% more people claiming unemployment benefit this year than last and ten of the eighteen youth clubs in the borough have been closed. The BBC however, has this to say: “But if it were poverty alone were the driving factor, one would expect communities in the cities of the north of Britain, not the south, to have been in flames on Saturday night.” — ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?’ As if to answer the BBC’s question, riots broke out in my neighbourhood, Brixton as well as in Enfield, Hackney and other communities but no doubt the BBC puts them down to ‘copycat riots’? More sinister is the allegation that these are ‘Twitter coordinated Riots‘. For the BBC the only measure of frustration and rage are the unemployment figures but the BBC ignores the impact of policing on working class communities. After all it was the shooting death by the police—allegedly with a machine gun at point-blank range—of Tottenham resident Mark Duggan last Thursday that triggered the initial reaction, followed by the police allegedly batoning a 16-year old girl on Saturday at a protest rally organized by Duggan’s family over the way his death had been handled by the Independant Police Complaints Commission, tasked with investigating Duggan’s death.[3] The subtle propaganda interplay between the BBC and the police is revealed by how the BBC report, ‘Was Tottenham’s riot a cry of rage?’ shifts the emphasis from the real conditions of working people to “low morale” in a police force that has seen its funding cut by 20%. This is how the BBC report put it: “Morale among the police officers dealing with this incident [in Tottenham], and within the police service as a whole, is at its lowest level ever due to the constant attacks on them by the home secretary and the government in the form of the Winsor and Hutton reviews into police pay and conditions.” The inference being I assume that “low morale” and cuts in police funding led to a riot in Tottenham? Clearly the political class fear increasing and spreading ‘social unrest’, especially amongst the BBC’s ‘marginalised, disaffected part of society’, who clearly feel that they have nothing to lose. This is what a resident of Tottenham had to say on the subject: Having grown up in Tottenham, I’m deeply saddened that it has taken a riot to highlight the complex problems that blight the area. Yesterday on BBC News’s rolling coverage, a local shopkeeper described the scenes as “US-style inequality”. This is an inequality that has persisted ever since I took up residence in Tottenham aged seven, and the kind of inequality that went largely ignored. Tensions between the people and the police have always been known. Yesterday youth worker Symeon Brown perfectly articulated this tension, stating on BBC News that “there is a sense that the police are not for us”. It has taken a riot to put Tottenham’s problems on the national agenda. — ‘Twitter didn’t fuel the Tottenham riot‘, Reni Eddo-Lodge, the Guardian 8 August 2011 Notes 1. See the Scarmon Report, an investigation into how the death of Stephen Lawrence was handled by the police that concluded that the “Metropolitan police was institutionally racist”. Nothing has changed. In fact a high-up police officer stated on BBC radio some years back that it was impossible to root out institutional racism in the police, that’s how deep it goes in British society. 2. “Stopping and searching suspects [sus] will become easier for police, the Government promised yesterday. But Home Office changes fall well short of Tory plans to slash red tape. The Government has been panicked into action by David Cameron, who said outdated search laws designed to protect ethnic minorities and the young from harassment must go. — ‘Return of ‘sus’ laws as police are given powers to stop and search without giving reason‘, Daily Mail, 31 January 2008 3. An eyewitness says the girl’s beating was in response to a champagne glass she was holding that she threw at the police. “After she was hit with police batons, rioters threw missiles back at the police officers, according to other accounts from onlookers.” — ‘London riots: 16-year-old girl and police clash – video‘. Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph tells us that, “The 16 year-old was said by some witnesses to have thrown a stone at a line of officers during the initial protest at Tottenham police station. “She was then allegedly knocked to the ground, and as the crowds retaliated it led to two squad cars being set alight at the start of a night of violent disturbances and looting.” — ‘‘Attack’ on teenage girl blamed for start of Tottenham riot’. ===================THANKS Steve Gaal

UPDATE/ On Thursday, the CIA threatened the journalists behind Who Is Rich Blee (podcast)? with possible federal prosecution if the investigative podcast is ===================o========================o= FROM 911blogger Insiders voice doubts about CIA’s 9/11 story: Former FBI agents say the agency's bin Laden unit misled them about two hijackers SOURCE ARTICLE BELOW link http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insiders_voice_doubts_cia_911/singleton/ Friday, Oct 14, 2011 8:00 AM EST Insiders voice doubts about CIA’s 9/11 story Former FBI agents say the agency's bin Laden unit misled them about two hijackers By Rory O'Connor and Ray Nowosielski A growing number of former government insiders — all responsible officials who served in a number of federal posts — are now on record as doubting ex-CIA director George Tenet’s account of events leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Among them are several special agents of the FBI, the former counterterrorism head in the Clinton and Bush administrations, and the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, who told us the CIA chief had been “obviously not forthcoming” in his testimony and had misled the commissioners. These doubts about the CIA first emerged among a group of 9/11 victims’ families whose struggle to force the government to investigate the causes of the attacks, we chronicled in our 2006 documentary film “Press for Truth.” At that time, we thought we were done with the subject. But tantalizing information unearthed by the 9/11 Commission’s final report and spotted by the families (Chapter 6, footnote 44) raised a question too important to be put aside: Did Tenet fail to share intelligence with the White House and the FBI in 2000 and 2001 that could have prevented the attacks? Specifically, did a group in the CIA’s al-Qaida office engage in a domestic covert action operation involving two of the 9/11 hijackers, that — however legitimate the agency’s goals may have been — hindered the type of intelligence-sharing that could have prevented the attacks? And if not, then what would explain seemingly inexplicable actions by CIA employees? As we sought to clarify how the CIA had handled information about the hijackers before 9/11, we found a half dozen former government insiders who came away from the Sept. 11 tragedy feeling burned by the CIA, particularly by a small group of employees within the agency’s bin Laden unit in 2000 and 2001, then known as Alec Station. This is not a conspiracy theory or the speculation of uninformed people. Gov. Thomas Kean, co-chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was responsible for investigating 9/11, agreed to an on-camera interview for our documentary in 2008. He surprised us by voicing many doubts and questions about the CIA’s actions preceding Sept. 11 — and especially about former CIA director George Tenet. Four years after Tenet testified to the commission, Kean said the CIA director had been “obviously not forthcoming” in some of his testimony. Tenet said under oath that he had not met with President Bush in the month of August 2001, Kean recalled. It was later learned he had done so twice. Did Tenet misspeak? we asked the New Jersey Republican. “No, I don’t think he misspoke,” Kean responded. “I think he misled.” A tale of two hijackers The story buried in footnote 44 of Chapter 6 of the 9/11 Commission report was this: The commission became aware in early 2004 of a warning written by Doug Miller, an FBI agent working inside the CIA’s Alec Station. In January 2000, Miller tried to inform his bosses about a man named Khalid Al Mihdhar, who had previously been identified as a member of an al-Qaida operational cadre. By the spring of 2000, the CIA had learned that Mihdhar and another suspected al-Qaida operative, Nawaf Al Hazmi, had likely arrived in Southern California. But the CIA did not pass along the information to the FBI. The draft cable — blocked by Miller’s CIA superiors — was not turned over to the commissioners or to the earlier congressional investigation. It was discovered in CIA records by an investigator working for a concurrent inquiry conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general. Apparently it had been missed by Tenet’s DCI Review Group, convened immediately after the attacks to examine CIA records in order to prepare the director for the coming government investigations. Kean was disturbed by the revelation. “The idea that that information was left out of something that was so essential for the FBI, whose job it is to work within the United States and track these people … you know, it’s one of the most troubling aspects of our entire report, that particular thing,” Kean said. We pushed Kean. Could it be this was a simple mistake, a failure to recognize the significance of Mihdhar and Hazmi, as the CIA had initially characterized it? “Oh, it wasn’t careless oversight,” Kean replied. “It was purposeful. No question about that in my mind … In the DNA of these organizations was secrecy.” Mihdhar and Hazmi boarded American Flight 77 at Washington Dulles airport on the morning of Sept. 11. After the plane took off, they joined three other men in commandeering the aircraft and flying it into the Pentagon, killing a total of 184 people. So how then had George Tenet and those responsible at the CIA managed to get away with misrepresenting the incident as a mistake for so long? “Tenet was a likable guy,” Kean concluded. “He got away with some stuff because people liked him.” “Malfeasance and misfeasance” In 2009, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke took the scenario further. In an on-camera interview he suggested that Tenet, once a close friend and colleague, had ordered the withholding of the information about the two al-Qaida operatives from the FBI and from the White House. Clarke explained why he had come to that remarkable conclusion. Tenet, he said, followed all information about al-Qaida “in microscopic detail” and would call Clarke at the White House several times a day to share “the most trivial of information.” In addition, there were terrorism threat meetings held in person every other day. We must have had dozens, scores of threat committee meetings over the time when they knew these guys had entered the country … They told us everything except this … So now the question is, why? The only explanation Clarke could offer was admittedly speculative: that the CIA may have been running an operation to recruit the two al-Qaida operatives while they were living under their own names in Southern California. This might appear to have been a reasonable thing for the CIA to do. After all, Bill Clinton’s White House had long complained to the agency about the lack of penetration agents in al-Qaida. But if the CIA was following or recruiting or monitoring Mihdhar and Hazmi in the United States, that might well have qualified as operating on U.S. soil, a violation of the agency’s charter. Once the two men were identified as hijackers on Flight 77, CIA officials may have begun a coverup of their earlier “malfeasance and misfeasance,” as Clarke charges. His language is blunt, especially for a national security policymaker. “I am outraged and have been ever since I first learned that the CIA knew these guys were in the country,” explained Clarke. “But I believed for the longest time that this was probably one or two low-level CIA people who made the decision not to disseminate the information. Now that I know that 50 CIA officers knew this, and they included all kinds of people who were regularly talking to me, saying I’m pissed doesn’t begin to describe it.” Clarke said he assumed that “there was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share that information.” When asked who might have issued such an order, he replied, “I would think it would have been made by the director,” referring to Tenet — although he added that Tenet and others would never admit to the truth today “even if you waterboarded them.” The view from the FBI We found the same suspicion was also prevalent among FBI counterterrorism agents from the time, particularly those who had worked under a legendary FBI agent named John O’Neill in New York. O’Neill, movingly portrayed in Lawrence Wright’s Pulitzer Prize-winning “The Looming Tower,” was one of the special agents in charge of counterterrorism in the FBI’s New York office. He retired to serve as chief of security at the World Trade Center and was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, only three weeks after leaving the bureau. O’Neill’s deputy for counterterrorism was Pasquale D’Amuro, who was appointed inspector in charge of the FBI’s investigation into the attacks. “I am cautious about saying it, because you have to deal with the facts,” D’Amuro told us. He said that he was told that Richard Blee, the chief of Alec Station, and his deputy, Tom Wilshere, had blocked the sharing of intelligence on Mihdhar and Hazmi with the FBI. “I had heard that Blee stopped it from coming over, that Blee and Wilshere had had the conversation and stopped it,” D’Amuro said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that that went up further in the agency than just those two guys. And why they didn’t send it over — to this day, I don’t know why.” Jack Cloonan, former manager at the FBI’s al-Qaida-busting I-49 Squad, is another insider pained by the CIA’s actions. “If you start to look into everything that’s Khalid Al Mihdhar and Nawaf Al Hazmi, you can’t help but conclude to most people’s minds that this is it,” Cloonan, said during an emotional interview in his New Jersey living room. “9/11 occurred not because the systems failed. The systems actually worked. Somebody made a critical decision not to share this information … If you look at this, it’s really just a handful of people. I don’t know how they sleep at night, I really don’t.” The CIA’s failure to inform the FBI meant that a last chance to stop the hijackers was missed, says Clarke. “And if they had….” Clarke told us, his voice trailing off. “Even as late as Sept. 4,” he went on, “we would have conducted a massive sweep. We would have conducted it publicly. We would have found those assholes. There’s no doubt in my mind — even with only a week left — we would have found them…” Clarke is not an infallible or even a disinterested witness. As a top counterterrorism adviser at the time of the attack, he cannot help but take the tragedy personally. That said, the fact that at least three FBI agents share his views certainly enhances his credibility. A spokesman for the CIA rejects the notion, telling Salon, “any suggestion that the CIA purposely refused to share critical lead information on the 9/11 plots with the FBI is simply wrong.” The spokesman cited the 9/11 Commission report and a report of the CIA’s independent inspector general. (The latter study, completed in 2004, has never been made public.) The story of the alleged CIA intelligence failure attracted little other media interest until this August. That’s when Tenet, Richard Blee and another CIA official criticized by Clarke, Counterterrorism Center director J. Cofer Black, replied to our request for an interview. We had asked them to respond to Clarke’s speculation. Although they declined to be interviewed, Tenet, Black and Blee sent us a joint written statement that charged Clarke was “reckless and profoundly wrong” and that he had “suddenly invented baseless allegations which are belied by the record and unworthy of serious consideration.” The statement, which we shared with the Daily Beast, was newsworthy because the three men had never before felt the need to explain their actions directly to the American public. “We testified under oath about what we did, and what we didn’t know,” they stated. “We stand by that testimony.” The relevance of their testimony to Clarke’s theory is hard to assess. Tenet and Black were never asked about the surveillance of Mihdhar and Hazmi, at least in their public testimony. Blee’s testimony has never been made public. “You’re not going to say anything” The CIA’s explanation is not convincing to Mark Rossini, an FBI agent who was assigned to Alec Station in 2000 and 2001. The assignment of tracking Khalid Al Mihdhar, he told us, had been given to a young staff operations officer who shared responsibility for watching events in Yemen along with Alec Station deputy chief Tom Wilshere. Rossini, who resigned from the FBI in the wake of legal troubles, recalled in a phone interview that the staff officer’s direct supervisor was a redheaded analyst working directly for Wilshere. He says that this supervisor, not referred to by even so much as an alias in any of the government reports on 9/11, is the same woman who told congressional investigators that she had hand-delivered Mihdhar’s visa information to FBI headquarters. This was later proven false when the investigators checked the log books at the FBI headquarters, discovering that she had never set foot in the building. Eleanor Hill, staff director of the congressional inquiry, also told us that her investigators found no evidence that the FBI had ever received the information. Rossini remembered that the staff operations officer working under that redhead had ordered him and his fellow FBI agent Doug Miller not to tell their colleagues at the bureau, including John O’Neill’s New York office, that Mihdhar was likely on his way to the United States in early 2000. “She got a little heated,” Rossini recalled. “She just put her hand on her hip and just said to me, ‘Listen, it’s not an FBI case. It’s not an FBI matter. When we want the FBI to know, we’ll let them know. And you’re not going to say anything.’” Only two days before, this same officer had sent a message internally throughout the CIA misleading her fellow agents into believing that the information had been passed on to the FBI. Her later conversation with Rossini makes it appear that this was a deliberate misstatement. According to the Justice Department inspector general, she sent the misleading message only hours after posting an electronic note on Doug Miller’s draft warning to the FBI: “pls hold off … for now per [the CIA deputy chief of bin Laden unit],” a reference to Tom Wilshere. We now know the staff officer is a woman named Michael Anne Casey. Her red-haired supervisor was a woman named Alfreda Frances Bikowsky. Google penetrates the CIA How we learned the names of those two CIA personnel can be summarized in one word: Google. In the case of the redhead, an Associated Press article from February 2011 seemed to refer to her. She had also been referenced in Jane Mayer’s book “The Dark Side,” by her middle name, Frances. The AP article stated that she had an unusual first name. After searching State Department nominations from the past decade — often cover positions for CIA personnel but still entered into the Congressional Record -– a contemporary historian named Kevin Fenton with whom we work closely found a name that seemed to fit. For the staff officer, we knew three important facts. She had a “man’s name” — most likely Michael, the name used in the Commission Report. She was in her late 20s at the time of the incident, and was a “CIA brat,” meaning she had at least one parent or another family member inside the agency. We wondered if she might be related to a prominent CIA figure, as her boss Richard Blee had turned out to be. One of the first names that came to mind, given her probable birth year, was William J. Casey, Ronald Reagan’s CIA director. Pairing the first name “Michael” with the last name “Casey,” we found a number of people with that name working in State Department or military positions. Again looking in the Congressional Record, we found the name Michael Anne Casey — a woman with a man’s name — and another website listing Casey as 27 years old in 1999 and living in the D.C. area, which seemed to make her very likely the person in question. (Incidentally, we were later informed that she is no relation to William J. Casey.) A CIA threat When we informed the agency’s Public Affairs office that we planned to release an investigative podcast on iTunes on Sunday, Sept. 11, that named Bikowsky and Casey, the agency replied immediately. “We strongly believe it is irresponsible and a potential violation of criminal law [emphasis added] to print the names of two reported undercover CIA officers who you claim have been involved in the hunt against al-Qaida,” said spokesman Preston Golson. Erring on the side of caution, we took the names out of our podcast. On the day we released the revised podcast on our website, we heard from Sibel Edmonds. A former FBI analyst and prominent whistleblower, Edmonds posted a story on her blog Sept. 21 stating that she had three credible sources and a document confirming that the redhead in our revised story was Bikowsky. She also stated that the staff officer involved was Michael Anne Casey and cited our website, Secrecy Kills. It was only then that we discovered our webmaster had briefly and inadvertently placed our entire email to the CIA on our site. Edmonds saw the information and published it. Within minutes the information had spread widely through social media on the Internet. Before long Gawker breathlessly announced the latest of the CIA’s problems: that Bikowsky, who had risen to become the head of the CIA’s global jihad unit, had been outed. The rather more significant story — that a CIA intelligence failure had contributed to the 9/11 attacks — got short shrift from the popular gossip site. In an effort to clarify the story, we asked the CIA two factual questions. We asked if Bikowsky’s statement to the congressional 9/11 inquiry — that she had delivered Mihdhar’s visa information to the FBI prior to the attacks — was accurate. We also asked if former FBI agent Mark Rossini’s recollection that Michael Anne Casey had told him not to report information about Mihdhar and Hazmi was accurate. The agency did not address the specifics of either question. “We do not, as a rule, publicly confirm or deny the identities of currently serving agency officers,” a spokesman replied. “That includes those dedicated to the disruption of terrorist plots. The officers involved in those critical efforts have, thanks to their skill and focus, saved countless American lives.” The story of Mihdhar and Hazmi could easily be clarified, says Robert Baer, a retired CIA officer in the Middle East who worked directly with some of the people involved. “A lot of these people who withheld this information were not covert operatives,” he explained. “There was no reason to hide their names. They are out there in the public. You can find them in data and credit checks and the rest of it … They certainly could have been brought before the House or the Senate in closed session and an explanation and a report put out there.” Langley on the defensive The CIA prefers not to disclose but to protect the handful of people at the heart of this story. Tenet remained George W. Bush’s CIA director for another two and a half years, where he was famously involved in passing along faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that justified the disastrous invasion of Iraq. On Dec. 14, 2004, George Tenet was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush. Richard Blee, chief of Alec Station in 2001, reportedly took over the CIA operation during the invasion of Afghanistan to capture or kill Osama bin Laden when bin Laden was surrounded in the mountains of Tora Bora three months after 9/11. According to 23-year career CIA officer Gary Berntsen, as reported in his book, “Jawbreaker,” Blee was in charge at the time bin Laden managed to slip away to Pakistan to live comfortably for nearly a decade. Harper’s Ken Silverstein reported that Blee was active in the controversial renditions and detainee-abuse programs. He is now retired and living in Los Angeles. We do not know exactly what became of Tom Wilshere, a mysterious figure who has managed to maintain an even lower profile than the rest. Dale Watson, former head of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, told us that us that Wilshere became a White House briefer during the Bush era. Casey and Bikowsky have risen in the CIA’s ranks, despite the fact that Bikowsky has been associated with at least one major blunder. The AP reported that Bikowsky was at the center of “the el-Masri incident,” in which an innocent German citizen was renditioned (a euphemism for kidnapped) by the CIA in 2003 and held under terrible conditions (a euphemism for tortured) in a secret Afghan prison. The AP characterized it as “one of the biggest diplomatic embarrassments of the U.S. war on terrorism.” It was no doubt something more to Khaled el-Masri. Despite that episode Bikowsky was promoted. As chief of the counterterrorism center, Cofer Black was the boss of Casey, Bikowsky and Blee. He too was associated with the abuses of the extraordinary rendition program. He resigned shortly after George Bush was elected to a second term. Black then served as vice chairman of Blackwater USA, the controversial U.S.-based private security firm, from 2005 to 2008. Earlier this month Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney announced that Black would join his campaign as a foreign policy adviser. Rory O’Connor is an award-winning journalist, author and filmmaker, and co-founder and president of the international media firm Globalvision. Producer-writer Ray Nowosielski made his documentary debut directing "Press for Truth" in 2006. Co-founder of the media production company Banded Artists, he also was a senior producer for Globalvision. More Rory O'Connor and Ray Nowosielski link http://911blogger.com/news/2011-10-14/insiders-voice-doubts-about-cia-s-911-story-former-fbi-agents-say-agencys-bin-laden-unit-misled-them-about-two-h OLDER THREAD link http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18136&st=0&p=235790&hl=clarke&fromsearch=1entry235790

))))))))))))))))))))))) Dear Douglas,Quigley was very ,very smart,however, Quigley thought world government would be a positive for the people,it will not be. UPDATE from WHATREALLYHAPPENED below the VVVoVVV line break ,all coming true by Quigley. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++o++++++++++++++++++++++++ What Caroll Quigley predicted all coming true right before your eyes. See link below please see link http://www.activistp...ng-used-to.html .... link will show its all becoming true before your eyes your eyes...... The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." -- Quote from Caroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVo UPDATE == A Coup in the European Union? By a close vote on 28 September 2011, the European Parliament passed the Commission’s plan—a far-reaching takeover of individual countries’ capacity to set their own budgets and to manage their own sovereign debts. From now on, the Parliament and the Council (with the Commission naturally overseeing the process) will be able to force governments to comply with the Maastricht Treaty recommendations—otherwise known as the “Stability and Growth Pact”–to which member States had recently paid precious little attention. After 2005 this Pact seemed almost a quaint relic. But now, thanks to the six-pack, no deficits greater than 3% and no national debts above 60% of GDP will be countenanced. What these people need is stern discipline, make no mistake. link http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/14/a-coup-in-the-european-union/

++++++++++++++++++++++V+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Related. Unrest in streets thus , more media control needed by elites. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV UK maximizes pressure on Press TV link

Cannabis has enemies:pharmaceutical,timber,cotton and artificial fabrics,alcohol, and fuel and lubricant industries,and of course (protein) feed/food production industries. Who is behind the plot against cannabis ? ===============================o======================== ?? When Renault tries to arrest Laszlo as arranged, Rick forces him at gunpoint to assist in their escape. At the last moment, Rick makes Ilsa board the plane to Lisbon with her husband, telling her she would regret it if she stayed, "Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life." Major Strasser, tipped off by Renault, drives up alone. Rick shoots Strasser when he tries to intervene. When his men arrive, Renault pauses, then tells them to ANSWER =============o++++++++++++++++ "round up the usual suspects." "round up the usual suspects." "round up the usual suspects." "round up the usual suspects." "round up the usual suspects." VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVoVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXoooooooooooooooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX How the Top One Percent Ripped Off the Bottom 99 Percent link http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/10/11/how-the-top-one-percent-ripped-off-the-bottom-99-percent-61336/ very good comments section below article Jon Rynn is the author of the book Manufacturing Green Prosperity: The power to rebuild the American middle class, available from Praeger Press. He holds a Ph.D. in political science and is a Visiting Scholar at the CUNY Institute for Urban Systems.

OWS Protester Proclaims ‘The Jews Control Wall St.’ In Zuccotti Park Rant link http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/12/wall-street-protester-proclaims-the-jews-control-wall-st-in-zuccotti-park-rant/

Sorry,made a boo,boo.. kiss link above is KISS Saudi King and "W". Link below BANDAR and Bush kiss. "W" a man full of love OF NOTE # Prince Turki, chief of Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department (G.I.D.) was over a 30 year friend of "W" father,GHWB. Turki and GHWB created an illegal intelligence operation called the Safari Club when GHWB was head of the CIA. This Safari Club was created outside knowledge of the Congress and President. Shortly after 911 Turki resigned. If you have read the first post in this thread and put together that with the Safari info,IMHO you would begin to have real insight into the events/horror of 911. THANKS sg http://images.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-28,GGLG:en&q=bush%20saudi%20king&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1016&bih=441&tbm=isch#hl=en&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG:2005-28%2CGGLG%3Aen&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=bush+bandar+&oq=bush+bandar+&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=5391l10485l0l57079l17l15l0l1l1l4l406l3201l0.6.2.4.1l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1e3597bfda265fa&biw=1016&bih=413 real BANDAR/BUSH/KISS #########################ooooooooOooooooooo######### This older thread backgrond on this issue. link http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18052

VeriSign demands website takedown powers ======================oooooooo================^^^ link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/11/verisign_asks_for_web_takedown_powers/

#####################oooooooo################## OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*** related link http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27001 ==============ooo================ Payments (to AQ) arrived "in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family." ======= Bandar ,you remember,walked hand in hand with "W" Bush , at home in Texas ???? and more........kiss -- BANDAR'S wife gives money to AQ !! =====================########++++++++ Oh yes, BANDAR-Bush Kiss (Kiss but dont tell) THIS IS WRONG !! It is KING/W ,but I leave it as instructive too my point. Link Bandar/Bush link in post (post) below,SORRY !! http://images.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-28,GGLG:en&q=bush%20saudi%20king&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1016&bih=441&tbm=isch KING/W kiss

On your knees John !! Limbaugh has spoken !! link http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201110030025

related http://www.real-science.com/epa-glacier-fraud

#####################oooooooo#######################oooooooo Kelly shows his true colors,supports Hudson Institute,which is Max Holland's second home. link http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3870 =================o================= link http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/tag/max-holland ===========================oooo== This might be of more important to thread than Libya.. link http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21999 000000000000000000000ooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO+