michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 11, 2006 19:35:00 GMT 4
The two faces of Rumsfeld 2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea 2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change Friday May 9, 2003Randeep Ramesh The Guardian Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. Mr Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defence secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration. The reactor deal was part of President Bill Clinton's policy of persuading the North Korean regime to positively engage with the west. The sale of the nuclear technology was a high-profile contract. ABB's then chief executive, Goran Lindahl, visited North Korea in November 1999 to announce ABB's "wide-ranging, long-term cooperation agreement" with the communist government. The company also opened an office in the country's capital, Pyongyang, and the deal was signed a year later in 2000. Despite this, Mr Rumsfeld's office said that the defence secretary did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time". In a statement to the American magazine Newsweek, his spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said that there "was no vote on this". A spokesman for ABB told the Guardian yesterday that "board members were informed about the project which would deliver systems and equipment for light water reactors". Just months after Mr Rumsfeld took office, President George Bush ended the policy of engagement and negotiation pursued by Mr Clinton, saying he did not trust North Korea, and pulled the plug on diplomacy. Pyongyang warned that it would respond by building nuclear missiles. A review of American policy was announced and the bilateral confidence building steps, key to Mr Clinton's policy of detente, halted. By January 2002, the Bush administration had placed North Korea in the "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran. If there was any doubt about how the White House felt about North Korea this was dispelled by Mr Bush, who told the Washington Post last year: "I loathe [North Korea's leader] Kim Jong-il." The success of campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the status of Mr Rumsfeld in Washington. Two years after leaving ABB, Mr Rumsfeld now considers North Korea a "terrorist regime _ teetering on the verge of collapse" and which is on the verge of becoming a proliferator of nuclear weapons. During a bout of diplomatic activity over Christmas he warned that the US could fight two wars at once - a reference to the forthcoming conflict with Iraq. After Baghdad fell, Mr Rumsfeld said Pyongyang should draw the "appropriate lesson". Critics of the administration's bellicose language on North Korea say that the problem was not that Mr Rumsfeld supported the Clinton-inspired diplomacy and the ABB deal but that he did not "speak up against it". "One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation," said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst with the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. Many members of the Bush administration are on record as opposing Mr Clinton's plans, saying that weapons-grade nuclear material could be extracted from the type of light water reactors that ABB sold. Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and the state department's number two diplomat, Richard Armitage, both opposed the deal as did the Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, whose campaign Mr Rumsfeld ran and where he also acted as defence adviser. One unnamed ABB board director told Fortune magazine that Mr Rumsfeld was involved in lobbying his hawkish friends on behalf of ABB. The Clinton package sought to defuse tensions on the Korean peninsula by offering supplies of oil and new light water nuclear reactors in return for access by inspectors to Pyongyang's atomic facilities and a dismantling of its heavy water reactors which produce weapons grade plutonium. Light water reactors are known as "proliferation-resistant" but, in the words of one expert, they are not "proliferation-proof". The type of reactors involved in the ABB deal produce plutonium which needs refining before it can be weaponised. One US congressman and critic of the North Korean regime described the reactors as "nuclear bomb factories". North Korea expelled the inspectors last year and withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in January at about the same time that the Bush administration authorised $3.5m to keep ABB's reactor project going. North Korea is thought to have offered to scrap its nuclear facilities and missile pro gramme and to allow international nuclear inspectors into the country. But Pyongyang demanded that security guarantees and aid from the US must come first. Mr Bush now insists that he will only negotiate a new deal with Pyongyang after the nuclear programme is scrapped. Washington believes that offering inducements would reward Pyongyang's "blackmail" and encourage other "rogue" states to develop weapons of mass destruction. Source:www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jul 13, 2006 14:55:15 GMT 4
Ned Lamont and the Progressive Democrats: Not Ready for Prime Time By Stanley Rogouski, 7/9/06 For anyone who supports an end to the war in Iraq, the Connecticut Senate debate between the pro-war incumbent Joseph Lieberman and his challenger Ned Lamont was painful to watch. Lamont, an old money Greenwich aristocrat, a former Republican who made his fortune in telecommunications, was obviously not ready for the big leagues. Nervous, stammering, bug-eyed, and wearing an ill-fitting suit, he was easy prey for the cool, confident Lieberman who bullied his way through the debate with a passion that was nowhere in evidence during his lackluster performance against Dick Cheney in 2000. Lamont, the darling of the anti-war grassroots of the Democratic Party, came off looking like a naughty schoolboy getting a stern rebuke from the vice principal.Political debates are rarely this one-sided, even in statewide contests that are not as tightly controlled as the presidential debates, and even when one candidate is an experienced political operative and the other a novice. How exactly was Joseph Lieberman, the laughing stock of the 2004 Democratic primaries, able to transform himself into the Lloyd Benson of Connecticut and his opponent into Dan Quayle? While other Democratic Senators like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry have been careful to cloak their “yes” votes on the Iraq War Resolution in anti-war rhetoric, Lieberman almost seems to relish pointing out the cognitive dissonance of his colleagues. He voted for the war and he’s not ashamed of it. Just like the rest of the Democratic Party, he’s a reliable source of support for the Israeli right. But, unlike the rest of the Democratic Party, he doesn’t try to hide it. As a result, he’s earned the passionate animosity of the party’s anti-war grassroots, who often refer to him as “the Senator from the Likud Party”. The problem is not anti-Semitism (although Lieberman’s orthodox Jewish religion if often the elephant in the room) but the fact that the rest of his record has been distorted beyond all recognition. Lieberman, who’s a rather typical centrist Democrat on most domestic issues, and who, unlike Bill Casey in Pennsylvania or Tim Kaine in Virginia, is a reliable supporter of Roe vs. Wade, has been painted almost as the second coming of Tom Delay or Newt Gingrich, rather strange considering how he’s been endorsed both by Planned Parenthood and the AFL-CIO. The problem for Lamont is not that Lieberman has been justifiably called to the carpet by the Democratic Party’s grassroots for his pro-war voting record, but that Lieberman’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate have been allowed to get away with so much. Indeed, for all of his anti-war rhetoric, Howard Dean has never spoken at an anti-war rally. Hillary Clinton, who’s more hawkish on the issue of Iranian nukes than even George Bush, will get hit by an occasional Code Pink demonstration, but still retains some of that mythic Clintonian luster on the Democratic Party’s left. Chuck Schumer, who’s not only pro-war but a powerful national figure in the party’s fundraising apparatus, is rarely even mentioned. And John Kerry, who flip flops as much as the Republicans say he does, gets a pass for his flip flopping simply because it was the Republicans who first pointed it out. What’s more, the Democratic Party’s “anti-war” grassroots is often uncomfortable with the anti-war movement, at least as represented by International Answer, United for Peace and Justice, and other organizations who have been organizing large mobilizations against the war in Iraq since 2002. It’s not only the presence of openly pro-Palestinian radicals and supporters of Hugo Chavez that keeps Democratic politicians away, but the fact that Democratic politicians are caught between the desire to please the party’s rank and file and the necessity of appealing to their elite corporate donors and potential supporters in the military industrial complex. As a result, the party’s anti-war grassroots often gets stuck with empty rhetoric while its pro-war elite gets the actual votes. Far from inspiring the party’s anti-war rank and file to get involved in the political process, the anti-war rhetoric coming from the party’s leaders often has the effect of demobilizing people and it puts novice politicians like Ned Lamont in a tough position. Caught between their sincere desire to end the war in Iraq and the consciousness that they can only criticize the war within a narrow framework (i.e. you can criticize its poor execution of the war but not its morality and you must constantly reiterate your support of the troops even as you criticize their mission), it leads to paralysis, especially when confronting an open supporter of the war like Lieberman, who need face no such complexity. Indeed, Lamont, wound up looking like the living embodiment of these contradictions. While Lieberman spoke authoritatively from his own experience and forcefully argued for continuing the occupation, Lamont couldn’t seem to express an opinion without citing an authority from the military: “General X agrees with me. General Y agrees with me”. He stammered and twitched, swallowed his words and shrunk into his ill-fitting suit as his opponent moved in for the kill, brutally pointing out the number of times Lamont has changed his position on the war. “That’s the second position you’ve taken Ned,” Lieberman bellowed. “That’s the third. That’s the fourth. Oh there you go again. That’s the fifth position you’ve taken. What is your position Ned? Oh Ned. That’s the sixth position you’ve taken.” Lamont had no answer for this devastating performance because Lieberman was accurately pointing out the contradictory statements of Democrats who want to have it both ways, want to gain the support of their party’s anti-war grassroots but still want to remain within the framework of what the ruling class considers “respectable” and “moderate” dissent. And Lieberman, justifiably incensed over the way that he’s been chosen as the sacrificial lamb for his party’s support of the war in Iraq, and under none of these restraints, tore into the hapless Lamont like a pit bull who has been released after a long period of tugging against his chain. “How dare you question my commitment to the Democratic Party” he roared. “Five years ago you were a Republican. Three years ago you gave me money. And Now that you have the opportunity to be a Senator you’ve decided that you’re against the war.” Indeed, after pummeling Lamont’s contradictory stances on the war and calling him to his face an opportunistic amateur with no solid core of principle, a silly upstart willing to slander another Democratic politician for his own ambition, Lieberman, secure in his mastery of the debate, went right back to an old classic, the same line he used against Howard Dean in 2004: “Will Ned Lamont release his tax returns the way I have?” Lamont, who should have seen this coming from 100 miles away, once again had no answer and dodged the question in a way as obvious I was embarrassed for him. It was painful and embarrassing to watch, not because Lamont or his supporters are bad people. Indeed, they’re not. It was painful and embarrassing to watch precisely because Lieberman is a pro-war Bush sycophant and an advocate of mass murder in Iraq - just like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, and Bob Casey - and Lamont was so clearly out of his league. He so clearly was incapable of making the anti-war case against his opponent. Debates, of course, mean little in and of themselves. Kerry beat Bush decisively in all three in 2004. Bush still went on to win (or get close enough to steal) the election in November. As unlikely as it would seem to anybody watching his wretched performance in the debate against Lieberman, Lamont could still pull off an upset. Lieberman has made a number of enemies in Connecticut. He is unpopular and, most importantly of all, the Republicans want to run against Lamont, so their sycophants in the media will still talk him up. But even if Lamont wins the primary, it still doesn’t mean that Joe Lieberman will no longer be the Senator from Connecticut. While Lieberman is deadly serious about taking on people inside the Democratic Party’s left (vowing to run as an independent if he loses the primary), his anti-war opponents have already vowed to support him if he defeats Ned Lamont in the primary. No progressive Democrat would go anywhere near the idea of running as a third party candidate and this has the effect of preemptively disarming them against the determined Lieberman. There’s also a culture of militarism and jingoistic nationalism that’s beginning to infect even the anti-war grassroots of the Democratic Party, as is evidenced by their bizarre infatuation with right wing ex military men like Jim Webb. In other words, on ex-Republican millionaire securing the Democratic nomination for the Senate in a small liberal northeastern state means very little. The Democratic Party’s grassroots are putting all their eggs in Connecticut’s basket. There is no national push to knock out pro-war Democrats. There is no support for Jonathan Tasini on any of the big Democratic Party weblogs so enthusiastic in their support for Ned Lamont. Robert Menendez, a co-sponsor of the flag burning amendment, receives enthusiastic support on the Daily Kos and on other liberal Democratic websites. Robert Casey, the anti-abortion, right wing Democratic challenger to Rick Santorum will get no serious opposition. While the Democratic Party’s elite will trumpet Ned Lamont as a reason to abandon the anti-war movement, to give up organizing mass non-violent protest, don’t listen to them.Whatever the propaganda coming from Democrats and the Democratic Party’s intellectual elites about how “protests don’t work” or how “there can be no anti-war movement without a draft” or about how “people only act when it affects them personally” or how “we can’t support the extremists of International Answer” it’s clear that the only real opposition to George Bush’s policies over the past 5 years has come from the anti-war movement, from mass protests and from leftist radicals. We need to continue to support International Answer, Cindy Sheehan, United for Peace and Justice and the anti-war movement in general as they build mass rallies. But this isn’t enough in and of itself. The anti-war movement has to take a step past simple opposition to the war and coalesce around a position of driving George Bush and his whole regime out of office. We need to evolve beyond protest to resistance. Source: worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2522&Itemid=220
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 8, 2006 17:14:08 GMT 4
Motto of Mossad [Illuminati?]: "By way of deception, thou shalt do war" Victor Ostrovsky on the Mossadtinyurl.com/grfetVictor Ostrovsky: (1) How Mossad Got America to Bomb Libya & Fight Iraq (2) Mossad's training BOTH SIDES in the Sri Lankan civil war; and on its support for Moslem fundamentalists, to derail the peace process; and on its plan to kill George Bush snr, in payback for the peace process he initiated (3) Victor Ostrovsky "the most treacherous Jew in modern Jewish history".Also, notice the following statements within the article:{p. ix} One of the main themes of this book is Victor's belief that Mossad is out of control, that even the prime minister, although ostensibly in charge, has no real authority over its actions ...The one problem with the system is that the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the diaspora if it was known.{p. 276} In a country where just about everybody serves in the army, military service is important. That's why you end up with a government that is 70 percent generals. People don't seem to understand what's wrong with that - with people whose nostrils flare at the smell of gunpowder. Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad's greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President Reagan had promised - a strike that had three important consequences. First, it derailed a deal for the release of the American hostages in Lebanon, thus preserving the Hizballah (Party of God) as the number one enemy in the eyes of the West. Second, it sent a message to the entire Arab world, telling them exactly where the United States stood regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Third, it boosted the Mossad's image of itself, since it was they who, by ingenious sleight of hand, had prodded the United States to do what was right. Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad's general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete. {p. 271} The Americans don't realize how much information is given to us through NATO, information that can be manipulated to present a much more vivid picture. ... Be very wary if/when NATO/UN troops are deployed in the Mid East. I supplied the following link at Anwaar's article: The Neocons’ Greatest Sin [ malakandsky.blogspot.com/2006/08/neocons-greatest-sin.html ] If you haven't done so, give it a listen: Secrets of the Lebanon Gambit:New Audio mp3 Dialup Version: www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel060729.mp3 DSL Version: www.breakfornews.com/audio/NextLevel060729a.mp3 Michelle said... Secrets of the Lebanon Gambit The Zionists, Illuminati, G-8, whatever you want to call them, are manipulating the entire planet towards accepting, yeah rejoicing at the solutions they will offer us to the CREATED humanitarian crisis we are witnessing. As you listen to the audio listed below, keep in mind these statements from my first post here:"The goal of these families is domination of the planet through a world government dictatorship, a world army and a micro-chipped population." "This is what people need urgently to realize. To challenge Israel is not to condemn Jewish people as a whole. It is to expose the fact that they are fodder in a game most do not begin to understand - a game controlled from the start by a leadership made up of terrorists. When we understand this, past and present events start to make far more sense." "The Illuminati agenda all along has been to create so much war, conflict and upheaval of every kind that the people agree to be ruled by a centralized global dictatorship to 'solve the problems' these perceived 'saviors' have actually created. You covertly create the problem and then overtly offer the solution ... the change you want to impose on the world."
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 16, 2006 15:43:05 GMT 4
101 Uses of ChaosAs you read the following article, hold the following statements in your mind's eye:"It is becoming clear that there is a new superpower growing around the world, and that superpower is the people's movement, people liking hands across the entire world to save this planet and to save humanity. (...) We need to wrestle the Earth from these fools that are driving us down the roads of nuclear weaponry and global warming. The risks are too great at this time not to act. If you can, get involved with any grass root organization, fighting for the future, and we can take the planet back."- Excerpted from the credits of the movie "Return of the Whale Dreamers":It is a story of Dreaming and interwoven Dreams… taking us on a deep global journey into a forgotten magic that connects us all.The wisdom of Indigenous Elders from around the world permeate the film, offering up the all too familiar warnings of where humanity seems to be going… but it also reflects back to us that we collectively can also come back from the edge of extinction… it is not too late. People around the world are waking up. For the first time on film Aboriginal Whale Calling ceremonies are being shared.The Gathering is an invitation for us all to come back to the Fire... the Dreaming... and the Natural World.Press Release:[/b] whaledreamers.com/presskit/index.phpI will not dream the dream of separation and destruction!!!! It's not OUR dream; it belongs to the ones who refuse to WAKE UP......MichelleTomgram: Mark LeVine, Chaos Theory and the Middle EastClip from Intro: "The rest of the world might see the Middle East crisis as a cataclysmic event of potentially biblical proportions, but in his July 29 radio address the president echoed a persistent White House vision of hope rising from destruction. While taking care to note that the killing is ‘painful and tragic,' Bush sought to portray the tragedy as an opportunity for ‘broader change' that will lead to ‘peace,' ‘liberty,' ‘democracy' and a ‘more secure' America.
"You might think that it would take a truly self-delusional person to conjure up such a bright vision for this darkening corner of the world. But the president's rosy Mideast scenario is right in line with what has become a governing principle for him. Call it the Bush Chaos Theory. The president seems to think that the best way to get results is to blow things up and then see what happens. It is sort of like what curious kids do in their back yards until they learn that somebody could get hurt. Bush enjoys unsettling things, confident in the belief that an unseen hand will reach down, clean up the mess and make it all better. Create chaos, he apparently believes, and somehow an orderly world to his liking will emerge."101 Uses of ChaosBy Mark LeVine Perhaps the greatest illusion of any strategists, leaders, or generals is that they are in control -- and perhaps the most hubristic version of this illusion is the belief that they can use chaos itself to further their control, to strengthen their situation. Our world today reminds us constantly that you ride that tiger at your peril. Object lesson one: Iraq. While the world's attention and the headlines now focus on the Israel-Hezbollah war, recalcitrant, fracturing Iraq continues to spin out of the Bush administration's control. On August 3, Thom Shanker of the New York Times reported on a blunt warning from John B. Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing: " ectarian violence in Iraq, especially in the capital, Baghdad, ha grown so severe that the nation could slide toward civil war."
Three days later, Times reporter Dexter Filkins published a disturbing (if, by now, familiar) piece pointing yet again to the Bush administration's mismanagement of its occupation of Iraq. Headlined Baghdad's Chaos Undercuts Tack Pursued by US, the article explained that civil-war level chaos has forced American military commanders to abandon the administration's program of "Iraqifying" the security of the capital and other major cities. Once again, U.S. troops were being called in to patrol Baghdad's violent streets.
The truth is, however, that since American troops first arrived in the capital just over three years ago, it's hard to remember a time when chaos wasn't said to be enveloping parts of Iraq. From the moment the looting of Baghdad began and those victorious troops guarded nothing (except the Oil Ministry), fawda -- an Arabic word that suggests chaos but with a graver emphasis on discord and hostility -- has ruled the land. Yet an American general in the Filkins piece is quite typical when he claims, of the most recent manifestation of the chaos, "I don't think anyone could have anticipated the [recent] sectarian violence."
Statements like his -- and they have been commonplace -- strike me as odd in the extreme. After all, when I was in Iraq only a year into the American occupation, among the first things most Iraqis I met, particularly Sunni and Shiite leaders, would bring up were their fears of onrushing factional/sectarian violence and possible civil war and their desire to avoid it at all costs (unless it involved the Kurds, held in disdain because of their close relations with the U.S.). Then they would almost invariably state their belief that the Bush administration was encouraging sectarian differences and tensions in pursuance of a classic imperial strategy of divide and rule -- or at least, divide and make sure no one asks you to leave.
Filkins, however, has another explanation. "The failure of the Iraqis to halt the slide into chaos in Baghdad," he writes, "undercuts the central premise of the American project here: that Iraqi forces can be trained and equipped to secure their own country, allowing the Americans to go home." In other words, it's the damned Iraqis' fault our boys can't come home, which they'd already have done (except perhaps for a few hundred marines guarding our massive, still-under-construction embassy in Baghdad and who knows how many thousands more stationed in out of the way permanent bases) if those nasty insurgents hadn't started massacring civilians and police recruits wholesale.
Perhaps that's true. But a Times article several weeks earlier, also by Filkins (as well as Edward Wong) and headlined, In an About-Face, Sunnis Want the U.S. to Remain in Iraq, had pointed to other possibilities. The violence that increasingly powerful Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated national army were committing against Sunnis, Filkins and Wong reported, had turned "many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here" into supporters of that presence. They saw it, the reporters claimed, as a much-needed check against Shiite dominance of the country.
Needless to say, such a change of mind by any group of influential Sunnis could hardly have displeased Bush administration officials and affiliated neoconservative strategists, among whom remaining in Iraq for the indefinite future remains the highest priority. Indeed, the story could be seen as reflecting one of the administration's few Iraqi victories in quite some time.
In fact, both stories are probably accurate, each reflecting but an aspect of the American "adventure" in Iraq. The Bush administration initially planned to -- and would undoubtedly still like to -- quickly draw-down the lion's share of its forces, leaving the policing of the country to loyal Iraqis. In a similar way, Israel wanted the Palestinian Authority to police Palestinians and imperial Britons once sought -- for the most part successfully -- to have Indians do the dirty work of policing their own country during the Raj.
If, however, the choice in Iraq is put more starkly -- 130,000 U.S. troops or none -- the administration assuredly opts for the former, only praying that it can keep the American body count low enough to ensure a largely quiescent, if disgruntled, populace at home.
Chaos and Miscalculation
The problem is, in the world of occupational politics, one rarely gets to eat one's cake and have it too. At some point, the ripples from the chaos you generate, whether purposely or by accident, converge into the kind of perfect wave of horror that you just may not be capable of riding out. Ask Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the top brass of the Israeli Defense Forces about that. Thanks to Matthew Kalman of the San Francisco Chronicle, we now know that the current Israeli air campaign against, and invasion of, Lebanon had been planned out perhaps two years ago; that, more than a year ago, "a senior Israeli army officer" was giving "off-the-record" PowerPoint presentations about just such a "three-week campaign" to influential figures in Washington; and that Hezbollah's July 12 capture of Israeli soldiers was the pretext that the government had been waiting for to launch its campaign.
It is no less clear now that the Israelis underestimated the strength, training, preparation, and resolve of Hezbollah's fighters, leading to unanticipated destruction inside Israel that, in turn, seems to have caused some chaos within the military command structure. No doubt at least in part because of this situation, the last few weeks have witnessed an ever-widening, ever less controlled military campaign -- against every aspect of Lebanese society -- in a fruitless attempt to pressure Hezbollah to agree to Israel's terms.
Olmert, however, isn't the only leader who miscalculated, who convinced himself that he could control the chaos he was about to let loose rather than let it control him. Hezbollah also clearly planned its initial attack over a long period (possibly with Iranian support or training). Yet its leaders have let it be known that they did not anticipate the fierceness of the Israeli reaction. While this may be true, given the levels of destruction visited on Lebanon, it also has an odd ring to it -- and not just because the Olmert government was, at the very second Hezbollah launched its attack, demonstrating its no-holds-barred fierceness in an assault on Hamas in Gaza. If officials of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were PowerPointing their intention to invade to Washington's chattering class, Hebzollah's leaders also had to be in the know. After all, the whole point of Israel doing little short of advertising its military desires to the world was, at least in part, to warn Hezbollah of what lay in store.
Perhaps, like Olmert, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah convinced himself that loosing chaos was in his movement's self-interest. Perhaps he was convinced that the resulting violence would be manageable, clearing away threats to Hezbollah's future political and social hegemony in Lebanon. At the very least, he seems to have concluded that his movement stood a better chance against Israel's military than against the coalition behind Lebanon's 2005 Cedar Revolution which brought Hezbollah into parliament, but also threatened to transform the country in ways that looked less promising to its future.
Although other interested parties, particularly the Syrians, were well aware that Lebanon was in grave danger of "spinning out of control" in the long year between the Cedar Revolution and the capture of Israeli soldiers on July 12, it seems apparent that the hubris of each side led the leaders of Israel and Hezbollah to underestimate badly each other's intentions and strategies, even though both sides had long declared them.
The result? As in Iraq, chaos and destruction of a sort that feeds on itself and deepens with the passage of time.
Creating an Arc of Instability
Lebanon is but the most intense site at present for such chaos and destruction, which has been spreading and deepening across what the neoconservatives (many of whom were receptive to the idea of loosing a "generative" chaos in the region) once liked to call the "arc of instability." Little did they know, when they gave the oil heartlands of our planet that name, what was actually in store for us all.
Indeed, even if hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah die down sooner rather than later, the settling of scores within now-ruined Lebanon is likely to be bitter -- and perhaps brutal too. As Rami Khouri, the editor of the Lebanese Daily Star, argues: "Whether [Hezbollah] emerges from the current conflict weaker or stronger -- and stronger seems the answer now -- it will then have to battle the country's other political, religious and ethnic groups for the soul and identity of Lebanon. This face-off will transcend borders, for it is a microcosm of the wider struggle in the Middle East."
The seeds of further fragmentation and chaos lie buried as well in Nasrallah's sudden rise to "iconic" status within the Muslim world (even the Sunni Arab part of it), whose leaders are almost uniformly undemocratic and, more often than not, dependent on the U.S. for survival. Remember, Sunni leaders in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia barely hid their pleasure in the first days of Israel's invasion when it seemed that Hezbollah -- and with it, dreams of a "Shiite arc" across the Middle East -- would be dealt a serious blow.
The possibility of such a "Shiite arc" is but another striking example of how the chaos one means to unleash can unleash further levels of chaos that prove unmanageable -– even for the most self-confident of imperial powers. After all, the very thing that made such a Shiite arc a possibility was not the rise of fundamentalist Iran, but the Bush administration's decision to take down the secular, if brutal, regime of Saddam Hussein and then occupy Iraq. It's hard now even to recall that key Bush strategists saw Iraq mainly as a jumping-off spot for the transformation of the rest of the Middle East, especially for the control of, or subjugation of Shiite Iran. (As they put it at the time: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran."
The American invasion of Iraq, of course, resulted instead in the empowerment of that country's long repressed Shiite majority; while the violence and chaos brought on by the invasion and occupation put Hezbollah's Iranian patron in a far stronger strategic position. If recent history is any guide, however, this position will only ensure that, like the Bush administration, Olmert's government, and the Hezbollah leadership, the Iranians too will miscalculate and overplay the hand they have, releasing yet more unmanageable chaos on the world (and on themselves).
It is ironic that Israel was, to say the least, extremely supportive of the Bush administration's drive to war with Iraq in good measure because they expected an American presence in Baghdad to "contain" or, better yet, roll back Iran. Now, its unrepentant violence against Lebanese civilian areas is changing the world calculus about which state is the greater threat to peace: the state of Israel, currently occupying and bombing two neighboring countries and violating international law on an hourly basis, or a potentially nuclear-armed Iran. It's hard to imagine that this is the scenario Ehud Olmert and his advisors imagined as they launched their little war.
Yet all is certainly not well in the bunkers of southern Beirut either. One day, Nasrallah warns his fellow Lebanese that "those who sinned against us" by not supporting his movement "will not be forgotten"; the next, he offers a conciliatory message, perhaps in the realization that Shiites are not the only Lebanese with access to lots of weapons and foreign patrons. A war Hezbollah helped precipitate in good measure to reinforce its political power in Lebanon has, in fact, resulted in the destruction of much of the country, and with it Lebanon's future; even if Hezbollah "wins," its victory might well be followed, in the words of one Lebanese commentator, by a "return to civil war. And if that happens, nothing will put Lebanon -- let alone liberal Lebanon -- back together again." But, of course, Nasrallah was never interested in creating a liberal Lebanon. Certainly, there will be enough bitterness to be spread around for years, if not decades, to come.
The "Birth Pangs" of a Chaotic World
War has always generated unintended consequences and high levels of social and political chaos. But in the post-Cold War era, new ways of conceiving of the usefulness of violence fused war and chaos in what turned out to be a particularly grim fashion. First, in the mid-1990s, policy-makers began to think of chaos as having an important role in the functioning of the emerging "dominate or die" global economic system that went under the rubric of "neoliberal globalization" (or as it was euphemistically known, "free market democracy"). "Creative destruction," an old term that gained a new life in these years, also came to be seen as an apt way of understanding and justifying the violence and chaos that planners believed would be necessary to transition from the old Cold War world of superpowers, dictatorship, and poverty to a new globalized order of progress and democracy. Second, neoconservative strategists in the U.S. began to imagine that wielding the dazzling military power of the world's sole remaining superpower would be the easiest path to creating a global Pax Americana -- or is it Bellum Americanum?
This combination of attitudes still lies behind a revealing comment Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made on July 21: "What we're seeing [in Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East not going back to the old one."
This idea of a "new" Middle East, though essential to the larger neoconservative project, was first conceived by then-Israeli Labor Party Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. It was the foundation upon which the chimera of the Oslo process of negotiations with the Palestinians was built, only to collapse ignominiously less than a decade later. Peres imagined Israel as the future cultural and economic engine of a Middle East fully incorporated into a neoliberal global system; in fact, the opposite would occur. As the economy of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza became "liberalized," poverty and inequality in Israel increased to unprecedented levels, leaving a large working and middle class that saw few of the economic and cultural gains promised by the Labor Party. They therefore had little stake in the Oslo Process and were easily persuaded to blame the Palestinians as well as Labor itself for their economic problems and the violence that only became worse as Oslo wore on.
On the "other" side, the liberalization of the Palestinian economy involved closing it off almost entirely to the outside world and making it utterly dependent on Israel. Corruption and monopolies within the Palestinian Authority (made all the more glaring by the rapid expansion of Jewish settlements on the West Bank) helped convince poor and working class Palestinians that the peace process was an illusion. They came to feel that any hope for economic development, or at least protection, would be found only in the network of services, institutions, and employment opportunities provided by Hamas.
These dual dynamics would come together to produce the al-Aqsa intifada, led in good measure by Hamas, which instead of bringing Palestinians closer to independence offered Israel the chance to put chaos to yet another use. Israel proceeded to sow enough of it within Palestinian society to mortally weaken the fabric of its emerging national institutions and social life. In so doing, Palestinian dreams of an independent state were ended for the foreseeable future -- and violence only increased.
All of this was somewhat less evident at the time only because the Israeli plan seemed, for a while, to work as the religious Hamas movement and the formerly dominant Fatah Party (the historical core of the Palestinian Liberation Organization) battled over turf, while young militants and criminal gangs roamed the streets of devolving Nablus and other towns challenging the existing social and political order. Then Hamas won the national elections, so eager encouraged by the Bush administration, and Israel proceeded to bombard the Palestinians in Gaza back into a more or less unified agenda of resistance and summud, (or steadfastness).
Not surprisingly, Hezbollah played a similar role in Lebanon (as, by the way, did the party of North African and Middle Eastern Jews, the Shas Party in Israel) by feeding off a combination of economic disempowerment and ethno-religious identity. In both cases, a powerful synergy was created between the kind of "resistance identity" that the eminent sociologist Manuel Castells warned would come to dominate the marginalized societies -- or sections of societies -- of the global era, and a positive "project identity" that would motivate people to take great risks and endure great hardships -- great chaos, in fact -- to pursue their particular vision of freedom, national or religious identity, and social or economic justice.
Indeed, as downtown Beirut's skyline grew tall (and the country's international debt massive) under the premierships of Prime Minister Rafiq Harriri, who led three governments between 1992 and 2004 before being assassinated, those left out of the non-stop partying -- the largely working-class Shiite constituents of Hezbollah -- naturally saw the movement-turned-party-and-social-service-provider-but-still-militia as offering their best hope for at least a piece of the new pie.
This, of course, brings us back to the present moment in which the leaders in power in Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and the United States are unable to converse in a language not overdetermined by violence, chauvinism, and most frighteningly, messianic nationalism (of a sort that, by now, Americans should be all too familiar with).
The New Middle East was conceived on the lawn of the White House in September 1993 when Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yasser Arafat, and Bill Clinton shook hands. It was taken up by American, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, and Lebanese leaders among others, all of whom have felt at one point or another that it was theirs to control. It now veers between stillbirth and the arrival of Rosemary's baby. The circles of chaos that have enveloped countries across the Middle East, and that threaten the globe by threatening world energy supplies, would seem at the moment to be converging around an Eastern Mediterranean epicenter that is no stranger to cataclysmic disasters, both God-inspired and man-made.
With George Bush still insisting on the need to fight "Islamic fascism" to the bitter end, Labor Party Defense Minister Amir Peretz imploring Israeli soldiers to turn southern Lebanon "to dust," and Iran's Mahmud Ahmedinejad declaring the need to wipe Israel off the map, the hubris, arrogance, and utter disdain for human life that has brought the Middle East to its latest precipice continues to harden the hearts of leaders and peoples alike. And all will be the losers because of it.
Mark LeVine is a professor of modern Middle Eastern History at UC Irvine and author of Why They Don't Hate Us: Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil (Oneworld, 2005) and the forthcoming Heavy Metal Islam (Random House/Verso). His website is www.culturejamming.org. SOURCE: www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=110345
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 1, 2006 6:54:46 GMT 4
How to Brainwash a NationEdward Bernays and the Assassination of Democracy In 2002, Adam Curtis and the BBC released a four-part series called "The Century of the Self." The series tracks how American elites have aggressively used the modern behavioral sciences to persuade, coerce and manipulate the American public into accepting the corporate-government world's version of events as their own. This seven-minute video which I call "The Assassin of Democracy" focuses on one of the most skillful and amoral expert of all the experts in mass manipulation, Edward Bernays. Bernays got his first taste of the power of propaganda during World War I. He advised US presidents from Woodrow Wilson to Einsehower and served numerous corporations and business associations. One of his biggest fans was Hitler's propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, a fact about which Bernays bragged proudly. In this clip, we see a pattern that Bernays used over and over again: turn a harmless entity into a fearsome enemy through lies and manufactured news items. Then use the "threat" to justify attack. The subject of this video is Bernays campaign against the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1953, but you'll have no trouble seeing that this very same method is being used today. To view: www.brasscheck.com/videos/spin/bernays1.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 4, 2006 15:51:23 GMT 4
The Kay Griggs Interviewswww.kaygriggstalks.com/Kay Griggs was a Southern divorcee who rented a room to Marine Corps colonel George Griggs in the late 1980s. She was impressed by his clipped manner, his education, his good looks. Two months later she married him. What she found out about world affairs as George Griggs' wife was astounding. Colonel Griggs was a Marine Corps Chief of Staff, as well as head of NATO's Psychological Operations. He was also, his wife realized, entirely mind-controlled. Kay, a self-declared Christian, became privy to the real workings of the United States military, leadership training, drug-running and weapons sales, and the secret worldwide camps that train professional assassins. These interviews with Pastor Rick Strawcutter of Adrian, Michigan were conducted in 1998, before September 11thand the installation of U.S. President George W. Bush. Kay Griggs' report of world events and the power elite paints a picture that begins to explain the hows and whys of our current global scenario. Quotes from Kay Griggs: "They took with them the most perverted aspects of Nazi Germany and brought them mover to the United States." "They get rid of the good guys. The Marine Corps are the assassins for the Mob. The military is run by the Mob. The military IS the Mob." "He told me what they did. They nurture--they cultivate--the sons of prominent families. They're called "rising stars." They rope them in. Then they "turn" them."MUST SEE VIDEO ON WIFE OF COL. GEORGE GRIGGS, SHE SPILLS BEANS ON BUSH, KISSINGER, SKULL & BONES, CORRUPTION, ASSASINS, HOMOSEXUALSbellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=13650Kay Griggs Talks: Desperate Wives (Blackmail In US Government) Part 1-2 Kay Griggs, wife of colonel George Griggs, USMC (retired USMC Commandant): 29th Commandant of the Marine Corps, found her husband’s diary, which contains details of homosexual blackmail in the top ranks of the US Marine Corps and names leading politicians and military leaders. Kay Griggs’s information about the US government also comes from observations and people she met. She exposes initiation rituals, the raping of young men and blackmail and murders to keep people quiet. Much of this, according to Griggs, is related to secret society activity and she names figures like Henry Kissinger and a string of other top government individuals.Part 1 tinyurl.com/gvqbr[ video.google.com/videoplay?docid=341031042963487862&q=kay+griggs ] Part 2 tinyurl.com/zrqfp[ video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9137016279925999679&q=Kay+Griggs&hl=en ] More infos here: www.kaygriggstalks.com/
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 11, 2006 8:06:16 GMT 4
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 15, 2006 7:33:43 GMT 4
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The Right Wing's Right Hand in D.C.By Matt Stoller, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2006. The Chamber of Commerce, run by corrupt lobbyist Tom Donahue, has turned into a pay-to-play vehicle for right-wing causes and corporate dishonesty. It's hard to precisely define the political establishment, the fixed group of financiers, political operatives, journalists, and politicians who make up the swirl of right-wing power in Washington D.C. But if it's not always simple to define in its totality, one man stands out as an innovative and particularly venal power broker: Thomas Donahue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In a lot of ways, the new challenge after the 2006 elections for the progressive movement boils down to finding the unethical and unaccountable purveyors of systemic corruption and rooting them out. It is these forces that put Bush in the White House and reelected him. It is these forces that corrupt both parties. It is these forces that are going to fight tooth and nail to defeat the Democratic majority, while attempting to also corrupt it from within.Fortunately, in this case, we can put a face to the force. Tom Donahue is possibly the most powerful business lobbyist in D.C. Most recently, he has been pushing aggressively to weaken the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in the wake of the Enron scandal to ensure corporate accountability and protect investors. And right now, he's reeling, because he's been caught in an unethical stock scandal of his own. What happens to Donahue, whether he's able to maintain his stewardship of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, will go a long way towards answering the question of whether progressives can be confident in our ability to begin repairing some of the damage Bush and his ilk have done. Here's the short story. Donahue is on the board of directors of Sunrise Senior Living, a company that offers assisted living facilities to the elderly, and according to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times, he sold stock in advance of an accounting problem which later became public and shaved $342 million from the company's market value. Shareholders are demanding answers, including an independent probe. This isn't the first time Donahue has had problems with corporate scandals. As Public Citizen has documented, this seems to be a behavior trait. Donahue sat on the board of Qwest as it defrauded investors, and on Union Pacific as the company was caught for massive safety violations. All of the companies on whose board he sits are members of the Chamber of Commerce, and he has often dedicated the brand and prestige of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to serving the interests of specific corporate donors instead of the general interests of the business community. Now, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce itself is a powerhouse. According to the New York Times, the Chamber has more than three million members, from businesses of every size, sector and region; its 2,800 affiliated state and local chambers give it a presence in nearly every state and Congressional district. It spent more than $53 million on lobbying in 2004, more than any organization has ever spent in a year. In 2004, it deployed 215 people in 31 states, sent 3.7 million pieces of mail, made 5.6 million phone calls and sent more than 30 million e-mail messages on behalf of its candidates. This institution is one of the most powerful vehicles in D.C. One characteristic of Republican rule is how right-wingers have seized on groups like this and moved them away from helping their members and towards becoming part of the Republican establishment. The Chamber purports to work for a business-friendly environment that helps its members, but it lobbies for anti-science policies that have to do solely with ideology. Despite massive costs for the insurance industry, for instance, the Chamber is still in denial over global warming, urging "Congress to carefully review the climate change issue before taking further action." Despite the obvious interest small businesses have in a free and open internet, the Chamber of Commerce opposes net neutrality. The Chamber wants to weaken or eliminate the Family and Medical Leave Act, the minimum wage, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. They want to cut every possible tax despite massive deficits, privatize Social Security, and just generally pursue the right-wing agenda down the line. Far from a business-friendly umbrella group for its 3 million members, the Chamber under Donahue's management has turned into a pay-to-play vehicle for right-wing causes and corporate dishonesty. As Eliot Spitzer put it, ''Tom Donohue has never once found a crime that he couldn't justify, as long as it was committed by one of his dues-paying members."The national Chamber of Commerce isn't pro-business, in other words, it's just a fully captured right-wing organization that has been taken over by the Republican Party. There are state and local Chambers all over the country that are not right-wing, but are genuinely apolitical organizations fostering networking and business growth in local areas. Many trial lawyers in the South belong to local Chambers, unwittingly contributing to a massive lobbying operation in D.C. undercutting their ability to represent the public against abuses. The core of the right-wing takeover the country lies in corrupting institutions like the U.S. Chamber and concentrating power in the hands of a small group of elite actors. These people sit on corporate boards, they know each other, they pay each others' salaries, they go to conferences in Davos, and they fund campaigns for both parties. They are willing to invest in substantial sums and make alliances with right-wing Christian Nationalist groups to eviscerate the power of the Federal government and prevent progressive policies from being effective. The 2001 tax cuts, for instance, aside from giving billions to the wealthy, destroyed the capacity of the government to do much affirmative good work. By crippling governance, these elites are pushing the public to accept private goods in lieu of what should be public services. Private schools, bottled water, health food, private and chartered travel, elite medical institutions -- these are all part and parcel of building what John Edwards calls the 'Two Americas'. It really is quite stark. If you are in the business or political elite, compared to normal Americans, you live in different areas, have different crime rates, eat different food and drink different water, send your kids to different schools, travel more efficiently, are subject to a different set of laws, and have access to superior medicine. The public at large responds to this in different ways -- liberals get despondent and cynical, and blue collar ethnic whites begin to rely on right-wing church networks for what had been public services.The key to building and sustaining this reactionary America is allowing individuals like Tom Donahue to act above the law for personal profit, while lobbying to weaken agencies that might hold them accountable. It fits perfectly into this destruction of the public sphere, and allows bad actors to profit from doing bad. We will not and cannot build a progressive America as long as we have an economy that gives incentives to people like this to steal from investors and use that money to lobby against us. Tom Donahue is now facing pressure because of the corporate malfeasance in which he himself seems to have engaged. It's not clear if it will matter that he is corrupting the major face of American business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We'll see if corporate chieftains are willing to stand up for ethical practices, and if local Chambers speak out. It's not clear they will. And it's not clear that there is enough strength within the current Democratic caucus to go after such a powerful adversary, even knowing the obstacles that he's going to present down the road to a progressive agenda. Nevertheless, it's our job to understand the situation in our country, and to pressure our lawmakers, local Chambers, and business elites to correct the abuses they have allowed to happen. After all, a president as stupid, venal, and petty as George W. Bush doesn't get elected and reelected without some serious institutional forces at work. Progressives would be seriously mistaken if we assume that when Bush leaves office those forces will go away.Source: www.alternet.org/story/45493/
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jan 14, 2007 12:09:33 GMT 4
A Surge Of Constitutionalism by Gary Hart The endless Iraq war is decreasingly about Iraq and increasingly about the U.S. Constitution.President Bush's decision to escalate the war, and to further Americanize it, is based on his flawed and dangerous theory of the "unitary presidency," a theory under which, once war is declared, the president as commander in chief can ignore constitutional checks and balances, disregard the bill of rights, suspend accountability, and concentrate dictatorial power in his own hands. History has already judged the invasion and occupation of Iraq as an American disaster of epic proportions. But an even more important judgment remains to be made. What damage has been done to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government in the name of the "war on terrorism" as cover for a secret neo-conservative agenda in the Middle East? In rendering this judgment in years to come, constitutional scholars will take into account Congress's appalling suspension of habeas corpus, its approval of torture and rendition, and its abdication of its constitutional oversight responsibilities. These congressional failures, however, will not be seen as cover or justification for an executive branch run totally amok. George W. Bush will be held accountable in the court of history for manipulation of intelligence to serve his neo-conservative political agenda, his erosion of national security by the unnecessary exhaustion of our standing and reserve forces, his pathetic failure to respond to natural disasters, his unhinging of the national budget in the service of accumulated wealth, and his almost demented insistence that the U.S. military could put the lid back on a 1300 year old Islamic struggle that he himself had ignorantly removed. In his adopted role as Captain Ahab, Mr. Bush will extend the tours of four combat brigades and add another to the Iraqi meat-grinder, all in the name of pacifying the capital city where, even today, F-18 aircraft are bombing neighborhoods to rout out insurgents. Thirty-five years ago in Vietnam this was called "pacification." "Secure and hold" will fail equally for a simple reason: patience. It requires no MBA from Harvard to know that occupations, unless they intend themselves to be permanent, will be defeated by insurgents waiting for the occupiers to leave. Those meant to "hold" after we "secure" are all part of a sectarian blood feud that was there long before we came and that will be there long after we leave. All this will have to be tidied up on the watch of the unfortunate next president who must assume, on top of many other duties left unfinished, the job of restoring the health, integrity, and capability of the armed forces of the United States now so eroded by a war they should never have been called upon to wage. Likewise, the price for this folly will live long after Mr. Bush departs the premises. Were he sincere in the faith he professes, he would require those who have benefited the most from his tax cuts, those now increasing the size of their gilded yachts, to adopt one of the families of the more than 25,000 American military casualties. Each Bush billionaire can surely afford to care for the widow and orphans of one of the fallen or to provide long-term physical and mental care for one of the wounded in body and mind as a result of his folly. Surely now even the most cynical neo-conservative is prepared to declare victory. We destroyed all those weapons of mass destruction that Richard Cheney knew existed. Iraq is no longer an imminent threat to U.S. national security, not that it ever was. We have rid ourselves of the tyrant S. Hussein (though it was never quite clear why he, among several dozen tyrants, deserved our special attention), and we have given the Iraqi people freedom, which they are now using to kill each other. What we, the world's most dominant military power in history, cannot do is impose peace on a nation with scores to settle. Needed now is not a surge of military forces. Needed now is a surge of citizen commitment to restore the Constitution of the United States of America.Gary Hart, via huffingtonpost.com(Mods note:)Speak your mind,my friends.Tell us what you think. Also,Tell them what you think... www.house.gov/writerep/... You do not have a voice if you do not use it...
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 15, 2007 7:52:34 GMT 4
CHEMTRAILS - Clouds of Death (Video 23 min 29 sec)www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VgaEmYu-SsHave you asked yourself lately, "Where's the sun; the days start out just fine, clear and sunny?" Ever notice those 'airplane jet streams' that don't dissipate the way they used to? Do too many people seem sick around you lately?
I don't know how it is in your area but, they started spraying the heck out of us right before the Mid-term elections in Novemember...started the night before elections...this is unusual. Normally [and none of this is normal] they would spray on a nice, clear, warm day, mid-morning days, when people would be out after work or school, walking or playing.
Also, this November, here in PA., we shut schools and all down for deer hunting season. Well, they started spraying, the night BEFORE 1st day of hunting season. Usually they started late morning, now...you know, all those hunters, people with guns...independant people who get their own food would be out before sun up. So, it was different, the spraying started at night....now this seems to be the way. Look to your skies, people.....REMEMBER...jetstreams USED to fade away....only a small tail could be seen behind them and then it would fade....Oh, you stilll see A FEW of them...BUT MOST ARE LONG, NEVER FADE A WAY, AND FEATHER OUT TO CLOUDS....REMEMBER HOW IT USED TO BE...THIS IS NOT NORMAL! Another question: "Ever felt like there's something's sticking in your tongue after walking outside...like something MIGHT be in the air?"
Think I'm full of it? For more info on Chemtrails, refer to the previous page:The BIG Picture Reply #10 on Jun 2, 2006, 9:35pm CHEMTRAILS STORY HITS MAINSTREAM NEWS ON NBCAny comments would be most appreciated.....Michelle
|
|
is
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by is on Jan 15, 2007 11:00:04 GMT 4
Re:Chemtrails.Well,they really want to kill as many as they can.I think is because people are waking up to the truth,and the only way to contain them, is to poison as many as they can,and since they already did that, with the water and food supply and the rate of kiling wasn't fast enough,now they are doing it from the sky,and my friends,now they are geting what they want.I have never seen so many people die from strange causes, like I see today.To tell the truth, I am not surpriesed,I have knowned for a long time that was their intention.What surprises me, is the lack of reation from the public,is like they do not care what is happening to them and their children. Because if things do not change and people do not start to respect the planet they live in,there will not be, very soon a planet to live in.And,I am very sorry to say this,but we do deserve it.I am praying,that now,we will see some kind of a positive reaction.Thank God, for this post and others that spread the truth.God Bless you for puting the truth out.
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Jan 15, 2007 11:50:30 GMT 4
This nation has been hiijaked by Bonesmen. They have an agenda which has no use for such abstract concepts as"Freedom",or "Democracy". Peace...Isn't even on their radar. Realize what we are up against. They don't care what flag they pin to their thousand dollar suits.... They don't give a damn how many of our kids(not theirs) die on the altar of thier god,the Petrodollar... They want you stupid. They want you weak. They want you dead. They will let you drown to keep you from voting. Do you get it yet? Cause if you don't,your'e a fat pheasant in front of Evil Dick's shotgun. The 1% would benefit greatly if half of the world population were to expire. Just think about it...
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 21, 2007 4:56:29 GMT 4
Chem Trails To Air On The Discovery ChannelThey sprayed the heck out of us in my local area yesterday. It was the 1st warm sunny day after a long brutal cold snap, naturally, people would be outside. Four aircrafts crisscrossed our skies, spraying their toxic fumes down upon us. I imagine many will become sick this week, like always.
If you are new to the forum, you can read more about chem trails throughout this thread. And if some still don't believe that the powers that be would deliberately make us ill, consider the following:Is there a plan and intent to cull the population as published in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs"?"Underlying 'America's New War' is international 'population planning.' According to Rockefeller-directed population planners, additional depopulation must occur in advance of the New World Order. In the United States, according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) March/April 1996, Foreign Affairs journal, plans to depopulate America by half to achieve a U.S. population in the range of 125 to 150 million, or about its size in the 1940s, are underway." --Dr. Leonard Horowitz, D.M.D, M.A., M.P.H., Health Scientist, Best Selling Author and Leading Health Rights Activist Here's the information on the TV show. Look to your skies, notice the timing of their spraying, and stay inside when they spray....MichelleChemical Contrails - DISCOVERY CHANNEL IN THE US - Premiere: Feb. 22, 2007 at 9 p.m. ET/PTdsc.discovery.com/fansites/best-evidence/episode/episode_02.htmlAcross the planet, millions of people have seen them — jet aircraft vapor trails lingering in the sky. Are these just regular "contrails" — the carbon and water vapor exhaust from commercial planes — or are they potentially toxic "chemical trails" emitted intentionally as part of secret geo-engineering experiments or weather-weaponization tests? Experts and passionate observers on both sides present their best evidence — from video and photographs, satellite imagery, soil samples and military evidence. We shed light on a subject that has many people looking up for answers to disturbing questions. A team of technicians at an independent laboratory will examine the samples to finally get to the heart of the question: What is in those fuel emissions and what causes them to linger for hours and link up with one another like a ghostly blanket that seems to affect the weather and perhaps our health?
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Feb 27, 2007 7:15:16 GMT 4
Taking back the FDAWell, well, well, here's a revealing article on the FDA, another of our one time watchdog institutions for the public, now facilitator for the pharmaceutical industry. I just watched a show on Link TV about the medical crisis in the united States. There isn't a medical crisis here, but rather, we do have a serious problem with the drug and insurance companies.
Did you know that when a pharmaceutical company's product is about to go generic, they have been known to suddenly sell that product over the counter to keep you from buying the prescribed generic brands...why would you pay a for a prescription when you can buy over the counter? Then, and this is really beautiful, in a deceptive snake oil salesman type way, the drug company will take that product which they are now selling over the counter, tweak its chemical makeup, just a bit, so in essence it's still the same product doing the same thing with the same effect, give it a new name, and begin to market it as a new, better, and stronger prescription drug than the one available over the counter......Sheer lies and manipulation!!!
And, of course, there's the doctors to push this new drug, who in reality, hardly ever see and discuss the new products with the pharmaceutical reps [they are making nice salaries here in our emerging 3rd world country] who just drop off samples with literature, which the doctors never have time to read...including info about possible adverse effects....and the FDA backs all of this, for a price, as you will see..... MichelleTaking back the FDABy Marcia Angell | February 26, 2007 IT'S TIME to take the Food and Drug Administration back from the drug companies.Before a prescription drug can be sold, the manufacturer must conduct clinical trials to prove to the FDA that the drug is safe and effective. Without that, doctors have no way of knowing how good or bad a drug is. Just trying it out would be not only risky, but unreliable, since individual experience can be misleading. The scrutiny that this agency exists to provide is vital to our health. But in 1992, Congress put the fox in the chicken coop. It passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, which authorizes drug companies to pay "user fees" to the FDA for each brand-name drug considered for approval. Nearly all of the money generated by these fees has been earmarked to speed up the approval process.
In effect, the user fee act put the FDA on the payroll of the industry it regulates. Last year, the fees came to about $300 million, which the companies recoup many times over by getting their drugs to market faster.But while it's a small investment for drug companies, it's a lot of money for the agency, and it has drastically changed the way it operates -- creating a disproportionate emphasis on approving brand-name drugs in a hurry. Consequently, the part of the agency that reviews new drugs gets more than half its money from user fees, and it has grown rapidly. Meanwhile, the parts that monitor safety, ensure manufacturing standards, and check ads for accuracy have languished or even shrunk. Most tellingly, the office that approves generic drugs is so small that approval time for generics is twice as long as for brand-name drugs. There is now a backlog of more than 800 generics. That delay is worth billions of dollars to the drug companies whose high prices depend on not having generic competition.As part of the emphasis on speed, the FDA often approves brand-name drugs on the basis of less evidence than in the past. In these cases, approval may be contingent on companies conducting further safety studies after the drugs are on the market. But the companies usually don't honor that commitment. Of the roughly 1,200 such studies outstanding -- some for years -- over 70 percent haven't been started. The FDA is strangely silent about this inexcusable dereliction. When questioned, it weakly protests that it doesn't have the authority to compel the research. In fact, it has enormous leverage, since it can withdraw drugs from the market. The FDA also refuses to release unfavorable research results in its possession without the sponsoring company's permission. Here again, it contends not to have the authority to do so, but providing evidence of side-effects or negative results would seem to be an integral part of its job. It's no wonder that serious safety concerns about drugs such as Vioxx, Paxil, and Zyprexa have emerged very late in the day -- years after they were in widespread use. The agency's coziness with industry is underscored by the composition of its 18 advisory committees -- outside experts who help evaluate drugs.
Incredibly, many of these advisers work as consultants for drug companies. Although they are supposed to recuse themselves if there is a direct conflict of interest, the FDA regularly grants exemptions from that requirement. Of the six members of the advisory committee that in 1999 recommended approving Vioxx -- the arthritis drug pulled from the market in 2004 because it caused heart attacks -- four had received waivers from the conflict-of-interest rule.The FDA now behaves as though the pharmaceutical industry is its user, not the public. Fortunately, the user fee law is subject to renewal every five years, and this is one of those years. Congress should let the law die this time around and substitute its own support -- which ought to be increased. Other reforms recently proposed, such as administratively separating drug approval from safety surveillance, will not mean much as long as this law is in effect. At $300 million to $400 million a year, the equivalent of about a day in Iraq, Congress can easily afford to buy this vital agency back for the public, and it should. Dr. Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School, is a guest columnist. © Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.Source: tinyurl.com/2yxnfv
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 18, 2007 14:22:40 GMT 4
Smallpox shot infects soldier's toddler son Boy critically ill; mom also strickenI was wondering when we'd begin to hear reports of individuals in the general population of the united States being infected through exposure to soldiers. I have spoken to wives of service men and they mention how many times their mates become sick because of all the vaccines the military requires them to take. [They also say how violent their husbands have become since their military service. And, don't forget that there have been female mates of service men have also had to have hysterectomies due to radioactive contamination of military personnel's sperm.]
Patients with cancer and being treated with chemotherapy can contract any disease through contact with a recently vaccinated individual [babies included]. The soldier in this case was vaccinated in late January and had initial contact with his son in mid-Febuary so we're talking more than a couple of weeks here to avoid infection.
You know, the US vaccinates more than any other country in the world. We are begining to see numerous threats to our health from this, and the threat of enforced vaccination of citizens is always on the horizon....especially if martial law is put into action.
Our soldiers are sick, our children are being stricken with autism due to mandatory vaccination [much on this at the thread: Advocacy For All Our Children], and now the general population risks infection through contact with vaccinated individuals. Parents, you can opt out of vaccinations for your children even if the schools require it. Not much hope for our service personnel, however.
I'm not getting any flu shots either.....Michelle Smallpox shot infects soldier's toddler son Boy critically ill; mom also strickenBy Jeremy Manier Tribune staff reporter Published March 17, 2007 In the first case of its kind in years, a 2-year-old boy is being treated in Chicago for a rare and life-threatening infection that he contracted from his father, a U.S. Army soldier recently vaccinated against smallpox. The Indiana boy is in critical condition with eczema vaccinatum, an unusual side effect of the smallpox vaccine that can affect people who receive the shot or their close contacts. Doctors also said the boy appears to have passed the infection to his mother, who has a much milder case of the virus in the smallpox vaccine, which is also called vaccinia. The virus is not smallpox, though it is similar enough to offer protection from that deadly disease, which was declared eradicated in 1980. The mother and child are being treated at the University of Chicago's Comer Children's Hospital, which withheld their names at the family's request. There is no infection risk for the general population, government officials say, since the vaccine virus can spread only through close physical contact. But the boy's diagnosis last week has prompted a frenzy of activity and daily conference calls involving the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the state and city public health departments. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration gave emergency authorization for the hospital to treat the boy with ST-246, an experimental drug for smallpox that is untried as a therapy in humans.The smallpox vaccine fell out of general use in the 1970s, but the case could be a lesson for the U.S. military, which has vaccinated 1.2 million personnel against smallpox since 2002 amid fears of bioterrorism.It's unclear why the father was allowed to have contact with his son, who had a history of eczema, shortly after the vaccination. The skin condition is a well-known risk factor for eczema vaccinatum, and official guidelines warn that people with eczema should avoid contact with vaccinees. "We are looking into how this could have happened," said U.S. Army spokesman Paul Boyce. Officials say the general population could receive smallpox vaccinations in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other unforeseen exposure. For that reason, experts want to study the Indiana family to learn more about treatment and transmission of the vaccinia infection."There certainly are also conceivable insights into smallpox infection," said Dr. Inger Damon, chief of the CDC's poxvirus and rabies branch. Damon has been involved in the daily conference calls on the boy's treatment. Experts said they knew of no cases of eczema vaccinatum since at least 1990, when the military last had a program of smallpox vaccination. The vaccinia virus in modern smallpox vaccines is closely related to an older form of vaccinia called cowpox, the disease English doctor Edward Jenner used in the late 1700s to develop early methods of vaccination. Jenner relied on the observation that milkmaids who had cowpox seemed to be protected from later smallpox infection. He found that patients inoculated with material from cowpox sores also got protection from smallpox. That history is why the word vaccine stems from the Latin word for cow. Vaccinia was modified from its original form over the years but remains an infectious agent with the potential for side effects. The father of the Indiana boy received the vaccine in late January before a planned military deployment. The Army delayed his departure and permitted him to visit his family in mid-February. Two weeks later, a rash broke out on the boy's skin. He came to the U. of C. on March 3 after being transferred from St. Catherine's Hospital in East Chicago. Doctors first identified his widespread rash as a different form of eczema, but it worsened in his first few days at the U. of C. His mother developed sores after she and her son arrived at the Chicago hospital. Doctors believe she contracted the disease from the boy because of their lengthy close contact. A pediatric dermatologist, Dr. Sarah Stein, noticed the boy's lesions had changed to look like round blisters with a dimple in the middle--a potential sign of vaccinia infection. The medical team took scrapings from the lesions, which they analyzed and sent to the Illinois Department of Public Health's Chicago office for further testing. Rapid tests by the state and further tests at the CDC confirmed the boy had the vaccinia virus, officials at those agencies said. The hospital also sent the CDC photos of the boy's lesions. The hospital already was using infection precautions with the boy, but staffers then added such measures as gloves and face masks. They also placed the boy in a room with negative pressure so the air would always blow inward, keeping the virus inside. The boy's rash had spread to cover 80 percent of his body, said Dr. Madelyn Kahana, chief of pediatric intensive care medicine at the U. of C. He was going into sepsis, a devastating, systemwide infection rarely seen with viral cases. "In the later stages of [eczema vaccinatum], it can look like smallpox," said Damon of the CDC. The boy needed a ventilator to help his breathing because of the powerful pain medication he needed for the lesions.The boy received the primary treatment for eczema vaccinatum, a drug called vaccinia immune globulin, or VIG. The drug came from a stockpile the CDC keeps in case widespread vaccination ever becomes necessary. He also got an antiviral drug called cidofovir and the experimental drug ST-246, which has been shown to protect laboratory animals from exposure to smallpox. The drug recently entered preliminary human trials but had never been used in a sick patient.U. of C. officials said the boy has shown signs of improvement since hitting a low point last weekend. His mother's health was never in serious danger, but she has remained in his hospital room to keep others from being exposed. Health officials in Chicago and Indiana have tracked all of the family's contacts and found no additional cases so far. Kahana said the boy probably will lose 20 percent of his outer skin layer, but she hopes he will recover without the need for skin grafts. She believes the case should be a lesson to the military, which must educate service members about the risks of the vaccines it requires them to take."I think the information simply wasn't disseminated properly or impressed in a manner that was understood," Kahana said, "because I don't think anyone would knowingly expose their child to this." ---------- jmanier@tribune.com Source:www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0703170122mar17,1,3952575.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
|
|