http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=iceberg Sat, 18 May 2013 04:19:40 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=iceberg Fri, 17 May 2013 12:27:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear And IntimidationThe apple does not fall far from the tree Remember your roots Representative Paul Ryan was my guest Thursday and we covered a lot of ground. The transcript will be posted ASAP below. On the question of DOJ's snooping of the House press gallery, Representative Ryan replied to my question about it: "Of course I'm troubled. Are you kidding?" Most of the MSM hasn't figured out yet that if the DOJ can grab the press phone records originating from the House, they can grab any phone record coming out of the Hill. Ryan also comments on the impact on the election of the manipulation of the Benghazi attack by the White House and on the IRS scandal. For additional background on the IRS scandal, read this post and this post by Carol Platt Liebau, and this post by National Review's Kevin Williamson, for background on Benghazi this post by Powerline's John Hinderaker, and for the impact of all the scandals on the president this important column by Peggy Noonan. Transcript of the Paul Ryan interview: HH: Joining me, a member of the Ways And Means Committee, and of course, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Congressman Paul Ryan. Congressman, welcome back, good to talk to you. PR: Hey, Hugh, how have you been? Good to see you, or good to be with you, excuse me. I guess I can't see you. Good to hear you. HH: Thank you. I want to begin with what my colleague, Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall.com has pinned as the key thing thus far in the IRS scandal. On August 4th, 2011, Obama appointee Williams Wilkins, who is chief counsel of the IRS, was briefed on the political targeting of conservative groups. Now he's a well-trained lawyer. PR: Right. HH: Could he possibly have learned of this and not informed the White House, in your view, Paul Ryan? PR: We're going to find out. You know, I don't know the answer to the question, but I can tell you this, we're going to find out the answer to these questions. The reason we know about this already is because of the Ways And Means Committee and the oversight and research we've been doing, which prompted the Inspector General report. We had hearings last year in the Ways And Means Committee where we asked the commissioner about this, and they just denied it. And so they have had a couple of opportunities since that moment you just, you know, since then, to affirm, confirm or deny with Congress whether this happened or not. They denied it. So there's a lot we have left to learn. They can try and have disciplinary action, they can call for resignations. Those things are necessary. But they're not enough. And Hugh, this goes much bigger than this. And this is unfortunately the kind of thing you have with a big government and a really bad tax code. And you know, we have a government that's working for itself, not for the people. And the IRS is fishing around people's private lives, it's approving the groups it likes and harassing the groups it doesn't. That's not who we are. HH: Congressman, Peggy Noonan, in a piece that went online minutes ago, and will be in the paper tomorrow, writes we are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. And she writes, as it always comes down to trust, do you trust the President's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. And it goes on to say look, these are his agencies. The IRS and the Justice Department answer to him. Does he set the tone? PR: Of course he sets the tone. This isn't just about incompetence, though. This is about an overreach. This is about a government that has gone beyond its scope, and this also speaks to the philosophy of government that's at play here in Washington. And if you want to have a government that does everything for you, they've got to know everything about you. If you want to have a government that should be in the position of picking winners and losers, well then, they will pick winners and losers. And so it's not a story just about incompetence. It's about overreach. You know, big government is bad in theory, but it's much worse in practice. And effective government, that is good government that's limited, focuses in on our core duties. So this speaks to more than just, you know, did they do this to conservative groups before an election to try and give themselves an advantage? It also goes beyond that to, you know, bureaucrats are making decisions for us on behalf of government, not on behalf of the people. And so... HH: Now Congressman, I've heard... PR: That's, to me, a bigger, the bigger issue here. HH: I have heard from people that the SEC has targeted Romney/Ryan supporters. I have heard, and I know for a fact about the EPA scandals and the fake ID's, and the selective FOIA requests. I was told by Rob Portman yesterday about the HHS Obamacare fundraising scandal. PR: Right. HH: It's everywhere. How vast is this culture of intimidation and corruption? PR: I get the sense that we're just at the tip of the iceberg here. And this is why we're going to do this methodically, we're going to do this the right way, we're not going to be passioned or partisan. We're going to do our jobs as the representatives of the people, you know, the legislative branch of government doing our Constitutional duty of conducting oversight of the executive branch. The executive branch has clearly overreached. This seems more like a pattern than a couple of one-off events that a couple of rogue people in Cincinnati. It clearly goes bigger than that. And we're going to painstakingly go through this system and find out just how deep this is. But I would say at the core of the system is a government that is spending beyond its reach. HH: Now many hearings have you set aside? And how far into the summer are they scheduled? PR: Well, we're in the middle of planning all of that. And so we're just trying to collect as much information as we can right now in the Ways And Means Committee. There's a lot of people we've got to talk to, a lot of people that have to be deposed, and a lot of evidence that has to be gathered. And so just like a good investigation, you go where the evidence shows you. And here's the point we're trying to get at. We need to restore accountability, trust and transparency to government. And that means you have to get answers. That's what Benghazi is all about, getting to the actual answers so things like this do not happen again. HH: Speaking of Benghazi... PR: Tomorrow, we're holding a hearing in the Ways and Means, we're going to hold the IRS accountable, we're going to ask tough questions, but we're going to keep going. And we also need to ask deeper questions. I hope we don't lose the moment to ask deeper questions. What is the government's role? What should it be doing? And what shouldn't it be doing? We can get this right, and people deserve a government that supports them. Families deserve real security. They deserve a government that treats them equally, and that's not what we're getting right now. HH: Now Congressman, speaking of Benghazi, John Hinkeraker of Powerline is coming up after this, and he's gone through the emails. They're a MacGuffin. They reveal that they intended at the White House to mislead Congress in the election narrative, but they don't tell us where this, the video narrative came from. You were living in the middle of that campaign. As you look back at this, how great a degree of deception was being practiced and organized at Team Obama concerning Benghazi? PR: Well, I mean, now what I know, I didn't know this then, of course, but what I know now is that there was clearly an attempt to dissuade the country from thinking this was terrorism. The question is who made the decision to tell our U.N. ambassador to go on the Sunday shows and say this was just some spontaneous mob, there's nothing to see here, don't worry about it, it's not terrorism. And then there are the issues, the even bigger issues, which is what could have been done to save these lives that evening, especially the two guys who were killed later on, and what wasn't done, and why were those decisions made. And then who's decision was it to basically put out information that they knew not to be true? We heard that from the campaign. I don't want to sound like some sore loser about the campaign, but I don't want my government, as an American citizen, telling me things that they know aren't true. I don't want my government picking winners and losers for IRS oversight to harass people because of their political views. That's what a banana republic does. That's not what the United States of America should be doing. And so if we want to make sure that this kind of banana republic thuggish behavior doesn't continue, then we in the Congress are going to do our jobs and hold people accountable. HH: I'm not asking you to be sour grapes here, and I heard you say that. But do you believe the manipulation of the Benghazi story resulted, impacted the election outcome? PR: Well, I think, of course, I think it had impacts. I can't say whether this was, I don't know that anybody could say that it was the factor. I don't think that you could say that. But if people knew all of these facts that we now know, and there's more to find out, then, if we knew then what we know now, do I think that could have changed some opinion? Do I think that would have changed the direction of public opinion? Sure. Of course. But I can't, I have no idea whether it would have changed the outcome or not. HH: Your colleague, Devin Nunes, was on the program yesterday, and brought to my attention what I had not realized, which is the extent of this snooping on AP reached the House of Representatives. PR: Yeah. HH: And he used the wrong term. He said wiretapping. He meant snooping, because they just swept up the phone records. Does that shock you that the DOJ without a court order and on their own initiative, swept up the phone records of the House of Representatives? PR: Well, it's the Cloak Room, excuse me, it's not the Cloak room where members of Congress used the phones. They call it the Press Gallery, which is not far from the Cloak Room. It's in the same House floor, it's off the House floor. But my understanding is they took the records of the House Press Gallery AP. Members of Congress use the phones in what we call the Cloak Room. I don't think they took those records. So I don't think you could say they swept up the records of members of Congress' phone calls. They took the records of AP reporters in the House Gallery who were doing, were reporting on Congress. HH: But if they can do that, if they can go into the House, can't... PR: Yeah, look, I'm not making an excuse. I'm just trying to make sure that we're accurate here. HH: Does it trouble you? PR: Of course it troubles me. Are you kidding me? Look, this is why, again, the point I'm trying to make here is let's not think of this as just, oh gosh, some bad people at the IRS did those dumb things, and then oh, some overzealous prosecutor at the Justice Department did that, and oh, gosh, you know, some low level person at the State Department did this. We should not be thinking like that. We should be thinking this is what you get with big government in practice. This is what you get when you have a government that just has gone beyond its moorings, that has gone beyond its scope, and this is the kind of government you get with progressive politics. And that's just not in keeping with our Constitution. That's not what we deserve. We want equality under the law, and that's not what we're getting, whether we're a reporter, a taxpayer, or a citizen. HH: Congressman Paul Ryan, we will be watching the Ways And Means Committee hearing tomorrow with great, great interest. Thanks for joining us. End of interview. http://www.hughhewitt.com/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48f_1368806567 Brockk Democratic Party Marches in Washington DC 1928 Fear,Intimidation Tue, 14 May 2013 15:20:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca7_1368558366 english-patriot33 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/air-force-dumped-hundreds-remains-dead-soliders-dover-base-landfill-report-article-1.988592#ixzz2THheFuMA Air Force dumped hundreds of remains of dead soldiers from Dover base into landfill Parts of 274 heroes were incinerated and tossed in Va. dump U.S. Army soldiers carry the flag-draped transfer case containing the remains of a soldier at Dover Air Force Base in 2010. Hundreds of pieces of dead American soldiers were incinerated by Air Force officials and then dumped in a Virginia landfill, for the first time putting hard numbers on the grisly scandal that has rocked the military's largest mortuary, according to a report. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that at least 976 body parts of 274 U.S. soldiers recovered from war zones abroad were ditched in a Kings County, Va., dump after arriving at Dover Air Base between 2004 and 2008. In nearly every case, the heroes' families, which had authorized the military to handle the soldiers' remains, had no idea that their loved ones' ashes were unceremoniously trashed, the Post report said. The Air Force came clean about the practice last month after whistleblowers complained about sloppy work at Dover, the main entry for fallen soldiers coming from battlefields overseas. But it had refused to reveal how many remains went into the landfill, saying that tallying the parts and trying to match them with the more than 6,300 bodies that have passed through Dover would require "massive effort and time," one Pentagon official said, according to the Post. The Air Force finally released some numbers to the Washington newspaper this week. In addition to the remains that were matched up with dead soldiers, 1,762 unidentified remains were thrown into the landfill. In total, more than 2,700 incinerated body parts were chucked, according to Air Force records - though that number may just be the tip of the iceberg. One military widow told the Post that a mortuary official told her that the Air Force had been throwing cremated remains in landfills since at least 1996. The Air Force said it has no plans to tell the families of the soldiers' whose body parts were identified. The mortuary stopped the landfill dumping in 2008 and began burying unidentified soldiers remains at sea from aboard Navy ships. (But the dead Boston Marathon Muslim terrorist gets a grave on American soil) whats going on america? this is new to me, and very sad indeed. who gave the orders for this? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca7_1368558366 english-patriot33 Air Force dumped hundreds of remains of dead soldiers from Dover base into landfill: america, troops, imposter in the white house, Fri, 03 May 2013 18:29:54 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56b_1367619749 dcmfox For all of those who deny we subsidize fossil fuel from this post: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fed_1367612585 What is a fossil fuel subsidy? A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition-tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things . Are you looking for information about International Fossil Fuel Subsidies? Then go here. Want to take action to end fossil fuel subsidies? Sign this petition. How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies? In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below. Download your own pdf copy here. $2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012 The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running , and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips. Although the move would have been an initial step, it's just the tip of the iceberg. So called "independent" oil companies are hardly small businesses. Major integrated oil companies also include Occidental, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and dozens of others. Together, these companies produced 53.5 percent of U.S. oil in 2009 . $4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget. President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he's been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them. $10 billion. Low end credible comprehensive estimates. Several recent independent estimates of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies all arrive at roughly this number, although they consider slightly different things. Recent studies include those conducted by Management Information Services , Environmental Law Institute , and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - OECD. (The OECD numbers compiled and analyzed here .) The Sanders / Ellison "End Polluter Welfare Act" also clocks in at $11.3 billion annually. $52 billion. Highest credible comprehensive estimate. Includes some costs associated with defending pipelines and shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf. Earth Track , an NGO that specializes in subsidy valuation, estimates that annual oil, gas and coal subsidies total about $52 billion annually . As if that wasn't enough, the reality is that the fossil fuel industry has profound impacts in much bigger ways. Health . A 2009 report by the National Academy of Sciences claims that burning fossil fuels results in about $120 billion per year in health-related costs. Infrastructure spending . The US is already committed to spending at least $1.6 trillion additional dollars per year in maintenance, new vehicles and fuel. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. We build our houses and industries on the assumption of cheap electricity; those practices, codes and regulations are still embedded in our construction and manufacturing sectors. We built our power transmission lines on the assumption of large, remote power plants. Costs from climate change . The costs of accelerating climate change are staggering, and are certainly greater than the costs of ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Whatever the numbers, it seems ludicrous that any of our tax dollars would support such established and profitable industries. These energy subsidies are completely out of step with a nation that now broadly accepts the need to end our collective oil addiction and fight global warming. What are the benefits from removing fossil fuel subsidies? One of the most obvious benefits of ending fossil fuel subsidies is increasing the availability of public money. Additionally, ending excessive and wasteful support for fossil fuels would reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. The money saved from fossil fuel subsidies could be used to promote clean energy and energy efficiency alternatives, which would be in line with public opinion. A 2010 poll by Stanford University found public support for government action to increase clean energy and energy efficiency. The poll found that 84 percent are in favor of giving companies tax breaks to produce more electricity from water, wind, and solar power; 81 percent want more fuel efficient cars that use less gasoline; 80 percent want more appliances that use less electricity; and 80 percent want more home and office buildings that require less energy to heat and cool. What is the U.S. government doing to end fossil fuel subsidies? For the last several years, President Obama has proposed eliminating $4 billion in oil and gas subsidies from the U.S. budget. While these are not all the subsidies that this mature and very profitable industry enjoys , they are some of the most obvious. But Congress hasn't yet approved President Obama's budget cuts.Fossil fuel subsidies have come up in Congress - and rightly so! - in discussions of ways to cut government expenditures in order to balance the budget. In the spring of 2011, there was a push by some legislators to remove subsidies that target only the major oil companies - in particular, the "Big Five" (BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips). While this would end some of the oil subsidies, it would unfortunately exclude a number of huge companies such as Valero, Koch Industries, Occidental, Anadarko, Amerada Hess, Marathon, Murphy Oil and a number of more diversified energy companies that also produce large quantities of the nation's oil and gas. In the fall of 2011, there was some hope that fossil fuel subsidy reduction could be included in the Super Committee's proposal to Congress for $1.5 trillion in deficit-reduction measures over the next ten years. There was support in Congress for this: In an October letter to the Super Committee, 36 House Democrats urged the committee to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry that would save up to $122 billion over the next ten years. But in the end, it proved to be an uphill battle to get the Super Committee to take a stand on fossil fuel subsidies - and perhaps that's not so surprising, given the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Baucus (D-MT) , Kyl (R-AZ) , Portman (R-OH) , and Toomey (R-PA) , and Representatives Camp (R-MI) , Clyburn (D-SC) , Hensarling (R-TX) , and Upton (R-MI) . Is there any reason to be concerned about removing fossil fuel subsidies? Calls for subsidy removal tend to be answered by the oil industry and their allies with dire predictions of falling domestic production, loss of jobs, and rising gas prices. But the reality is that removing fossil fuel subsidies (which the industry deceptively calls new taxes) will have little to no impact on domestic production, jobs, or prices at the pump. According to the Treasury Department , removing the domestic subsidies as proposed in the President's budget would reduce U.S. oil production less than one half of one percent, and will increase exploration and production costs less than two percent. Considering the price that the domestic industry receives for crude has more than doubled over the past several years, the industry can afford that - without laying anyone off or jacking up the price at the pump. The global oil market, not the domestic industry, determines gas prices. Treasury estimates that subsidy removal would cause a loss of less than one tenth of one percent in global oil supply, and thus would have no impact on global or U.S. prices. The only way to end our reliance on foreign oil is to end our dependence on all oil. How come there's such a big range in estimates of fossil fuel subsidies? First, accounting methods and exact definitions of subsidies vary. Second, while environmental and consumer groups tend to calculate the total amount of revenue to the American taxpayer that these subsidies cost, others note that "many subsidies have a higher value to recipients than their direct cost to the government." In other words, the higher values are more indicative of the corporate welfare given to the already highly profitable oil industry annually, while the more conservative figures are a better estimate of how much the elimination of these subsidies would save the U.S. taxpayer. Finally, some of the highest estimates include a portion of defense spending (more info on defense subsidies to oil here and here ). It should be noted that while the estimate of $53 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually does include some of the cost of U.S. military "defense" of the Persian Gulf region, it does not specifically incorporate any increase in defense spending relating to Iraq , or any quantification of the environmental externalities associated with oil. And none of the amounts cited include fossil fuel subsidies in the form of international aid, which is explained in greater detail on this page .While the estimates of how much subsidies are worth varies, estimates of the relative levels of funding of energy types are consistent. The chart from Environmental Law Institute on the right illustrates that the vast majority of subsidies still go to fossil fuels. What can I do to help end fossil fuel subsidies in the United States? So how do we transform oil companies into energy companies and jumpstart the new energy economy? The first step is a Separation of Oil & State - including an end to governmental subsidies to Big Oil and an investment in renewable energy alternatives and energy efficiency instead. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56b_1367619749 dcmfox Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S. Fossil Fuel, Subsidies, U.S. Fri, 03 May 2013 00:39:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2e_1367555793 JMate Government lies are legion. So many are its lies, that narrowing them down to three of the most important is a demanding task. But our current crisis has been chiefly enabled by monetary policy, fiscal policy, and the global military empire. So I have chosen to focus on lies about each: the Federal Reserve, the orchestrator of monetary policy; the U.S. budget, the accounting of government fiscal policy; and a few of the Empire's war lies. I am sharing just a smattering of this astonishing record of duplicity in these areas, for life is short, or at least far too short to recount all of the state's lies about each. Lie #1: The Federal Reserve Is a Bank Practically everything the government says about banking is a lie. Central banks are not banks. The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, is not a bank. A bank is a company in the free economy that competes with other banks offering willing customers a safe place to make deposits and earn an interest rate return, while also competing to offer loans from those deposits to willing borrowers. Central banks are government-created bureaucracies that do nothing of the sort. The Federal Reserve is typical of central banks. It is not a free market institution in which people willingly make deposits. Instead, it wields monopoly power over actual banks. In place of managing deposits and loans of its own, it creates money out of nothing by a variety of means including debt monetization, in which it buys government debt by simply creating a credit in the account of a commercial bank with nothing more than a booking entry. This is an act made possible only by the state's grant of a legal monopoly empowering the central bank to do what, if done by a private bank, would be a crime called counterfeiting. Central banks thus have the ability to unilaterally boom and bust their economies at will. And they have done so throughout their history, either to the benefit of the commercial bank cartels, in response to political pressure, or because of outright economic ineptitude . Writing at Lew Rockwell.com about the myth that the Federal Reserve is a "bank," and independent, finance professor Michael Rozeff describes a central bank as a government's "fiat money bureau." "It is held up by the force of government law and power. It is imposed on the public." The representation of them as actual banks produces confusion in which central banks are said to earn "profits." For example, a January, 2012 Federal Reserve press release reporting its "earnings," announced $76.9 billion in 2011 net income. This was described in the New York Times and the Financial Times as the Fed's "profits," just as though it were the annual report of any commercial bank's profits. Yet in what sense does the Fed show a "profit" or have "earnings"? It is as inappropriate as describing the collections of the Internal Revenue Service as "profits." Where are these Federal Reserve "profits" derived? They are the result of printing new dollars to buy assets; that is, they are the result of diluting the purchasing power of every dollar you or anyone else has. It is not any different than a dairy watering down 100 gallons of milk to sell 110 gallons. It is fraud. But it is a fraud legalized by act of Congress. But the Federal Reserve is not alone. Another non-bank is the World Bank which loans money to governments and government enterprises. The World Bank has been a useful place to pasture failed U.S. government warmongers like the disastrous Vietnam War Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara and Iraq war co-author Paul Wolfowitz. Both were named World Bank presidents even as their deadly wars raged on. The World Bank gets almost all of its money by way of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD),( also not a bank), which gets its money from taxes, the largest share coming from the American people. The IBRD also sells World Bank bonds, but they too are guaranteed by taxpayers. American tax dollars go to other multi-national organizations such as the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. None of which are banks. Lie #2: War Lies Governments and politicians lies incessantly about war. They lie about the cause of war. They lie about the threat of war. They lie about the cost of war. And they lie about their lies about war. Governments lie relentlessly about war. Just in the last fifty years the people have been lied to about U.S. government wars from Vietnam to Iraq. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, a purported attack on U.S. ships by North Vietnam off its coast, was used by President Johnson (an "unprovoked" attack he told the nation) to win legislative authority, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for a war in Vietnam. But it was an incident that did not happen and Johnson knew it even as he escalated Vietnam into the full-blown blood bath it became. "Hell," he told his secretary of state just a few days after the resolution passed, "those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish!" Lying is so intrinsic to the nature of government, that even the truth about old lies is concealed to protect new lies. In 2001, a National Security Agency study found that officials had actually doctored documents in covering up the truth about the Tonkin Gulf incident, the bogus war pretext that led to the needless deaths of millions of human beings. But the new report of that old cover-up was itself delayed for years for fear that it's release would cast doubt on the intelligence that the Bush administrations was using to justify an invasion of Iraq. In the case of the Iraq war, not only did defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld lie about knowing where the non-existent weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq ("We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."), in a later exchange with my friend former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern, Rumsfeld even denied he had made such a claim. "Simply stated," Dick Cheney said of the mythical WMDs in August of 2002, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." "We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there." "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is determined to make more." The government can be counted on to lie about the costs of war. Lawrence Lindsey, a Bush administration economist, was fired for suggesting in advance that the Iraq war would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Although estimates in the trillions of dollars would have been closer, Rumsfeld called Lindsey's estimate "baloney." The government tries to conceal spending by keeping it off the budget books with supplementary, appropriations and emergency measures. It even spreads war costs off of the defense department budget and into the budget of other departments such as state and energy. I have written more about government's war lies in my new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America's Free Economy, but must finish the point here with a reminder of the government's lies about the case of Jessica Lynch, and about the way the government lied about the killing of Pat Tillman and even lied about lying about its lies about his death. Private Lynch was a 19-year-old clerk when her company was ambushed in Iraq after taking a wrong turn. She suffered injuries when her Humvee overturned and was taken by Iraqi soldiers to a nearby hospital. Although she suffered injuries when her Humvee overturned, "U.S. officials" reported that Lynch had gone down fighting and had been both shot and stabbed in action, and later even slapped around as he was interrogated on her hospital bed. The truth is she had no such wounds. She had never fired her weapon, and, by her own account, was well cared for in the Iraqi hospital. Although the Iraqi doctor who had cared for her tried himself to turn her over to the Americans, the Pentagon, with a propaganda campaign in mind and camera's rolling, staged a dramatic raid from helicopters to "rescue" Lynch. The video was edited up in no time and released by a Pentagon anxious to have a heroic feel-good war narrative to relate. But of course the Pentagon refused a request to release the full video of the "rescue" to clear up discrepancies in its account. While the Pentagon is perfectly capable of lying on its own initiative, members of congress pressured the Pentagon to award Lynch the Medal of Honor, even before an investigation was complete, saying it would be "good for women in the military." Pat Tillman, killed in action in Afghanistan, was posthumously awarded the Silver Star, a combat honor given for valor in action against an enemy. But there was no encounter with the enemy. Tillman was shot to death by his fellow soldiers. This was carefully concealed with fraudulent accounts of the incident. Senior commanders' prints were all over the cover-up about Tillman's death. General John Abizaid approved the Silver Star despite knowing within days of Tillman's death that he had been shot by "friendly fire." Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal cited Tillman for actions "in the line of devastating enemy fire," but the very next day sent a confidential memo about the fratricide to senior government officials including Abizaid warning them to protect themselves and President Bush from embarrassment in the episode. Tillman's family charged the military with repeatedly lying to them about his death and about its investigation, as it delayed accounts of his friendly fire death until after a nationally televised memorial service orchestrated by the Bush administration. By one account, his fellow soldiers were even told to lie to the family at Tillman's funeral. Tillman's enlistment in the army after the 9/11 attacks was a national sensation. A good looking NFL player, Tillman gave up a multi-million dollar football career to join up. Thanks to his popularity, he was like a recruiting poster for the military. His father claimed that it was this usefulness to the military that helped drive the cover-up. "They purposely interfered with the investigation, they covered it up. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out. They blew up their poster boy." Apparently the original cover-up, in which his comrades even burned the evidence of his body armor and uniform, was itself covered up. Lt. Gen. Philip Kensinger was censured by the army for lying to investigators about Tillman's death. Pat's mother, Mary Tillman, said that Kensinger was just a scapegoat. "There are a lot of people who played a role in this and they are getting off without any punishment." She singled out Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Gen. John Abizaid by name. The government not only lies about war, it routinely lies about its lies about war. Lie #3: The Real U.S. Debt This may be the most brazen and transparent lie of all, the one about the U.S. national debt, now over $15 trillion dollars. It is a number that hides the severity of our situation. Washington acts as though that is the real debt of the nation. Politicians posture for weeks at a time about it, devoting long debates to raising the ceiling on this visible portion of the national debt. And yet the real federal debt is much, much larger and like an iceberg below the water line, most of it is hidden out of sight. And like the Titanic, Republicans and Democrats have the country headed for a tragic collision with economic reality. Each year the federal government makes new promises and takes on trillions in new financial obligations that do not show up in the visible, official national debt. The persistent growth of these hidden debts each year far outpaces the increases in the visible debt. In 2010 for example, the visible federal debt grew by an astonishing $1.5 trillion. But the hidden debt - out of sight and without debate - grew by more than $5 trillion! When a private business takes on an obligation to pay something, it is required to report it as a liability. It shows up on the books. Not so for the state. This allows politicians to blithely make promises without adequate revenue to pay for them. It is easy to understand why this practice should persist. Giving things to constituents feels good. Making them pay for those things causes politicians to suffer pain. Like most living creatures, politicians like to feel good and avoid pain. So when they add to the obligations of the state, when politicians make commitments for the future or promise entitlements like Social Security and Medicare to win re-election, the means to pay are often inadequate. But there is no such thing as a free lunch, which is to say, that the cost will have to be borne eventually by somebody. For the time being though, the preferred political expediency is keeping the costs, the liabilities, off the books. Unfunded liabilities are the difference between a program's projected costs and its projected revenues, both valued in today's dollars. Medicare and Social Security both have promised benefits that outrace revenue streams. They are the largest components of the government's unfunded liabilities, the hidden debt of the nation. But there are other federal retirement programs with not merely inadequate funding like Medicare and Social Security, but with no revenue streams of their own at all. Among them are retirement programs for military and federal workers. In September 2011, USA Today analyzed dozens of overlapping programs for retired federal workers. It reported that despite the existing debt crisis, Congress continues to add to the promised benefits, so that retirement programs now have a $5.7 trillion unfunded liability. The newspaper sums up its report on the retirement programs this way: Private employers are legally required to put money into pension funds to match retirement promises. Private pensions have $2.3 trillion in stocks, bonds, real estate and other assets. State and local governments have $3 trillion in retirement funds. The federal government has nothing set aside. The total unfunded liabilities of the U.S. government have been calculated with a number of present value and discount models. Results of the shortfall from these methods range from about $70 trillion to $120 trillion dollars. For a family of four this represents a liability between $900,000 and $1.5 million. (You can follow the debt as it adds up at http://www.USdebt.org.) What does the state say about its unfunded liabilities? Here's a response from the Congressional Budget Office, which answers, "... no government obligation can be truly considered 'unfunded' because of the U.S. government's sovereign power to tax - which is the ultimate resource to meet its obligations." That is utter hooey. It conjures up an absurdity in which the government could meet its obligation by sending you a Social Security check, even as it raises a tax to take 100 percent of everything you get from Social Security. The reason that is an absurdity is that it is a two-step process to do what the government will do in just one step. By means either overt (legislative act) or covert (currency destruction), it will unilaterally reduce its "obligation," leaving millions of people betrayed. Because it is the government. And it lies about its obligations. Just like it lies about everything else. January 27, 2012 Charles Goyette is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown: Surviving the Impending Currency Crisis with Gold, Oil, and Other Unconventional Investments, now available in paperback. And coming in February 2012, Charles Goyette's Freedom & Prosperity Letter. His new book Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America's Free Economy will be released March 15. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a2e_1367555793 JMate The Three Biggest Lies the Government Is Telling You The Three Biggest Lies the Government Is Telling You Thu, 02 May 2013 16:08:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=428_1367525190 NYork54 By Kevin Barret In my recent article "Chavez: Another CIA assassination victim?" I argued that when the top six anti-US-empire leaders in Latin America all get cancer at the same time, it isn't just coincidence. The US government, and its bankster owners, have been overthrowing and/or murdering the best leaders in Latin America, and the world, for decades. Iran's Mossadegh, Guatemala's Arbenz, the Dominican Republic's Trujillo and Bosch, Ecuador's Velasco and Roldos, Zaire's Lumumba, Indonesia's Sukarno, Cambodia's Sahounek, Chile's Allende, and Panama's Torrijos are just a few examples. The same killers, and the institutional forces they represent, murder the best American leaders too. John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Paul Wellstone are notable victims. Two excellent books have appeared in recent years proving, to any reasonable reader, that a shadow government working through the CIA, FBI, and organized crime killed JFK and Dr. King. Those books are JFK and the Unspeakable by James Douglass, and An Act of State by William Pepper. When the most powerful empire on earth insists on resolving disputes through murder, rather than reasoned dialogue, that empire has become a cancer on the world. The US government's "kill first, ask questions later" policy is exemplified by its drone attacks on political opponents. Senator Lindsey Graham recently admitted that the US has murdered more than 4,700 political opponents around the world in drone strikes. One of them, Anwar al-Awlaki - a US citizen whose criticisms of the US government were factually correct and morally justified - was silenced not by counter-arguments (apparently there are none) but by a drone strike on his house. His teenage son was also murdered. Mr. al-Awlaki had not even been accused of any crime, much less charged or convicted. He was killed for one reason and one reason only: To silence his eloquent voice. The Empire's preference for killing over dialogue is obvious to anyone who compares the current US military budget to those of other countries. The US spends $711 billion per year on organized mass killing (i.e., the military). The combined total for China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, and Canada is only $695 billion annually. And the official US military budget of $711 billion is just the tip of the iceberg. A gigantic "black budget" funded by bankers like the Rothschilds, whose net worth is said to be over $100 trillion, using leveraged criminal activity including the $1.5-trillion-per-year money laundering industry, pushes the real annual cost of empire into the trillions. It is these black budget funds, not official military budgets, that are used to build the most advanced and secret killing technologies - the kind of technologies that were recently employed to afflict the Empire's six leading Latin American enemies with cancer. This gargantuan outlay on the Empire's killing machine is a huge drain on the planet's resources. And it isn't just the US murder budgets, official and unofficial, that suck the life-blood of the planet. The US war budget forces other countries to hemorrhage their own money on death and destruction. Other nations would spend vastly less on defense if the US were not constantly threatening, bullying, and invading sovereign nations all over the world...while selling weapons to its puppet "friends" and slaughtering its more principled "enemies." Obviously, the American exceptionalists are correct. The United States of America is an exceptional country: It is exceptionally evil. But when they say America is the one indispensable country, they are wrong. That would be like saying that a cancerous tumor is the most indispensable part of the body. The US bankster empire needs to be surgically removed from the face of the planet. How did the USA, once a self-proclaimed light unto the world, become a festering tumor? Before 9/11, American policy had a certain balance: Alongside its psychopathic imperial behavior were occasional flashes of genuine concern for human rights, democracy, and other humanitarian ideals. But then on 9/11 - as the neocon propagandists never cease to remind us - everything changed. Human rights, and the US Constitution itself, were thrown into the proverbial dustbin of history. The USA became like Mordor in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: An empire of pure, unadulterated evil. One of the world's leading moral philosophers, John McMurtry of the University of Guelph, has brilliantly analyzed this process. In his essay "The Moral Decoding of 9-11" Professor McMurtry argues that the seeds of evil were planted long before 9/11 brought them to fruition. He describes the murderous "morality" of empire as follows: "The moral thought system (of the US-bankster empire) is not unlike that of Mein Kampf without the racist rant, camouflaged everywhere in practice by the method of big lies - 'noble lies' as Strauss exalts them. The innermost value driver is a perpetual war of dispossession of the weaker for the private transnational money-capital multiplication of the rich." John McMurtry sees 9/11 as the epitome of the Straussian neoconservative philosophy, which exalts bullying, murder, and the big lie, and scorns reasoned dialogue and cooperation. What McMurtry doesn't say is that the Straussian neoconservative takeover of the USA on 9/11 was a coup d''etat by Israel against America. The Israelis rely on lies and murder, and scorn reasoned dialogue, for a very good reason: The existence of the apartheid Zionists in Palestine cannot be successfully defended by reasoned argument. Its only defense is mendacity, torture, and mass slaughter. By contrast, America's core values - individual liberty, religious and ethnic pluralism, democratic republicanism, equality of opportunity, and the rule of law - can only be defended by reasoned dialogue. "Defended" by big lies and mass murder, these values die an abject death. Will planet earth ever be cured of its two biggest cancerous tumors, the US and Israeli empires? Will the USA return to its core values and abandon its attempt to dominate the planet? I believe that this planetary cancer can be cured - but only through a very painful treatment: The official, public establishment of the truth about 9/11. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=428_1367525190 NYork54 The United States of Murder: A cancer on the world The United States of Murder: A cancer on the world Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:56:54 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab7_1367185649 Hitler_Is_Amazing (ONE opinion of the events in Boston that day. Personally I am still trying to make my own mind up about whether the government is telling the truth or not. Since absolutely nothing the government might do could surprise me, including a nuclear mushroom cloud visible out my window one day - I'm not willing to rule out ANY explanation for the sad, nakedly evil and tragic events of that terrible day in Boston. (If you want to tar me with the same brush/shoot the messenger/any other metaphor/ in the comments, feel free, i have a troll icon already so there's nothing i can say in reply that will affect anything ~Love, Hitler) From the OP: In this video we are going to demonstrate that at the very minimum the authorities had prior knowledge of the attack and allowed it to happen, and this is only the tip of the iceberg... Sources: Private Contractors on scene before bombing: http://www.globalresearch.ca/contract... http://www.smh.com.au/world/chilling-... Tsarnev parents say sons were framed: http://rt.com/usa/tsarnaev-brothers-p... http://www.minds.com/blog/view/53725/... Obama guts the STOCK act: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-o... CISPA Passes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04... U.S. Government Preparing for Collapse and not in a nice way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkAn3V... Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfkZ1y... U.S. Government buying up billions of rounds of hollow point ammo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4Nxa3... In Wake of Boston Attack, Lautenberg to Reintroduce Legislation Requiring Background Checks for Sale of Explosive Powder: http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/news... Tsarnaev alive and handcuffed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=... Try watching the entire video before you're off about "tin foil hat troofers who are crazy and belong in mental institutions and/or being shot etc." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ab7_1367185649 Hitler_Is_Amazing Boston Bombing: What You Aren't Being Told boston marathon bombing, conspiracy Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:55:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=332_1366501915 cathy winslow Russia's resort city of Sochi is hosting the World Junior Hockey Championship, which started Thursday. The opening game between Russia and the USA was marked with a minute's silence following the Boston bombings and the Texan explosion. Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the event in Iceberg Skating Palace with a speech paying respect to those killed and injured. Putin offered his condolences to the American people: "Our opponents team for today's match came from a country that had recently experienced horrible tragedies that claimed people's lives. I would like to express my deepest condolences to all people of the United States, all the injured and the families of the dead." After the speech, Putin announced a minute of silence to honour dead victims. The Boston marathon bombing killed three people and injured more than 100. America experienced further shock and mourning with the explosion Waco, Texas, where up to 15 lost their lives. http://www.ruptly.tv/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=332_1366501915 cathy winslow Russia: Putin pays respect to American dead at start of tournament russia hockey.waco,boston marathon,Putin Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:23:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1366064382 SAPD_HRT Painted as radicals and racists by some, this organization of law enforcement officers and military vets says its only purpose is to uphold the Constitution. It started with Katrina. The sight of U.S. military troops, law enforcement officers, and armed government contractors seizing firearms from citizens in the aftermath of that terrible storm shocked the conscience of Yale constitutional law scholar Stewart Rhodes. That these actions were later recognized as wrong by the U.S. Supreme Court did little to assuage Rhodes' concerns. The fact remained that an illegal precedent had taken place, and could well occur again; indeed, it appeared that that the seeds sown in Louisiana might not only take root, but germinate elsewhere, as well. After witnessing what he saw as an unconstitutional outrage in the wake of Katrina, Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers, an organization for peace officers and soldiers who adhere strictly to the letter of the Constitution and swear not to obey any orders that they believe to be unconstitutional. The Oath Keepers are essentially a reflection of American political thought in the 21st century. How they are perceived is determined by the ideological bent of the beholder. Lionized by some leading conservatives and libertarians, they have been attacked from the left as radical patriots, tea partyers, birthers, 9/11 truthers, nativists, and racists. The Southern Poverty Law Center has even mentioned them in the same reports that analyze hate groups and white supremacy movements. Defending History Oath Keeper founder and president Rhodes says his organization merely stands for a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights, which service members and law enforcement officers swear to uphold. He also believes one of the primary purposes for his organization is to educate officers and military personnel about the laws they've promised to defend. Rhodes' perspective is that the officers' actions after Katrina and other unconstitutional excesses by officers are a matter of ignorance at work. Whether it is institutionalized or willed ignorance is immaterial, he says. "An honorable man who is doing his very best necessarily becomes knowledgeable," Rhodes observes. "Because if you don't know what's right or wrong, you can be an honest person with great integrity and courage and still do the wrong thing." According to Rhodes, the Oath Keepers' mission is simply to get back to basics-to ensure that at least part of the country's constituency knows and understands the Constitution and its ideological underpinnings to a sufficient degree that they refrain from violating its tenets out of ignorance, apathy, or fear of political reprisal. "It's not about finding like-minded officers," says the former Yale history instructor and public defender. "It's about creating people who are knowledgeable about the Constitution. What we're trying to do is cure the dumbing down Americans have gotten from the schools. They're not taught history and they're not taught the Constitution. I can't tell you how many times I've talked to rank and file military officers who haven't read the Constitution. Police officers, too. Have they read the Federalist Papers? The writings of the Founders? It's very rare. That's what we're trying to do: Simply show the intentional ignorance of the American population." Rhodes-whose 2004 Yale Law School paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status," won the school's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights-says the root of the problem lies within our country's basic curricula. But he also believes there is a silver lining to be found in addressing this deficiency: It's easier when the person reading the Bill of Rights isn't approaching it with notions instilled in them by revisionists. Tip of the Spear Rhodes, a disabled Army paratrooper, determined very quickly that he wanted his grassroots organization to work with the men and women serving in the trenches of law enforcement and the military. "We focus on the guys at the tip of the spear, the ones who will be giving the orders," Rhodes says. "The big concern we have is if we have a legion of oath breakers and traitors in Washington, D.C., who have utter contempt for the Constitution then all they care about is power. They just do whatever they think they can get away with." Rhodes quickly gained the attention of like-minded officers. "In late 2008 I heard on the Internet about the group forming, so I e-mailed Stewart to get more information," says Oath Keeper board member and law enforcement officer John Shirley. "Shortly after that, I had a conference call with him and some other founding members and discovered the group was exactly the kind of organization I had felt was needed for several years." Shirley got involved and was soon asked to serve as the Texas Chapter's vice president. Less than a year after joining the organization, Shirley addressed a 5,000-member strong Tea Party rally in San Antonio with a speech that was to become a model for future Oath Keepers calls to arms. By July 2010, Shirley was appointed Texas Chapter President and later National Peace Officer Liaison, and he now serves on the organization's board of directors. Patriot Movement Since the birth of the organization, Oath Keepers' members have found themselves subject to all manner of suspicion and labeling, and repeated criticism by the anti-Klan Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which cites the Oath Keepers as "a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." Responding to the SPLC report on the Lou Dobbs radio show, Rhodes said, "They think the word 'patriot' is a smear." The intent of the SPLC and other critics like the Anti-Defamation League is to characterize the Oath Keepers as a bunch of Timothy McVeigh wannabes. And unfortunately for those who defend the group, there are some fringe elements that are not so much pro-Bill of Rights as anti-government. One Oath Keeper, a former naval officer, actually participated in a plot to take over a Tennessee courthouse to free a man who was arrested for trying to enforce a citizen's arrest on a judicial official who refused to investigate President Barack Obama's citizenship. There are also elements in the group's "Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey" that smack to some of black helicopter globalist paranoia. Rhodes says the list doesn't mean the Oath Keepers believe all of these actions are imminent, merely that they will refuse to participate in them should they happen. Perhaps the criticism that makes Rhodes bristle most is any insinuation that Oath Keepers promote white supremacy. Opining on the Oath Keepers, a visitor to the SPLC Website asserted that its members are "nothing but the Ku Klux Klan with a new name and without the silly robes and pointed caps." Oath Keepers refutes such charges formally as evidenced by its bylaws and informally by the demographic of its membership. Rhodes himself says he is one-quarter Mexican and part Apache. Freedom of Speech Rhodes also laments that Oath Keepers has borne the brunt of attacks from Democrats simply because that party currently occupies the White House. "That is the unfortunate reality of our political system," he notes. "When your party is in political power and anybody criticizes them, you attack." The mission of Oath Keepers crosses political boundaries, he says. "I support the Constitution. I don't like oath breakers, whether they're Republicans or Democrats." While the organization's stance on the Second Amendment has garnered the lion's share of media-related attention revolving around the Oath Keepers, it is another amendment that looms ever larger as a barrier against the organization communicating its message. Many active law enforcement officers find their First Amendment rights cramped by their employing agencies. In some cases, such suppression is due to strict departmental regulations barring officers from voicing personal opinions about law enforcement in public forums, whether printed in newspapers and magazines or posted online in social media. In other cases, the lack of a clear policy may lead officers to err on the side of self-suppression. In either instance, many officers are fearful to stand up and openly voice their opinions. Because of the restrictive policies of many law enforcement agencies, Shirley finds it difficult to believe that "there are officers out there who are working the streets, fighting crime, protecting the public who, when they hang up the uniform at night, can't exercise their basic rights under the First Amendment." As an active duty police officer with the Houston Police Department, Shirley clearly and repeatedly states that when he advocates for Oath Keepers, he does so as a private citizen and not as a representative of his department. In doing so, he is careful to act within the department's policy. In Shirley's estimation, "Just because you wear a badge doesn't mean you surrender your First Amendment rights. I look at it like departments should not try to squash the First Amendment rights of their officers and step all over the fact that because they happen to carry a badge doesn't mean you hang up your constitutional rights so you retire. That's a very unethical and a very dangerous place to go for an agency." Eroding Rights In recent months, the Oath Keepers have argued against what they say are new and alarming overtures by the Obama administration. While the need for greater intelligence sharing between law enforcement and military parties is a legitimate one, the melding of their responsibilities through interventionary operations relating to homeland security and narcotic investigations further elevates Rhodes' concerns. High on the Oath Keepers' list of concerns is Eric Holder's stumping for the usage of drones on domestic targets and the drumbeat for gun confiscation among some liberal political camps. "They don't understand that they are putting police officers on a collision course with veterans and gun owners in their communities," notes Shirley. "The Oath Keepers' message for both sides is to not to bleed for corrupt politicians. That means that police officers have to refuse to use force." The Oath Keepers believe that what they see as the transgressions against the Constitution committed under both Bush's and Obama's watch will encourage Americans to educate themselves as to the true breadth of their rights and to re-examine their society. "Educate yourself," advises Shirley. "The main impetus of the education you got in whatever police academy you've been through has been liability control for whatever agency you work for. Educate yourself on the Constitution. Educate yourself on the founders. Educate yourself on what is expected of you on the street vs. what the Constitution says. If you apply what the Constitution says, you're not going to get crossways with the people or in most cases your department. It's errant policies and errant oath breakers and politicians who are going to push you to do things that you've never done before. Trust your gut and educate yourself on what you really swore to that day you held your hand up and swore an oath. Be prepared to stand up for what you believe in and what you swore an oath to." Rhodes and Shirley are reaching out to active law enforcement officers to help spread the word and renew their oaths to uphold the ideals within the Constitution. "One guy at the right place at the right time can make all the difference for an entire unit," says Rhodes. "It's nice to have police officers use their quiet discretion and make it known within their communities that they are on your side. But it's also critically important for the tip of the iceberg to be there too. There are very vocal and very public peace officers who step up and risk their careers like John is doing to say there are people among us who understand the Constitution and will not do this." In the meantime, Rhodes sees the organization as a means of preventing confrontations and de-escalating situations both through finding common ground with less predictable sources and mitigating the prospects for needlessly precipitous actions by law enforcement administrators. "It helps the people feel more secure," explains Rhodes. "Because what other securities do they have? If they can't rely on the politicians to not trample on their rights in the first place, and they can't rely on the judges to fix it, they have to have some reliance that the police officers are not going to do it." 10 Orders Oath Keepers Swear to Disobey We will not obey any order to disarm the American people. We will not obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects-such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons. We will not obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunals. We will not obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor. We will not obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union. We will not obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. We will not obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. We will not obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war. We will not obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext. We will not obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b5c_1366064382 SAPD_HRT Who Are the Oath Keepers? First Amendment, Gun Rights Advocacy, Military-related, Oath Keepers, U.S. Supreme Court Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:33:18 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=edc_1366006397 Baron_Kaz I am an American Indian. And it hurts and pains me to write this about a country from which my people come from. But I am glad, I am no longer associated with it. India is laying claim to honors and felicitations, as the world's largest democracy, a history of compliance to UN resolutions, relatively staying calm, and doing a balancing act between the global powers. While there are articles rife about it being one of the vibrant BRIC nations, it couldn't be further from the truth. A country bereft of any infrastructure, where the development is concentrated on the urban rich, while the rural poor live in conditions akin to war-torn African countries. In the Wiki leaks of the US Embassy cables from the 1970's, I quote: "It is impossible in any single message to give a description of the extent and modalities of corruption in India. Entire books have been written on this subject and there is little doubt but that these only dealt with the tip of the iceberg." "Corruption in India affects virtually every transaction of any size, domestic and external. ... One could easily come to the cynical conclusion that there is a direct and positive relationship between laws against corruption and the extent of corruption itself, i.e., each such law only means that there are more people to bribe," Things haven't changed. Recently, in Jan 2013 "Denied admission by two government hospitals, a woman died on Friday after giving birth to twins on the pavement, bringing the state-run medical setup under the scanner yet again for alleged negligence" http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Kolkata/Kolkata-woman-gives-birth-on-road-dies-after-no-admission-by-hospitals/Article1-796738.aspx And now again: "A 27 year old pregnant woman, gave birth to a child at a bus stop, when denied admission to a free Government run hospital, since she could not pay the bribe to be admitted to it." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/Turned-out-by-hospital-woman-delivers-on-road/articleshow/19552642.cms Indian people have no spine, no back bone.... they do not stand up for their own rights. And they do nothing to defend their own weak and helpless, au contraire, they exploit their own needy. If Indians can behave thus with other Indians, how do they expect the world to behave with them any differently? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=edc_1366006397 Baron_Kaz India : drowned in corruption. RIP India, corruption Wed, 10 Apr 2013 11:35:30 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=154_1365607842 Value343 Certainly explains why many of the british users on this site are so miserable, bitter and angry all the time :)( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9577235/British-workers-most-depressed-in-Europe.html British workers 'most depressed in Europe' British workers are the most depressed in Europe, according to a report that claims a quarter of employees here have been diagnosed with the affliction. While 26 per cent of British workers have received a diagnosis, only 12 per cent of their Italian colleagues have, found the Impact of Depression in the Workplace in Europe Audit. We are also among the most likely to take time off work due to depression, and spender longer than average on sick leave - 41 days compared to the European mean of 36. Across Europe, one in 10 workers has taken time off for depression, found the survey. Dr Vincenzo Costigliola, president of the European Depression Association said "The results of the IDEA survey show that much needs to be done in raising awareness and supporting employees and employers in recognising and managing depression in the workplace." Britain's position at the top of league of worker depression may be due in part to awareness and diagnosis being better here than in other countries. Emer O'Neill, chief executive of the charity Depression Alliance, said: "We've got much better over the last six or seven years in this country at identifying depression. "People themselves have got better at recognising it, and doctors have got better at diagnosing it and supporting patients. "From our perspecive, we are having much more contact with employers, which is a good thing." As a result she believed the results of teh survey were to be welcomed, as she thought the real incidence of depression was relatively uniform across Europe. However, despite recent changes, she thought that those diagnosed were "still only the tip of the iceberg" and many more struggled on in isolation, with some employees worried that admitting to depression would harm their career prospects. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=154_1365607842 Value343 UN report finds British Subjects the MOST DEPRESSED PEOPLE in Europe... uk, britain, british, subjects, peasants, slaves, most, depressed, in, europe Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:44:25 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc1_1364657532 Ratiocinator Philip Wollen addresses the St James Ethics and the Wheeler Centre debate - tell us in the comments what you think Please watch the whole debate via http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmNED7GJLY7I&session_token=isOXRaTqEzZWgphIt1j4XcDNiVp8MTM2NDY3MTIwNEAxMzY0NjU2ODA0 Source: http://youtu.be/uQCe4qEexjc The facts presented in this video are only the tip of the iceberg of human shame. They cannot be reationally dismissed, only irrationally rationalized away due to wilful delusion/ignorance and stupidity. I would be surprised if this video doesn't attract the sort of rabid response from deranged corpse-crunchers and hunt scum that would put fundamentalist Muslim preachers to shame. Let's get informed, do the right thing, and evolve out of the mire. Go vegan for your health, for the environment, and to end animal cruelty once and for all. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc1_1364657532 Ratiocinator Amazing speech on animal rights by former VP of Citibank Philip wollen, animal rights, vegan, vegetarian, health, diet, environment, ethics, morality, sanity Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:09:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=029_1364313611 CaptainJamaicanNinja A choirmaster has been jailed for sexually abusing a former pupil who killed herself after giving evidence against him. Michael Brewer, 68, was convicted last month of indecently assaulting Frances Andrade, 48, when she was a student at Chetham's School of Music in Manchester. The mother-of-four from Guildford, Surrey, gave evidence against him in his trial at Manchester Crown Court but a week later she took her own life before the jury reached its verdicts. Today, Brewer was jailed for six years while his ex-wife, Kay, 68, was also jailed for 21 months after she was convicted of indecently assaulting Mrs Andrade when she was 18. Sentencing him, Judge Martin Rudland said Brewer had used his 'powerful position' to groom Mrs Andrade. 'You have had an impressive career but that is now at an end,' he said. 'Sadly there is another side to you and it is this. You were, and you may still be, a predatory sex offender. Of that let no-one be in any doubt.' Brewer, of Selly Oak, Birmingham, was convicted of five counts of indecently assaulting his victim when she was 14 and 15 and known as Frances Shorney. The abuse took place in his office and in his camper van, which he used to drive her out of the school grounds and get her to perform oral sex on him. He was cleared of raping Mrs Andrade when she was 18 at his then home in Chorlton, Manchester. Keen churchgoer Kay Brewer, of Rossendale, Lancashire, was cleared of aiding and abetting the alleged rape but convicted of one count of indecent assault against the complainant - said to have taken place on the same night as the alleged rape. Brewer, who was awarded an OBE for services to music in 1995, resigned as music director at Chetham's at the end of 1994 after his affair with another pupil, then aged 17, was uncovered. But the affair was hushed up, the court heard, and Brewer went on to become the artistic director of the National Youth Choirs of Britain, to direct the World Youth Choir, serve as an adjudicator in international competitions and lead BBC workshops for the programme Last Choir Standing in 2008. One of his ensembles at the National Youth Choir gave a private performance to the Queen at Balmoral in 2007. Mrs Andrade, a brilliant violinist and mother of four, did not live to see Brewer and his wife, Kay, jailed today. She committed suicide midway through January's trial. Her version of events had been dismissed as 'lies' and 'fantasy' during cross-examination by Brewer's female barrister. Her 21-year-old son Oliver, a student at Cambridge University, said she gave evidence because she wanted to help others. 'As far as she was concerned, her case was the tip of the iceberg,' said 'She knew about others who had been treated like she had and she wanted that to come out.' Following the verdicts, the family of Mrs Andrade said they believed the court system had let her down and criticised the judicial process. Oliver said: 'Being repeatedly called a "liar" and a "fantasist" about a horrific part of her life in front of a court challenged her personal integrity and was more than even she could bear.'. Detective Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle, of Greater Manchester Police, said: 'Firstly I want to pass on my condolences to the family of Frances Andrade. 'This has been a well publicised case with her tragic death widely reported. 'The judicial process was somewhat thrust upon her when the matter was reported to police by a friend and I must credit Frances' bravery in facing her abusers head on in court and supporting the prosecution. 'It is heartbreaking that she is not able to see she has been vindicated for the bravery she consistently showed, which has today ended with the Brewers being sentenced and brought to justice. 'A lot has been said about the support mechanisms in place for Frances and other victims of sexual abuse and I want to make it clear that it is Greater Manchester Police's policy and practice to encourage victims to seek whatever support they need. 'As a force GMP has a dedicated Public Protection Division which investigates such matters thoroughly and compassionately. My officers are specially trained in supporting victims and are trained in how best to conduct sex abuse investigations. 'We are currently conducting an historic sex abuse investigation in relation to offences at Chetham's School of Music as a result of calls from former pupils. 'This is very much ongoing so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on numbers of victims or suspects at this stage, suffice to say we are continuing to get formal accounts and complaints from former pupils who currently live the length and breadth of the country as well as abroad. 'We have a pool of suspects under investigation which I am not prepared to elaborate on and I want to reassure the wider community that where we have identified safeguarding issues these have been addressed with partner agencies.' The judge also referred to two other former pupils of Chetham's who gave evidence against Brewer as 'victims'. One was the teenage lover whose relationship led to Brewer leaving the school and the other was a woman who fought off his sexual advances on a school trip. But he said Mrs Andrade did not have the strength to resist 'because her abiding desire was to be cared for and cherished by a loving family to which she craved to belong'. He added: 'She was prepared to submit to almost to anything, which clearly she did, as you pushed the boundaries further and further - treating her as your sexual plaything in the context of a false loving relationship which she readily accepted.' He added that it was 'surprising' that all those who spoke 'so well' of him at his trial in his defence did so in the knowledge of the affair which ended his Chetham's career. 'It may well be that they were not aware of the detail in which you exploited her but they were apparently nevertheless more than happy to overlook one of the most shocking aspects of this case. 'Indeed, perhaps one of the few positive features to have emerged from this case is the resulting close scrutiny of the seemingly wider acceptance of this type of behaviour among those who should know better.' In mitigation for Brewer, Kate Blackwell QC, said: 'There are no words capable of truly describing the tragic consequences of this case - consequences unforeseen by those involved in the court process but unremitting must be the pain felt by the family of Mrs Andrade. 'Through me, he does wish extend his sorrow for Mrs Andrade's death. Whatever the verdicts, he bears the burden of responsibility in the sense that he failed her while she was in his care. He continues to deny any offending towards her.' The judge said he had read 'a very large file of letters' on Brewer which amounted to testimonials to his 'unquestionable importance in his field' and his character as 'inspirational''. Miss Blackwell said Brewer had showed a positive attitude on remand in custody and was involved in teaching music and Spanish to inmates, as well as playing the keyboard in chapel services. Brewer will serve half his sentence in prison and the rest on licence. He was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for life. He smiled towards his family in the public gallery as he was led from the dock. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=029_1364313611 CaptainJamaicanNinja 6 Years For A Lifetime Of Molesting Children UK, Justice, Pedo, Scum,