|Feminazi's on the loose - NOW Urged Crowley To “Go Rogue” And Candy Thought They Said “Rouge” - Wednesday, October 17, 2012|
October 17, 2012
In an open letter to Candy Crowley the National Organization for Women encouraged her to “go rogue” during last night’s debate. Crowley, however, must have misread the letter and when she realized she couldn’t just whip out her compact in front of millions of viewers, she did the only other thing she could do to add some rosy color to her cheeks.
In her open letter to Crowley on October 16, 2012, NOW President Terry O’Neill wrapped Crowley in a warm embrace and said, “Don’t worry, sister, I ‘got your back.’ O’Neill expressed her outrage that Crowley’s role was going to be “limited to nothing more than facilitating questions from audience members.”
O’Neill then encouraged Crowley to “go rogue” and asked for her help:
“Women’s access to health care, birth control and abortion have been under increased attack since the 2010 elections. We desperately need you to ensure that these critical issues are raised. Far too much is at stake.”
“Please do all you can to make sure that voters know where the candidates stand — and as you “go rogue,” know that we fully support you. In fact, NOW posted a petition on our website asking folks to pledge their support for you, and in less than 24 hours we have received thousands and thousands of signatures. Make us proud, Candy!”
In the days leading up to last night’s Town Hall debate, Crowley publicly let it be known that she wasn’t just going to sit there and hold a microphone, even though the page eight of the 21-page Memorandum of Understanding clearly said that’s exactly what she was supposed to do.
“The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.”
Crowley, pumped up by the presumed adoration of her fans and the knowledge that NOW was counting on her to “go rogue” and take a stand for women, repeatedly tried to insert herself into the debate. And President Obama, who contested Crowley’s participation and wanted her to keep quiet before the debate, was more than happy to oblige when Crowley came out on his side.
Obama deliberately misquoted himself regarding the terrorist attack in Libya:
“The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we’re going to hunt down those who committed this crime.”
When Governor Romney reminded the audience that that wasn’t really what Obama said, Obama called for Crowley to get the transcript and fact-check it. Crowley then piped up and told the audience members and Romney that Obama was right, that’s exactly what he’d said.
But here’s what Obama really said:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”
And now, this morning, Candy Crowley isn’t quite apologizing. In a quote at Newsbusters, Crowley says:
“It was one of those moments, and I could even feel that here, you know, when you say something you’re not expecting. He was right in the main, I just think he picked the wrong word.
Trying to downplay her embarrassing gaffe even further, Crowley said, “They’re going to parse and we all know about what the definition of is is, but, I, uh, you know, in the end, I think John [King]’s probably right. I think this has a lot more to with jobs and the debt crisis and all of that kind of stuff.”
Crowley’s takeaway from this whole sordid affair? Well, she’ll certainly learn that “going rogue” and “going rouge” are two different things. They may both leave you red in the face, but only one makes you more attractive to the audience.
|Do You Femi-Nazis Feel Equal to Men Now? - Saturday, October 13, 2012|
Lew Rockwell Blog
Oct 12, 2012
Well, it looks like women have finally equaled their male counterpart by being allowed to murder innocent civilians in Asia—and being lauded for it. Of course, Femi-Nazis believe that women should only be allowed to have weapons when they are murdering for their male superiors of the State. That’s their pathetic idea of gender “equality.” When it comes to a woman having a personal weapon to defend herself, that’s a no-no. For that, they are expected to wait for the (in all likelihood) male cop to show up AFTER they’ve been raped to, uh, protect(?) them.
(Fortunately, there are some women who do understand the logic of owning a gun for personal defense.)
|Mainstream Media Lies: 23 Things That Are Not What They Seem To Be On Television - Saturday, January 07, 2012|
The American Dream
January 7, 2012
Most Americans believe the lie that the mainstream media is “fair and balanced” and is looking out for the interests of average Americans. Well, that simply is not true. Those in the mainstream media serve those that are providing them with paychecks. The reality is that just 6 gigantic corporationscollectively own most of the major mainstream media outlets in this country. Reporters are simply not going to be allowed to report stories that are severely damaging to those corporations or to the owners of those corporations. In addition, reporters are simply not going to be allowed to report stories that are severely damaging to those that spend millions of dollars on advertising (such as pharmaceutical companies) on those mainstream media outlets. At this point, our “news” is absolutely packed with propaganda. Way too often, things are not what they seem to be on television. The mainstream media lies, lies and then lies some more. They give us the version of “reality” that their owners want us to have.
The following are 23 things that are not what they seem to be on television….
The Lie: Mitt Romney won Iowa.
The Truth: Mitt Romney may not have won Iowa. The following report of a documented vote discrepancy comes from KCCI….
Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t.
“When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a 20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,” True said. “Not Mitt Romney.”
True said at his 53-person caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library, Romney received two votes. According to the Iowa Republican Party’s website, True’s precinct cast 22 votes for Romney.
So how many other “vote discrepancies” were there in Iowa? Was this just a “coincidence” or did someone do this on purpose?
The Lie: Barack Obama will be much different from George W. Bush and will actually protect our civil liberties.
The Truth: Under Barack Obama we have lost even more of our civil liberties than we did under George W. Bush. Barack Obama recently signed a new lawthat gives the U.S. military the power to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil, detain them indefinitely and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay for endless “interrogation” sessions.
The Lie: SOPA is all about cracking down on international sellers of counterfeit goods.
The Truth: SOPA is all about censoring the Internet and cracking down on websites that the federal government does not like.
The Lie: The U.S. unemployment rate is now at 8.5% and will continue to fall as the U.S. economy recovers.
The Truth: If the number of Americans considered to be “looking for work” was the same today as it was back in 2007, the “official” unemployment rate put out by the U.S. government would about 11 percent, and the U.S. middle classcontinues to be systematically destroyed right in front of our eyes.
The Lie: The debt crisis in Europe has been stabilized and the euro is going to be just fine.
The Truth: The debt crisis in Europe continues to get worse and the euro isdropping like a rock.
The Lie: The U.S. stock market is in great shape and is poised to soar to new heights in 2012.
The Truth: Investors are pulling money out of stocks at an alarming rate. In fact, as CNBC recently noted, investors have pulled more money out of mutual funds than they have put into mutual funds for 9 weeks in a row. A lot of people out there expect that something really bad is going to happen very soon….
Investors yanked money out of U.S. equity mutual funds for a ninth-consecutive week despite a bullish 2012 outlook from Wall Street and a December rally that’s carried over into the New Year.
The Lie: There are no plans to replace the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.
The Truth: Top financial authorities all over the world have been developing plans for a new global currency for a long time. The following comes from aCNN article….
The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
The IMF said Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, could help stabilize the global financial system.
The Lie: There is not a municipal bond crisis in America.
The Truth: There is a growing municipal bond crisis in America. Over the last several months a whole host of municipal bonds have been downgraded. Just today, Moody’s downgraded Illinois government debt from A2 to A.
The Lie: Chicago is a safe place to live.
The Truth: 14 people were shot across the Chicago area on Thursday alone.
The Lie: Federal employees are not overpaid.
The Truth: The federal government is advertising for an “invitations coordinator” that will make between $53,500 and $102,900 per year.
The Lie: The old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs are bad for the environment and it is a good thing that the federal government is requiring that they bephased out.
The Truth: The new CFL light bulbs are filled with mercury, they are an environmental nightmare and they are incredibly toxic and dangerous if they are broken.
The Lie: The U.S. education system is producing a huge crop of really sharp students who are prepared to be the leaders of tomorrow.
The Truth: The U.S. education system is a complete and total joke. It is producing millions of students that are not prepared to face the real world at all. The following is a short excerpt from a recent article by Mac Slavo that many of you will find illuminating….
Economics Professor Jack Chambless of Valencia College in Florida had his sophomore students write a short essay on what the American dream means to them and what, specifically, they wanted the federal government to do to help them achieve that dream.
The results demonstrate the sheer magnitude of the idiocy of a public education system dead set on indoctrination rather than education:
I took the essays from three classes – about 180 students…
About 10% of the students said they wanted the government to leave them alone and not tax them too much and let them regulate their own lives.
But over 80% of the students said that the American dream to them meant a job, a house, and plenty of money for retirement and vacations and things like this. When it came to the part about the federal government, eight out of ten students said they wanted free health care, they wanted the government to pay for their tuition, they wanted the government to pay for the down payment on their house, they expected the government to, quote, “give them a job.” Many of them said they wanted the government to tax wealthier individuals so that they would have an opportunity to have a better life.
The following is an excerpt from one of the non-sensical essays written by a student of Professor Chambless:
“As human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others.”
You can read the rest of that article right here.
The Lie: Specific social and political agendas are not promoted in U.S. public schools.
The Truth: According to CNSNews.com, a new California law makes it mandatory for all public school children to be taught the “role and contributions” that “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans” have played in the “development of California and the United States of America.”
The Lie: We have to send our troops overseas to fight the terrorists “over there” or else they will come and fight us over here.
The Truth: Dozens of jihadist training camps are operating inside the United States right now and the federal government could not care less. The following is from a recent WorldNetDaily article about a jihadist organization that is operating 35 training camps on U.S. soil right now….
Jamaat ul-Fuqra, known in the U.S. as “Muslims of America,” has purchased or leased hundreds of acres of property – from New York to California – in which the leader, Sheikh Mubarak Gilani, boasts of conducting “the most advanced training courses in Islamic military warfare.”
In a recruitment video captured from Gilani’s “Soldiers of Allah,” he states in English: “We are fighting to destroy the enemy. We are dealing with evil at its roots and its roots are America.”
Though Gilani and his organization is suspected of committing assassinations and firebombings inside the U.S., and is also suspected of the beheading murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, the terrorist camps spread through the country continue to expand in numbers and population.
But apparently Islamic terror is only a “problem” when the federal government wants to use it to justify invading another country.
In fact, there have been several instances where the U.S. government has actually allied with al-Qaeda in order to overthrow governments. The latest example of this was in Libya.
The Lie: Our politicians know exactly what they are doing and they have a plan for getting U.S. debt under control.
The Truth: When Ronald Reagan took office, the U.S. national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars. Today, the U.S. national debt is over 15.2 trillion dollars. In spite of all this, the American people keep sending the same big spenders back to Washington D.C. over and over and over.
The Lie: The Obama administration is enforcing our immigration laws.
The Truth: The Obama administration has instituted “backdoor amnesty” for illegal immigrants and even plans to provide them with work permits.
The Lie: The number of earthquakes is not increasing.
The Truth: The number of earthquakes is increasing dramatically. As the “Ring of Fire” continues to wake up the next few years could be very, very interesting.
The Lie: The nuclear crisis at Fukushima is under control and things are getting back to normal.
The Truth: Large areas around Fukushima will be uninhabitable for the indefinite future. Back in April, I published an article entitled “Much Of Northern Japan Uninhabitable Due To Nuclear Radiation?“ At the time, almost everyone in the mainstream media was insisting that Fukushima was nothing like Chernobyl and that those that lived near Fukushima would be able to return to their homes fairly soon.
Well, it turns out that those of us that feared the worst were right after all. Just consider the following quote from the New York Times….
Broad areas around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades, after a government survey found radioactive contamination that far exceeded safe levels, several major media outlets said Monday.
The Lie: Fluoride is good for our teeth and we should put huge amounts of it into our drinking water.
The Truth: Fluoride is a very toxic sedative and can be very harmful to the teeth. Incredibly, even the federal government is finally admitting that high levels of fluoride in our drinking water can be harmful. In fact, the feds have reduced the “recommended amount” of fluoride in our drinking water for the first time in 50 years.
We probably won’t see them ban fluoride any time soon, but for them to even acknowledge a problem with fluoride is a major step. In a recent article on CNN, it was reported that the federal government is now saying that high levels of fluoride in the water have now officially been linked with fluorosis….
The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis — a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children’s teeth.
The Lie: Using cell phones is perfectly safe and they do not cause cancer.
The Truth: Using cell phones can definitely increase your risk for cancer. Some very startling scientific studies have come out recently that are hard to ignore.
The following is an excerpt from a recent CNN article about one of these studies….
At the highest exposure levels — using a mobile phone half an hour a day over a 10-year period — the study found a 40 percent increased risk of glioma brain tumors.
The Lie: The federal government works very hard to keep dangerous prescription drugs from ever entering the marketplace.
The Truth: America’s addiction to prescription drugs is getting a lot of people put into the ground. Adverse reactions to prescription drugs kill a huge number of Americans every year. A recent Vanity Fair article entitled “Deadly Medicine” began with the following statement….
Prescription drugs kill some 200,000 Americans every year. Will that number go up, now that most clinical trials are conducted overseas—on sick Russians, homeless Poles, and slum-dwelling Chinese—in places where regulation is virtually nonexistent, the F.D.A. doesn’t reach, and “mistakes” can end up in pauper’s graves?
The Lie: Members of Congress work really hard to fix the problems that this country is facing.
The Truth: Members of Congress work an average of about two and a half days per week.
The Lie: The United States has the best health care system in the world.
The Truth: The United States spends far more on health care than anyone else in the world, but we rank 50th in life expectancy, 47 countries have a lower infant mortality rate than we do and the federal government is chasing millions of good doctors out of the medical profession.
So do any of you have any lies to add to this list?
Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts below….
|Barbara Kay: The awkward truth about spousal abuse - Friday, December 23, 2011|
Dec 21, 2011
One of first-wave feminism’s great achievements in the 1970s was to end the denial surrounding wife abuse in even the “best” homes. Resources for abused women proliferated. Traditional social, judicial and political attitudes toward violence against women were cleansed and reconstructed along feminist-designed lines.
But then a funny thing happened. The closet from which abuse victims were emerging had, everyone assumed, been filled with women. But honest researchers were surprised by the results of their own objective inquiries. They were all finding, independently, that intimate partner violence (IPV) is mostly bidirectional.
But by then the IPV domain was awash in heavily politicized stakeholders. Even peer-reviewed community-based studies providing politically incorrect conclusions were cut off at the pass, their researchers’ names passed over for task force appointments and the writing of training manuals for the judiciary. Neither were internal whistle-blowers suffered gladly. Erin Pizzey, who opened the first refuge for battered women in England in 1971, was “disappeared” from the feminist movement when she revealed what she learned in her own shelter: She committed a heresy by asking women about their own violence, and they told her.
The most extreme IPV is certainly male-on-female, but hard-core batterers and outright killers are rare. In violence of the mild to moderately severe variety that constitutes most of IPV — shoving, slapping, hitting, punching, throwing objects, even stabbing and burning — both genders initiate and cause harm in equal measure.
Every major survey has borne out this truth. In fact, the most reliable, like Canada’s 1999 General Social Survey, found not only that most male and female violence is reciprocal, but also that the younger the sample, the more violent the women relative to men. A meta-analysis of mor than 80 large-scale surveys notes a widening, and concerning, spread — less male and more female IPV — in the dating cohort.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just published its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey to great fanfare. The survey’s central finding is — yep — that men and women inflict and suffer equal rates of IPV, with 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women experiencing partner aggression in the past year. More men (18%) suffer psychological aggression (humiliation, threats of violence, controllingness) than women (14%). Feminists often define IPV as a “pattern of power and control,” but the survey finds that men were 50% more likely to have experienced coercive control than women (15.2% vs 10.7%).
(While the CDC survey does not reference Canadian data, our IPV statistics vary significantly from the U.S.’s in certain respects. “Minor” wife assault rates as measured on the commonly employed Conflict Tactics Scale are identical, but “severe violence” rates in Canada fall as the violence ratchets up. For “kicking” and “hitting,” Canadian rates were 80% of the American rate; for “beat up,” they were 25%; and for “threatened with or used a gun/knife,” they were only 17%.)
By now there is no excuse for the failure of governments at all levels to follow through on — or at least acknowledge — the settled science of bilateral violence. Yet just last week the Justice Institute of British Columbia issued a lengthy report on “Domestic Violence Prevention and Reduction,” and sure enough, it defines domestic violence as “intimate partner violence against women,” recommending only that government work “to bridge gaps in the services and systems designed to protect women and children.”
In Rethinking Domestic Violence (2006), his third in a series of comprehensive interdisciplinary reviews of IPV and related criminal justice research, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton cuts through the politicized clutter in this domain. Dutton concludes that personality disorder, culture and a background of family dysfunction, not gender, are the best predictors of partner violence. To further IPV harm reduction, Dutton recommends individual psychological treatment or couples therapy to replace the ideology-inspired thought-reform model, imposed only on male abusers, that has been common (and largely ineffective) practice for many years.
Ironically, and unjustly, abused men today are where women were 60 years ago: their ill-treatment is ignored, trivialized or mocked; there are virtually no funded resources for them; and they are expected to suffer partner violence in silence. Which most of them do.
Who will have the courage to bell this politically correct cat? When will revenge end and fairness begin?
read more ...
|TSA strip-searches 85-year-old woman in wheelchair - Monday, December 05, 2011|TSA strip-searches 85-year-old woman in wheelchair while National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) remains shamelessly silent - For a federal government that has gone insane with criminality, no act of violating fundamental human rights is too outrageous anymore.
December 5, 2011
For a federal government that has gone insane with criminality, no act of violating fundamental human rights is too outrageous anymore. In the latest chapter of the U.S. government’s police state humiliation of innocent American women, an 85-year-old woman in a wheelchair, Lenore Zimmerman, was strip-searched by TSA agents who left her bleeding from a painful gash in her leg. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201…)
“They took me into a private room and strip-searched me,” says Zimmerman. “They took my pants down… and then they took my underwear down.” (http://www.local10.com/news/85-year…)
The TSA responded with what can only be a carefully-worded lie, claiming, “While we regret that the passenger feels she had an unpleasant screening experience, TSA does not include strip searches as part of our security protocols and one was not conducted in this case.”
Oh, so now Lenore is a liar? Why would an 85-year-old grandmother lie about being strip-searched by the TSA? So the TSAblames herfor inventing all this, claiming it essentially never happened. (http://www.local10.com/news/85-year…)
“Why would I make up this story?” Zimmerman responded in a NY Daily News article. “In my wildest dreams, I couldn’t think of such a thing happening.” (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/len…)
Let me get this straight: So if the TSA takes your grandmother into the back room and has their way with her, she might have an “unpleasant experience” but it’s all 100% approved by the TSA which then denies the whole incident even took place? This is the yet another sign of the runaway criminality of the TSA and the entire federal government which now feels it isabove the lawand answerable to no one.
That more people aren’t engaged in a massive outcry against this also shows the extreme desensitizationof the public which has already been achieved. Had this event happened just a decade ago, the national media would have been in an uproar. That it happened in 2011, during an era when the TSAroutinelyconducts illegal molestations of air travelers, apparently doesn’t even raise eyebrows anymore. And that’s pathetic (more below…).
Secret laws that can never be challenged
The federal government currently claims that when you enter an airport, you are essentially “government property” and its agents can do anything to you that they want, with zero protections, no boundaries and no recourse.
In fact, in dismissing Gov. Jesse Ventura’s recent lawsuit against the TSA, a federal court recently put forth the following astonishing points in its ruling:
1) TSA’s laws are “secret” and you cannot know what they are. (It’s “national security” didn’t ya know?)
2) TSA’s laws can be changed at any time without notice. (And you still can’t know what they are.)
3) You must abide by these secret laws even though you do not have any right to know what they are. (We don’t have to tell you what the rules are, but you have to follow them anyway!)
4) These laws may never be challenged by anyone, even if they violate federal law, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or even basic human rights.
In other words, technically speaking the TSA could pass a “secret” administration rule right that gives all TSA agents the right to haveunrestricted deviant sexual intercoursewith all selected air travelers as a “right” that cannot be challenged (just like with the kings in the Dark Ages). Under these perverse rules, the TSA could declare all Middle Eastern people to be a sub-human species, or require all teenage boys to be “thoroughly searched” Sandusky-style. I’m not making this up. The TSA now has the “administrative right” to do all these things, according to federal courts. And none of it can be challenged. (Outrageous!)
This is obviously a total violation of U.S. law and the very principles of freedom upon which this country was founded. The Fourth Amendment means what it says. It is not subject to “administrative nullification.” We are living under a police state system right now, as you read this…
Obscene violations of the rights of women
Getting back to the grandmother in the wheelchair, she had asked to avoid the microwave radiation naked body scanner because she has a heart defibrillator surgically implanted in her chest, and she was concerned the machine’s radiation might interfere with her medical device. So in what now appears to be a clearpunishmentfor daring to request “special” treatment, Lenore Zimmerman was subjected to an 11-minute humiliation and psychological torture session by thuggish, criminal-minded TSA agents who have been repeatedly caught engaging in other criminal acts such as distributing child pornography (http://www.naturalnews.com/030787_c…), stealing the valuable electronics of air travelers (http://www.naturalnews.com/032947_T…), planting fake bags of cocaine in travelers’ luggage (http://www.naturalnews.com/030302_T…), and even flashing their TSA badges and then raping women (http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/1…).
The TSA is an out-of-control agency that openly violates the rights of women in particular, respecting no boundaries of human decency or personal privacy. It openly violates the core tenants of the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights which specifically protects the People from “illegal search and seizure” schemes dreamed up by tyrannical government. In fact, the Fourth Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights forprecisely this kind of scenariowhich also existed pre-1776 when occupying British soldiers raped and fondled colonial women as they pleased, then claimed they had the “king’s right” to engage in such behavior.
Our forefathers said, “Enough is enough!” And before they put this rule on paper, they put more than a few musket bullets through the thick skulls of the British soldiers who learned the hard way what “justice” really means. Such is history of revolution.
All for a “terror” threat that’s 100% imagined
The real shocker in all this is that the TSA’s security mandate was put in place in response toan imagined threatthat was entirely fabricated by the U.S. government itself. This government has virtually the entire nation running scared of imaginary “terrorists,” believing there are terrorists hiding under ever bed, around every dark corner, and plotting to kill everybody if not for the presence of all these thuggish police who are somehow protecting us from terrorists and maybe demonic leprechauns, too. OMG, there could be terrorists hiding in your pants! Hadn’t we better check there?
And yet, look around you. Have you ever seen a terrorist? Seriously. Have you EVER seen a terrorist? Have you ever seen a mad bomber? Have you ever seen the FBI actually stop a terror plot that it didn’t dream up itself to begin with? (http://www.naturalnews.com/033751_F…)
Don’t you get it? There is no terrorism in America other than what the government itself has been creating!
The whole thing is an “Emperor Has No Clothes” mirage that has the public acting out some sort of shared delusion that we’re all under assault by these evil, imaginary terrorists. Janet Napolitano insists“if you see something, say something”but in reality, nobody even sees anything because the war on terror is a complete fabricated fraud. To see something, you’d have todream it upfirst, just like the FBI does.
The very best article ever written on this topic was penned by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associated editor of the Wall Street Journal. Entitled, “In the War on Terror a Hoax?” (http://www.infowars.com/?p=62008), this article exposes the total fraud and fabrication of this falsely engineered war.
I’ve posted comments on that spot-on analysis at:
Only read it if you really want to know the real truth behind the fabricated war on terror.
For how long will the American sheeple allow government criminals to strip-search their wives, mothers and grandmothers?
Even in North Korea, the tyrant police state administrators don’t reach down the pants of civilians who are merely trying to travel. That form of sexually-perverse tyrannyis unique to the United States of America, to the great shock of the rest of the world.
It is astonishing that woman’s rights groups aren’t marching in the streets over the TSA’s sexual molestation of women — palming their breasts, back-handing their genitals, strip-searching them for no logical reason. These are not merely crimes against Americans, they are crimes against women in particular.
Where is the National Organization for Women in all this? The utter silence of the N.O.W. on this issue — as grandmothers are being strip-searched, detained, bloodied and badgered — is nothing less than a total indictment of the false agenda of that entire organization. If the N.O.W. will not stand up for women in their time of need right now, as they are being physically and mentally abused by the federal government in airports across the nation, then the organization’s entire reason for existence is a total fraud. It might as well just dissolve itself and admit it only “selectively” stands up for women when such a stance is politically expedient.
Or perhaps it should rename itself to be the “National Organization for Women Except for Those Being Abused by Government.” N.O.W.E.T.B.A.G, in other words.
Why are women who travel by air not given the same protections as those who work in offices?
What is it about N.O.W. that prevents it from speaking out against corrupt, criminal government in the first place? If N.O.W. existed in 1943 as a non-profit in Germany, I suppose it would have stood for “protecting women unless they are Jewish, in which case they can all be gassed to death” because that was the government’s policy at the time, right?
I ask: What gives the government the right to abuse women who would otherwise be protected if they were subjected to similar behavior in the workplace? Why is it WRONG for a suit-wearing executive to grab the tush of a co-worker in the office, but it’s perfectly okay for a butch TSA she-brute to fondle the vagina of an innocent traveler and smirk while she calls it “security?”
The silence of the N.O.W. in all this is so shameful that I wonder how the top executives and directors of that organization can look themselves in the mirror each day, remaining silent while their own sisters, daughters and mothers are being groped, fondled, abused and tormented by thuggish, psychopathic government agents known as the TSA? Just because the TSA claims to be fighting an imaginary war on an imaginary enemy that they claim lives inside your pants doesn’t make it true. It’s absurd from the start.
The situation with N.O.W. is actually even worse than what I’ve describe here: The TSA was an exhibitor at a National N.O.W. Conference in 2009where it maintained an information table or booth (http://www.now.org/organization/con…). Is the TSArecruitingat the N.O.W. conference? Is this not the ultimate in total hypocrisy and a conspiracy of crime against women?
Hey women: If you’re sexually abused in a GOVERNMENT workplace, that’s suddenly okay
The upshot of all this is apparently that if you are a woman, and your “workplace” is a government office claiming to be fighting terror, you can now be sexually abused, groped, tormented and even stripped naked against your willand the N.O.W. won’t say a word, apparently. Suddenly it’s all magically okay because of an imaginary “terrorist” enemy that’s no more real than the Easter Bunny or the cartoon elves from Rice Krispies.
Shame on N.O.W. for its inexcusable silence as our nation’s women are being sexually and psychologically abused — evenbloodied– by government agents. Shame on the thuggish abusers who take these TSA jobs and carry out this police state agenda in exchange for a paycheck and the promise of a pension (which will one day be stolen from them, of course). Shame on the mainstream media for whitewashing this story, ignoring the muffled cries of all the women, teenage daughters, moms and grandmothers who are beingroutinely abusedin all this, almost as if Penn State’s football coaching staff were directing the TSA’s strip-search protocols.
Shame on America for allowing this to go on, day after day, in complete and blatant violation of the Peoples’ Fourth Amendment rights (not to mention fundamental human rights).
A nation of people who will routinely let the government stick their hands down their pants — and excuse it all by claiming there are invisible “terrorists” hiding around every corner — isa nation of cowardswho have forgotten what freedom really means.
While tyrants run rampant, America sleeps…
Will America ever awaken to protecting innocents against tyrants?
I can only wonder,what event of overreaching tyranny will awaken the sleeping People?Will it take a TSA agent openlyrapinglittle boys in the back room? Or would that be okay, too, as long as somebody claims they’re “fighting terror”? Maybe Napolitano should be replaced by Sandusky, and then we’d have even better security in America because all the young boys would be checked for bombs inside and out, huh? Yeah, it’s sick. I apologize for even needing to draw these parallels, but this is the level of insanity that has now been achieved by the TSA and its open molestation and torture of innocent travelers.
At what point has it gone too far, I ask you? If the TSA claims it can merely write its own supreme rules that aresubject to no law, no legal review and no courts challenge, then what’s to stop the TSA from just ruling over the entire nation as a criminal police force that routinely rapes daughters and children on street-corner TSA checkpoints? Is there no requirement for the TSA to abide by any laws whatsoever? Are we honestly supposed to believe that the actions of the TSA will be held in check solely by the “ethics” of the TSA itself? Are you kidding? Are you insane?
This is the whole point of checks and balances, folks. The Bill of Rights isa check against tyrantswho, throughout history, have “gone TSA” on their own populations and ended up raping their own innocent civilians merely because nothing stopped them from doing so. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to HALT government attempts to overreach its limited mandate, and today,nothing is stopping the TSAfrom getting worse by the day.
If the courts will not intervene, and all laws are openly ignored, and the local police and sheriffs will do nothing to stop these criminals operating at the airports, then I must ask the inevitable question: At what point mustobedience to the LAWbe enforced by the citizens themselves?
I can only wonder what it’s going to take before the sheeple of America decide they’ve had enough and they march into their local airportswith the local Sheriff and bunch of armed deputies carrying M4 riflesand they ARREST THE TSA AGENTS and charge them with not just the crimes they have committed, butconspiracyto commit those crimes as well.
TSA agents, after all, would feel right at home in prison where getting gang raped is part of the culture. Heck, it might be so familiar to them all that they would mistake prison for a “federal workplace!”
|Man sues gender studies depo for its anti-male attacks - video - Thursday, November 17, 2011|
Tom Martin began studying an MSc in 'Gender, Media and Culture' at The London School of Economics in the 2009/10 term, but withdrew six weeks into the course, filing a £50,000 damages claim against the elite university, for 'sex discrimination, breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation, and breach of the Gender Equality Duty Act.'
Tom is representing himself in the legal process, and asks you to go to http://sexismbusters.org/ to read all about the case, and to donate towards the fighting fund.
For an in depth interview with Tom on AVFM, (starting 36:30 into show) listen at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2011/09/21/what-do-women-want-and-an-interview-with-tom-martin
References: Women 4 times more sexist than men: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15491274
- unfortunately, the researchers have hidden their findings within the above paper - so reading the extract is not enough, but it is well worth the $11... more
YouTube VideoHEADLINE NEWS LINKS
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/09/09/man-sues-london-school-of-economics-for-sexism/(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias(3) http://news.bitchbuzz.com/man-sues-over-anti-male-degree-course.html read more ...
|The Federal Governments Lies on research - Wednesday, November 02, 2011|
Hello Dr. Gaffield;
I appreciate your response to my email, but your reply did not address any of my concerns and I did not see the apology that I am owed by your organization.
As was made clear in the BC Supreme Court in “Wiebe vs. Bouchard and the Status of Women Canada”, a feminist peer-reviewed publication, even when funded by a federal government granting agency, can still be Defamatory lies. In fact, that is exactly what Justice Nathan J. Smith said in his Judgment of a similar Defamatory work written by Professor Pierrette Bouchard at Laval University. That publication was also peer-reviewed and federal government funded – which certainly says something about the sad state of the peer-review and funding process in Canadian academic/government circles.
It seems very common that feminist academic government-funded publications are Defamatory Lies – and perhaps that is a deliberate ‘ad hominem’ tactic. Whatever your motive, I am heartily sick of such garbage being published with my tax dollars.
Your publication contains defamatory lies. I want an apology. I am familiar with the prevailing tactic of brushing off complaints such as mine, the Status of Women Canada also tried that tactic – and their emails on the topic became evidence at trial. So please… don’t hide behind the academic bafflegab - a serious reply would be appreciated.
If you insist on continuing to avoid this then I will have little choice but to pursue more-serious remedies.
From: Henry,Leslie [mailto:Leslie.Henry@SSHRC-CRSH.GC.CA]
Sent: October 31, 2011 12:39 PM
Subject: Our correspondence for your attention
I attach our correspondence for your attention.
Executive Assistant to the Executive Vice-President | Adjointe de direction de la vice-présidente
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada | Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada
350 Albert Street | 350, rue Albert, Ottawa, ON K1P 6G4
E | C : email@example.com
T : 613.947.3275 C : F | T : 613.947.4010
October 31 2011
Mr Ken XXXXX
Dear Mr Ken XXXXXX
I am ackowledging our receipt of your email to Dr. Gaffield dated October 15 regarding the book Reaction and Resistance, Feminism, Law and Social Change, edited by Dorothy Chunn and Susan Boyd, and published by UBC Press.
The publication was funded by a grant from the Canadian Federation of Humanities and Social Sciences, which administers the Aid to Scholarly Publications program. All awards are granted through a rigorous national competition and independent perr-review process. UBC Press recieved the grant on this basis.
Cc Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister Of Canada
Maurice Vellacott, MP
Note if anyone want the oringle cope I would be happy to sent it to them on SSHRC RESPONCE and the misuse of tax payers money used for and to put out non-facical research based on LIES AND SLANDER
|Bogus research published by UBC Press - The Feminist Propaganda Cult of Deception - Sunday, October 16, 2011|books.google.ca/books?isbn=077481411X...
by Susan B. Boyd
, Dorothy E. Chunn, Hester Lessard - 2007 - Law - 303 pages
Photo: Susan B. Boyd
American Coalition for Fathers and Children, http://www.acfc.org/ ... Fathers Canada 4 Justice, http://www.fathers.ca/civil_suit_on_sow.htm Fathers for Life ..
See Below what feminism is really about in a news piece called Feminism is dead... only whining remains by – Barbara Kay showing these so called feminism cults which, like most ideologies, is essentially nothing more then a conspiracy theory to inspire extermist, feminist militancy by scapegoating (heterosexual) men, fathers and male children and note, not based on facts, but rather their own self deluted insane opinions that add up to zero.
Susan B. Boyd, Dorothy E. Chunn, Hester Lessar are the same socilaist feminists who at every turn have shown the world, just how much they really hate men.
Professor Hester Lester
Their publication displays a condescending and hostile attitude towards fathers, and fatherhood generally. In fact, what anyone with half a brain and who can read can see it is only a one-sided rant dressed in academic language pretending to be research.
These feminist zombies sock-puppets might think that their propagandistic “research” is effective and persuasive, but observation of even those younger people’s views has shown adults, men and women alike, that they see through their manipulations and they want nothing to do with it as these young people show contempt for the entire destructive ideology of feminism.
Whatever value they once had or might have been for these feminists, it is long lost and their, ilk have squandered it with years of libel and lies and mindless opinions.
After all, who would have thought in the delutions that these same outdated zombie socilaist feminists have so much hate for all women's male children and their fathers, with their writings full of insanity, they want to call research.
When the Government of Canada funds feminist 'research' that is based on lies and unsubstantiated opinions of radical socialist ideologues. We can only wonder how much "government research" is based on similar political propaganda and just opinions and just how many people who been mislead by these oddball feminist writings?
Here is a good example of tax payers money being wasted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation: Wiebe v. Bouchard
|Feminism is dead... only whining remains - Tuesday, June 14, 2011|
– Barbara Kay
The following text is a lightly-edited version of a talk given by Barbara Kay last February 10th at a reception held in Ottawa to celebrate the fifth Anniversary of the foundation of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. www.imfcanada.org
We thank the IMFC for permission to reproduce the text.
Joseph Ben-Ami- Canadian Observer
When I began my weekly sojourn with the National Post in 2003, I had no particular niche subjects. My general curiosity lay in social trends, and the factors that contribute to building and maintaining a healthy, stable society. But so many of the negative cultural trends I was drawn to for column fodder kept leading me back to the same source. The Marxist political theorist Antonio Gramsci famously spoke of "the long march through the institutions" as the path to cultural hegemony. As I began to look at the institutions that instruct our children, mould our lawyers and social workers and psychologists, sensitize our judiciary, shape the views of our journalists and inspire our future politicians, it became clear to me that the custodians of these institutions were all drinking from the same ideological well: Marxism-imbued feminism. Feminism was the best organized and militant of the new "isms" that were considered de rigeur amongst the culture's bien pensants, but it has been powerless to compensate for the unhappiness it has been the primary culprit in creating.
As the respected gender wars critic Christina Hoff Summers argues in an essay on feminism in a new book titled Liberty and Civilization: the Western heritage and edited by Roger Scruton, radical feminists produced a form of women's liberation that has "little to do with liberty" since "it aims not to free women to pursue their own interests and inclinations, but rather to reeducate them to attitudes often profoundly contrary to their natures." The revolution is over, but its effects and influences live on. Fault-free divorce, transient, common law partnership accorded the same respect and benefits as marriage, gay unions anointed as marriage, the exaltation of single motherhood and the discrediting of fatherhood, guilt-free and convenience-motivated abortion on a mass scale, transgressive sexuality celebrated for its own sake, and the early sexualization of children: all this can in part or in whole be attributed to feminism which, like most ideologies, is essentially a conspiracy theory meant to inspire militancy in its recruits by scapegoating (heterosexual) men. Indeed, it is the only conspiracy theory that is accorded respectable status in our society. In the last 10 or 15 years we have seen downward rates of divorce, illegitimacy, drug and alcohol abuse and early sexual activity. Our culture has shifted notably rightward. Bourgeois values are in vogue and families have once again become the centre of our cultural focus. People sense that too many babies were thrown out with the bath water of women's real grievances. The yearning for a collaborative union and children is inherent to our nature. No theory on earth can suppress it for long.
As longtime Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz once wrote to his son: "There can be no more radical refusal of self-acceptance than the repudiation of one's own biological nature." So there is reason for optimism. Today, forty years on, even though our institutions are dominated by their graduates, Women's Studies classes are emptying out. Few women today identify themselves as feminists. Educated, middle-class women, once the mainstay of the feminist movement, realize that they have been somewhat bamboozled: they actually want husbands and children, and don't want to feel guilty about it. And as a recent survey makes crystal clear, women, given the choice, would stay home with their children in their earliest years. As the ecologists like to say, "nature bats last." I see the re-bourgeoisification in my own milieu. My own daughter works for the federal government. She could easily have moved up to a higher echelon, but it would have meant giving up her coveted classification of tele-worker, which permits her to work out of her Montreal home office. The nanny looks after her two young children, but knowing that she is available when necessary is far more important to her than more money or higher status - at least while the kids are young. I think a generation ago women like her would have felt very guilty for stepping off the treadmill. According to Kay Hymowitz,
North America's premier observer of mores and cultural values around the institution of marriage, this is "a moment of tremendous promise" for Americans. Or at least for those with the cultural memory to benefit from following what she calls the "life script" that leads out of poverty and into mature, successful adulthood: finish school, get a job that leads somewhere, and only then marry, and only after that have children. (Unfortunately there is a whole underclass so many generations removed from the formula that they have lost even the memory, let alone the motivation, to repair the damage that has been done to them by elites who believed that theory can trump human nature. In 1965, 25% of African-American babies were born to unwed mothers. Today it is 70%. But amongst highly educated people, only 6% of babies are born to unwed mothers.
There is also reason to worry about a middle group - somewhat educated people who used to be conservative in their marrying habits; their commitment, statistically, is wavering. Only the cultural elites can be said to be rock solid on the "life script.") As to the West's famously declining birth rate, it is thanks to feminism that infertility clinics are doing such a landslide business. I gave a talk a few years ago to the McGill Women's Alumnae Association on feminism and its effects. Some young women were in the audience, and I noticed that one was visibly startled when I mentioned the statistics around the optimal breeding years for women. I said that women are most fertile between the ages of 15-25, that the odds of a successful pregnancy and uncomplicated birth declined markedly after the age of 30 and that, by 35, one was really gambling. By 40 the chances of an easy conception and healthy full-term birth are the gestational equivalent of Russian roulette. But this young woman told me that, although she was in Women's Studies, where theoretically one learns a lot about, you know, women, nobody had ever told her that she might have trouble having children if she delayed in starting a family. Teachers don't tell them and doctors are afraid to do so lest they appear sexist.
Consequently, young women have come to believe that getting pregnant at a late stage may simply require a little technological help - but hey, look at all the Hollywood stars getting pregnant at 40, so no big deal! Except of course it is, because even IVF has less than a 30% chance of success. I have seen enough anguish amongst my children's friends' late onset first pregnancy: the failure to conceive, the failure to carry, the dependence on drugs and technical aids, the years of obsession that strip the joy from life in their "People sense that too many babies were thrown out with the bath water of women's real grievances. The yearning for a collaborative union and children is inherent to our nature." best years, to know that a whole generation of young women have been sold a bill of goods that can be traced directly to one ideological source. Feminism's great triumph is the trickle-down effect of its most damaging notions. The entire liberal establishment, notably the media, treat feminism's antisocial nostrums as received wisdom. A year or so ago, I wrote a column castigating Katrina Onstad, at the time a columnist for Chatelaine, the most read Women's magazine in Canada, because she blithely informed us in one of her monthly op-eds that she wanted her daughter to taste life to the full before settling down and, therefore, would advise her not to even think of getting pregnant (no mention of marriage) before she was 35. (Thanks mom. Glad you had kids? How about ensuring we get our best shot at it too.)
Never before historically have we lived in a society where not only women's best interests, but women's physical pleasures have been privileged over the interests of children and family. The failure of ideologues to pay nature its due, to recognize that biology is to a great extent destiny, has entrenched fear and suspicion of men in many young women, and has alienated men. As conservative writer Midge Decter wrote at the height of the feminist revolution: "...relations between men and women are ghastly...the men feel downgraded and sapped and rendered impotent by the women. Young women today are suffering very much from the absence of men who have faith in themselves." Men's faith in themselves has been further undermined by a family law system that systematically downgrades their importance to children, and reflexively privileges, sometimes demonstrably, unfit mothers' rights to their children as inherent, but regards fathers' rights to their children as contingent on their worthiness to be parent, such worthiness to be determined by the state.
As former justice minister Martin Cauchon once said: "Men have no rights, only responsibilities." It doesn't bode well for the future. You can't go home again. Even if the ideology of feminism were to disappear tomorrow, our culture has been irreversibly changed, and not altogether for the bad. Still, our concern today is marriage and family. A few months ago, I was speaking to a group of Catholic students at Ryerson University. Afterward a young woman approached me seeking advice. She is a devout Catholic who has high career ambitions but is also eager to marry and have a large family. She is already 25 years old.
As I wrote in a column, this conversation sparked: What advice can I give [Andrea]? Stop studying, find Mr. Right and start procreating? After all, Canada needs lots more loved children, and her children will be blessed. On the other hand this young woman is a winner and I want to see her succeed. Unusually for me, I have no advice to offer Andrea. Gallup Research has been polling Americans for decades on their "aspirational fertility"- how many kids people say they want - because it is the best predictor of how many children they will have.
The bright line between wanting three kids maximum and wanting more than three is active religious participation, i.e. regular church attendance. Andrea validates that profile. Her aspirational fertility is five children and she is a committed Catholic. But how many Andreas are out there? I look back at my own choices, made a half-century ago when women were beginning to be highly educated, and I concede that no rational, collective argument could have persuaded me not to have any children, and no rational, collective argument could have persuaded me to have many children. Autocratic governments can make people have fewer children, but they can't make people have more. Singapore tried. While modernizing in the 1960s after gaining independence from the British, Singapore's newly minted Family
Planning and Population Board launched a billboard campaign, messaging "Stop at Two" and "Small Families Brighter Future."
Abortion and sterilization were encouraged at the government's expense. Maternity leave was denied after two children. It worked. Singapore reached its fertility rate target of 2.1 in 1976, a 53% plunge over a decade. But it didn't stop declining, as women's education rates went up. A reverse strategy was implemented. Abortion wasn't banned, but pre-op counseling is now required for women with three or fewer children. The billboard and media messaging was changed to "Have Three or More Children If You Can." But no dice. Singapore's fertility rate in 1960 was 5.45. Today it is 1.1. Canada's total fertility rate is presently 1.6, far below replacement. I have a feeling Andrea will realize her difficult hybrid goal, whatever the obstacles, but in our secularized society Andreas are few and far between these days. So it seems mass immigration from countries where women are not yet highly educated must be our portion for the foreseeable future. And when they are educated, what then?
Barbara Kay is a columnist with the National Post.
|Exxon CEO Admits that Oil Should Be $60-70 Dollars a Barrel Based on Supply and Demand - Sunday, May 15, 2011|
Some of the increase in price above this “supply and demand” level price is due to companies using futures contracts to lock in oil prices to ensure certainty (which is a valid business purpose).
George Washington’s Blog
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Under probing questioning by Senator Cantwell, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson admitted that oil should be $60-70 dollars a barrel based on supply and demand:
Some of the increase in price above this “supply and demand” level price is due to companies using futures contracts to lock in oil prices to ensure certainty (which is a valid business purpose).
Some of it is due to speculation. Indeed, using high frequency trading, it is relatively easy to manipulate the price of oil. read more ...
|Romney: Blame Obama for Record Gas Prices - Sunday, May 01, 2011|
Sick and tired of high gas prices? It’s all Obama’s fault, according to Mitt Romney, who pumped his own gas on Friday as the cameras rolled.
May 1, 2011
Sick and tired of high gas prices? It’s all Obama’s fault, according to Mitt Romney, who pumped his own gas on Friday as the cameras rolled.
“It’s a marketplace and if America is not serious about getting our own energy resources in line, then we are going to have higher and higher prices in part today as a result of the expectations of higher prices tomorrow,” Romney said, according to Reuters.
During a dinner sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, Romney said he wants to hang the “misery index” around Obama’s neck.
“You remember during the Ronald Reagan/Jimmy Carter debates? That Ronald Reagan came up with this great thing about the ‘misery index,’ and that he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck, and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing. Well, we’re going to have to hang the ‘Obama Misery Index’ around his neck. And, I’ll tell you, the fact that you’ve got people in this country, really squeezed, with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So, we’re going to have to talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and higher taxation,” he said.
Romney knows the president has little to do with gas lines and rising commodity prices. He’s just playing the establishment political game where the guy from the other party – that is to say the flip-side of the same party – takes the heat.
If we are unfortunate enough to end up with Romney in the White House, it will be his turn to take heat from Democrats. It’s a tag team game. Meanwhile, nothing changes and the nation continues its slide down the tubes.
Prices are sky high on gas, food, and commodities because the U.S. dollar is being sabotaged by the Federal Reserve and the bankers who own it. Romney’s misery index was created by the Fed.
Even CNBC, usually an obedient lickspittle, admits the Fed is to blame: “A combination of factors accounts for the weakness, with the Federal Reserve’s easy-money policies, huge national debts and deficits and the consequential possibility of a debt downgrade because of the financial mess in Washington leading the way.”
Obama blames the speculators for high gas prices. He promises to unleash Eric Holder and the Justice Department on them. “We are going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain,” Obamaread from his teleprompter screen as the gathered plebs politely applauded.
It’s not the speculators who are to blame. It is the Federal Reserve with the complicity of Congress and Obama, who are after all merely grocery clerks for the bankster elite.
Dollar devaluation is a direct result of the Federal Reserve printing funny money out of thin air in order to pay an engineered annual federal deficit. In fact, it no longer even prints the money – it just enters a few more digits in a computer.
“There are three primary culprits for today’s high gas prices, and none of them are speculators,” writes Craig Steiner. “The Federal Reserve is directly responsible for the rising prices of oil and other commodities. It is the Federal Reserve that has engaged in QE1 and QE2 and, as a result devalued our dollar which in turn raises prices of commodities such as oil that are priced in dollars.” Obama and Congress carry out the ruinous policies designed by the Federal Reserve.
“It is Obama and Congress that are causing the federal government to spend so much money that new dollars have to be printed to satisfy its borrowing needs. If the government weren’t borrowing so much money, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t be compelled to print money so we wouldn’t be facing the price inflation we are facing in oil and other commodities.”
In fact, the Fed is not compelled to do anything. It designed the Federal Reserve system specifically to lock the nation into a perpetual state of debt slavery.
Earlier this month, presidential hopeful Romney made it clear he has no intention of going after the Federal Reserve. “I’m not going to spend my time going after Ben Bernanke. I’m not going to spend my time focusing on the Federal Reserve,” he told Larry Kudlow. “I think Ben Bernanke is a student of monetary policy,” Romney added, “he’s doing as good a job as he thinks he can do.”
Romney and the Republicans will blame Obama and the Democrats while Obama and the Democrats blame Wall Street and the speculators who have packed Obama’s cabinet since day one. It’s a shell game, a parlor trick, a sleight of hand.
If the American people continue to allow this charade to continue, they deserve to be cut down by the financial Sword of Damocles now hanging by a thread over their heads.
It looks like Ron Paul will run. The American people better get behind him. It’s probably our last chance to save the nation and prevent the slide into grinding poverty and third world status. read more ...
|Obama and other Global Elite's wars are to blame for the high gas prices - Monday, April 25, 2011|
The Global Elites war on the world has driven gas prices up
The average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline hit $3.86 on April 25, more than $1-a-gallon higher than a year earlier and less than 25 cents away from the record high price of gasoline set in July 2008.
Networks have refused to connect administration to steadily rising gas prices
Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
Monday, April 25, 2011
The average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline hit $3.86 on April 25, more than $1-a-gallon higher than a year earlier and less than 25 cents away from the record high price of gasoline set in July 2008.
In fact, per gallon prices are more than $2 higher than when Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009. Yet the president has been nearly exempt from criticism on the issue of rising prices, despite a six-month drilling moratorium and more regulatory hurdles for industry.
The Business & Media Institute found that out of the 280 oil price stories the network evening shows have aired since the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, only 1 percent (3 stories) mentioned Obama’s drilling ban or other anti-oil actions in connection with gasoline prices.
Instead of asking whether Obama’s anti-oil policies could be increasing the cost of gas, the networks blamed other factors such as Mideast turmoil or the “money game” played by speculators. Certainly, the turmoil in Libya, Egypt and surrounding nations has increased worries about oil production and can influence the price. But the networks also should have looked for explanations much closer to home, like Obama’s many regulatory actions taken against the oil industry.
First there was the drilling ban, which was later overturned by federal courts as illegal. Seahawk Drilling, a Texas-based shallow-water drilling company cited that moratorium as the cause of its bankruptcy filing saying, they “have been adversely affected by the dramatic slowdown in the issuing of shallow-water permits in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico following the Macondo well blowout.”
According to The Heritage Foundation, the Obama administration moved on to a de facto moratorium after the ban was overturned. Add to that the EPA’s desire to regulate the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions and new environmental regulatory hurdles for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude from Canada to the U.S. and create many American jobs.
Full story here.
Financial Heist of the Century: Confiscating Libya’s Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF)
The objective of the war against Libya is not just its oil reserves (now estimated at 60 billion barrels), which are the greatest in Africa and whose extraction costs are among the lowest in the world, nor the natural gas reserves of which are estimated at about 1,500 billion cubic meters.
April 25, 2011
The objective of the war against Libya is not just its oil reserves (now estimated at 60 billion barrels), which are the greatest in Africa and whose extraction costs are among the lowest in the world, nor the natural gas reserves of which are estimated at about 1,500 billion cubic meters. In the crosshairs of “willing” of the operation “Unified Protector” there are sovereign wealth funds, capital that the Libyan state has invested abroad.
The Libyan Investment Authority (LIA) manages sovereign wealth funds estimated at about $70 billion U.S., rising to more than $150 billion if you include foreign investments of the Central Bank and other bodies. But it might be more. Even if they are lower than those of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, Libyan sovereign wealth funds have been characterized by their rapid growth. When LIA was established in 2006, it had $40 billion at its disposal. In just five years, LIA has invested over one hundred companies in North Africa, Asia, Europe, the U.S. and South America: holding, banking, real estate, industries, oil companies and others.
In Italy, the main Libyan investments are those in UniCredit Bank (of which LIA and the Libyan Central Bank hold 7.5 percent), Finmeccanica (2 percent) and ENI (1 percent), these and other investments (including 7.5 percent of the Juventus Football Club) have a significance not as much economically (they amount to some $5.4 billion) as politically.
Libya, after Washington removed it from the blacklist of “rogue states,” has sought to carve out a space at the international level focusing on “diplomacy of sovereign wealth funds.” Once the U.S. and the EU lifted the embargo in 2004 and the big oil companies returned to the country, Tripoli was able to maintain a trade surplus of about $30 billion per year which was used largely to make foreign investments. The management of sovereign funds has however created a new mechanism of power and corruption in the hands of ministers and senior officials, which probably in part escaped the control of the Gadhafi himself: This is confirmed by the fact that, in 2009, he proposed that the 30 billion in oil revenues go “directly to the Libyan people.” This aggravated the fractures within the Libyan government.
U.S. and European ruling circles focused on these funds, so that before carrying out a military attack on Libya to get their hands on its energy wealth, they took over the Libyan sovereign wealth funds. Facilitating this operation is the representative of the Libyan Investment Authority, Mohamed Layas himself: as revealed in a cable published by WikiLeaks. On January 20 Layas informed the U.S. ambassador in Tripoli that LIA had deposited $32 billion in U.S. banks. Five weeks later, on February 28, the U.S. Treasury “froze” these accounts. According to official statements, this is “the largest sum ever blocked in the United States,” which Washington held “in trust for the future of Libya.” It will in fact serve as an injection of capital into the U.S. economy, which is more and more in debt. A few days later, the EU “froze” around 45 billion Euros of Libyan funds.
The assault on the Libyan sovereign wealth funds will have a particularly strong impact in Africa. There, the Libyan Arab African Investment Company had invested in over 25 countries, 22 of them in sub-Saharan Africa, and was planning to increase the investments over the next five years, especially in mining, manufacturing, tourism and telecommunications. The Libyan investments have been crucial in the implementation of the first telecommunications satellite Rascom (Regional African Satellite Communications Organization), which entered into orbit in August 2010, allowing African countries to begin to become independent from the U.S. and European satellite networks, with an annual savings of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Even more important were the Libyan investment in the implementation of three financial institutions launched by the African Union: the African Investment Bank, based in Tripoli, the African Monetary Fund, based in Yaoundé (Cameroon), the African Central Bank, with Based in Abuja (Nigeria). The development of these bodies would enable African countries to escape the control of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, tools of neo-colonial domination, and would mark the end of the CFA franc, the currency that 14 former French colonies are forced to use. Freezing Libyan funds deals a strong blow to the entire project. The weapons used by “the willing” are not only those in the military action called “Unified Protector.”
Il Manifesto, April 22, 2011
Translated from Italian by John Catalinotto
Kissinger Calls For US Ground Invasion Of Libya & $7 Gallon Gas!Friday, April 22, 2011 -- UPDATED 12:30 CST
Despite the fact that the United States is embroiled in three major conflicts and can barely service its own gigantic debt, with Standard and Poor this week indicating the US will soon lose its triple-A credit rating, top globalist and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently told fellow elitists at three different globalist confabs that the US needs to launch a ground invasion of Libya and keep the war running for at least another year.
According to veteran Bilderberg journalist Jim Tucker, whose sources have proven routinely accurate in leaking discussion topics shared by globalists at their regular meetings, Kissinger gave almost the exact same speech at three different conferences over the past two weeks, firstly during an April 8-10 get-together at the George Washington University's Elliot School of International Affairs, then at an Aspen Institute session on "Values and Diplomacy" at the National Cathedral, and finally during the Bretton Woods II conference in New Hampshire.
"Kissinger, visibly depressed, gave a rationale for the war on Libya that the TC (Trilateral Commission) and its brother group, Bilderberg, want to keep rolling, according to an inside source who has proved reliable for years. Both groups want the war extended through 2012 to generate turmoil throughout the Middle East and pressure the United States into attacking Iran on behalf of Israel. Which would also produce huge war profits," writes Tucker.
With President Obama keen to oversee more "mission creep" in Libya, by sending unmanned drones to intensify the air bombardment, Kissinger made it clear that the ultimate intention was to do what Obama specifically promised would never happen, a US ground invasion.
Entering the 10th year of the occupation of Afghanistan, and with US forces still tied down in Iraq, by April 4 American taxpayers had already shelled out an estimated $608 million dollars to pay for the intervention in Libya. The expenditure shows no signs of abating as the Obama administration signals its intent to deepen U.S. involvement even as ratings agency Standard & Poor announced Monday that the U.S. risks losing its AAA credit rating because of the government's inability to reduce the budget deficit.
Kissinger's call for a ground invasion is symptomatic of the way globalists use America's military muscle to pursue madcap geopolitical objectives while the country itself withers and dies. State governments across the country are now saying they cannot afford to pay police and firefighters as local communities are shut down, so how on earth can the Obama administration justify spending what will eventually amount to billions of dollars to intervene in a civil war in North Africa?
|JFK Demanded Top Secret UFO Files 10 Days Before He Was Killed - Tuesday, April 19, 2011|
Was JFK killed because of his interest in aliens? Secret memo shows president demanded UFO files 10 days before death
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 8:21 AM on 19th April 2011
An uncovered letter written by John F Kennedy to the head of the CIA shows that the president demanded to be shown highly confidential documents about UFOs 10 days before his assassination.
The secret memo is one of two letters written by JFK asking for information about the paranormal on November 12 1963, which have been released by the CIA for the first time.
Author William Lester said the CIA released the documents to him under the Freedom of Information Act after he made a request while researching his new book 'A Celebration of Freedom: JFK and the New Frontier.'
Assassination: Was JFK shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs?
The president’s interest in UFOs shortly before his death is likely to fuel conspiracy theories about his assassination, according to AOL News.
Alien researchers say the latest documents, released to Mr Lester by the CIA, add weight to the suggestion that the president could have been shot to stop him discovering the truth about UFOs.
In one of the secret documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, JFK writes to the director asking for the UFO files.
Released: Letter from JFK to CIA director asking for access to UFO files, which has been released to an author under the Freedom of Information Act
In the second memo, sent to the NASA administrator, the president expresses a desire for cooperation with the former Soviet Union on mutual outer space activities.
The previously classified documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act to teacher William Lester as part of research for a new book about JFK.
He said that JFK’s interest in UFOs could have been fuelled by concerns about relations with the former Soviet Union.
Beam me up: Days before he was killed, JFK wrote to the CIA demanding access to their files about UFOs
Unclassified: A second memo written by JFK on November 12 1963, 10 days before his assassination, which has been released by the CIA
‘One of his concerns was that a lot of these UFOs were being seen over the Soviet Union and he was very concerned that the Soviets might misinterpret these UFOs as U.S. aggression, believing that it was some of our technology,’ Mr Lester told AOL News.
‘I think this is one of the reasons why he wanted to get his hands on this information and get it away from the jurisdiction of NASA so he could say to the Soviets, “Look, that's not us, we're not doing it, we're not being provocative. “.’
But conspiracy theorists said the documents add interest to a disputed file, nicknamed the ‘burned memo’, which a UFO investigator claims he received in the 1990s.
The document, which has scorch marks, is claimed to have been posted to UFO hunter Timothy Cooper in 1999 by an unknown CIA leak, but has never been verified.
Disputed: In the 'burned memo' the CIA director allegedly wrote: 'Lancer [JFK] has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow'
In a note sent with the document, the apparent leaker said he worked for CIA between 1960 and 1974 and pulled the memo from a fire when the agency was burning some of its most sensitive files.
The undated memo contains a reference to ‘Lancer’, which was JFK's Secret Service code name.
On the first page, the director of Central Intelligence wrote: ‘As you must know, Lancer has made some inquiries regarding our activities, which we cannot allow.
‘Please submit your views no later than October. Your action to this matter is critical to the continuance of the group.’
The current owner of the ‘burned memo’, who bought it from Timothy Cooper in 2001 told AOL News that it shows that when JFK asked questions about UFOs that the CIA ‘bumped him off’.
UFO investigator Robert Wood said he has tested the paper it was printed on, the ink age, watermarks, font types and other markings.
He said: ‘I hired a forensics company to check the age of the ink and check several other things that you can date, using the same techniques you’d use in a court of law.’ read more ...