- November 10, 2009
We Can’t Sit Back and Allow the Loss of Our Freedoms
We elect the government. It works for us. As we watch the Democrats’ plans for health care take shape, we can only ask how did our government get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives?
Last Saturday, at 11 o’clock in the evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five vote margin to have the federal government manage the health care of every American at a cost of $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years.
For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the Feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want, or may not need, or cannot afford. If you don’t purchase what the government tells you to buy, if you don’t do so when they tell you to do it, and if you don’t buy just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you, prosecute you, and even put you in jail. Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The privacy of your communications and medical decision making with your physician will be gone. More of your hard earned dollars will be at the disposal of federal bureaucrats.
It was not supposed to be this way. We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal lives? Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades and even centuries. A little stretch here, a cave in there, powers are slowly taken from the states and the people and before you know it, we have one big monster government that recognizes no restraint on its ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any activity, tax any behavior, and demand conformity to any standard it chooses.
The Founders did not give us a government like the one we have today. The government they gave us was strictly limited in its scope, guaranteed individual liberty, preserved the free market, and on matters that pertain to our private behavior was supposed to leave us alone.
April 7, 2007
We have often heard reference made to President Eisenhower’s so-called farewell warning to the nation, about the military-industrial complex, upon his leaving office in 1961.
Upon closer examination of that speech, both what it did and did not say, we find that very likely he should have referred to it, more appropriately, as the “Military Industrial Congressional Complex, ” as, he apparently really meant. At least, as the following reference would seem to infer.
“In this speech Eisenhower identifies for the first time a group called the military-industrial complex. The speech was written for him by Malcolm Moos of Johns Hopkins University. Initially Moos had used the phrase “Military Industrial Congressional Complex”. Eisenhower was advised not to link members of Congress with this conspiracy. He accepted this advice but the fact remains, Eisenhower believed that certain members of Congress were being paid by the armaments industry to maintain these high-levels of defence spending. For example, when Eisenhower left office in 1960 military spending amounted to 77% of all federal spending.”
R. W. Gaines
Part 2: Military Industrial Complex
Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president on 17th January, 1961, was completely out of character.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen…
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defence; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defence establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
From Alan Cantwell MD
Wake Up, Mr. President! We’re In A War Here [We Have A Boy King: 67% Ages 18-29 Voted For 0!] NYPost
Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 2:03:15 PM by Steelfish
Wake Up, Mr. President! We’re In A War Here
November 14, 2009
The Obama administra- tion’s obdurate refusal to accept the reality of Islam ist terrorism was underscored yet again yesterday when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11 architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be brought to New York to be tried as a common criminal.
What an outrage.
Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:48:15 PM by Tamar Rush
“DREAMS OF MY VIOLENT DRUNKARD FATHER”
Our alcoholic father beat me, says Barack Obama’s half brother, Mark
As the US President arrives in China, Barack Obama’s half brother reveals that when he was a child their father was a violent drunk
Telegraph & News Sources
On the eve of his older sibling’s first-ever visit to China, Mark Okoth Obama Ndesandjo has emerged from the shadows to reveal the disturbing truth about the late Barack Obama Sr, his and President Obama’s father.
Last week, Mr Ndesandjo published an autobiographical novel, Nairobi to Shenzhen: A Tale of Love In The East. It paints a shocking picture of his abusive and alcoholic father, one that is at odds with the man portrayed in Dreams From My Father, President Obama’s best-selling 1995 memoir.
Mukasey: ‘Very High’ Risk of Attack Over NYC 9/11 Trial
POLITICO ^ | November 13, 2009 | staff
Posted on Saturday, November 14, 2009 1:48:23 PM by kellynla
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said today that it is highly likely that terrorists will attack New York City as a consequence of the Obama administration’s decision to send five alleged Sept. 11 plotters there for trial in federal court.
During a question and answer period following a speech to a conservative legal group, Mukasey was asked about the possibility that there might be an escape by one or more prisoners.
“The [Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan] is a very secure place….Is it secure? Of course, it’s secure. They’re not going to escape,” Mukasey told a conference of the Federalist Society. “The question is not whether they’re going to escape. The question is whether, not only that particular facility, but the city [at] large, will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed–whether this raises the odds that it will. I would suggest to you that it raises them very high.”
Mukasey said the men now to be tried in New York should have been left before military commission proceedings at Guantanamo that were already in progress.
Barack Obama – The Devil’s SpawnBy John Hankey
I already wrote to you on this matter. I don’t know how well you may know Webster Tarpley. He is very highly-regarded, and rightly I think, for his book, “The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush,” and for his work on 9-11, especially in revealing the nature of “Able Danger” as the covert basis for establishing the pretext of Islamic high-jackers.
He has been a fierce critic of the Clinton’s in the past. He has been the fiercest critic of the Bushes.
And yet, like me, he finds himself encouraging people to pull out all the stops in opposing Obama, including supporting Hillary. I asked him “Do you mean to say that informed people must support Hillary?” He wrote back:
Voting is the least of it – vote against Obama in whatever way is most congenial to you. But voting is the beginning of political activity only and not the sum total of it. What you need to do is call in to talk radio of all sorts — Air America, right wingers, anybody and everybody, and denounce obama as a puppet Manchurian candidate controlled from behind the scenes by Brzezinski. I suggest you take that YouTube video you sent me and blast it out to your entire list in ways that you never thought possible.
In other words, get political in the full sense of the word. -WGT
I thought I’d share Tarpley’s research and the basis of his conclusions regarding Obama. He is scared ****less, or he would not possibly be able to advocate supporting Clinton.
I’m reminded of 2000 when I ran around desperately arguing with intelligent people that Bush was a fascist, and that people should support Gore, not Nader, or sit idly by.
Nobody listened then. Why should now be any different? No reason, but Tarpley asked me to write you so I’m writing you.
BRZEZINSKI SEIZING CONTROL OVER US
POLICY IN SLOW-MOTION CREEPING COUP
By Webster G. Tarpley
WASHINGTON DC — Events of the past few days indicate that the Zbigniew Brzezinski faction of lunatic Russia haters have now won the upper hand inside the secret councils of the Anglo-American finance oligarchy, displacing the hitherto dominant George Shultz-neocon faction. Although George Bush and his cronies still occupy the White House, the policies that are being carried out are coming from the Brzezinski left CIA machine. Brzezinski has returned to public prominence in recent months due to his role as top establishment controller for the Obama campaign. But Brzezinski is not waiting for the outcome of the November elections to take over key parts of the US government. Brzezinski and his left CIA allies are already moving to assert their strategy, even as the neocons and their characteristic obsessions are moved to the back burner. The probability of an attack on Iran or Syria is declining, even as the danger of confrontation with Russia, China, and Pakistan “all much more dangerous targets to trifle with” increases exponentially.
1. KOSOVO — The independence of Kosovo has opened a new crisis front in Eastern Europe, with the potential for very nasty complications in regard to Russia. This is the essence of the Brzezinski anti-Russian policy. Kosovo independence is of course a flagrant violation of all existing norms of international law, most notably the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975 which finally put an end to World War II by declaring that all borders in Europe were to be considered final unless and until any changes had been agreed through mutual consultation of the interested parties. Since the Serbian government in Belgrade is vehemently opposed to Kosovo independence, the unilateral actions of the US, British, and NATO are the very essence of international anarchy. The new regime in Kosovo goes far beyond the usual kleptocracy of NATO puppets favored by Brzezinski and his circles. The new regime in Kosovo is essentially the terrorist KLA, an organization devoted to gun-running, drug-running, and trafficking in human slaves. The KLA is a Balkan version of Al Qaeda, and both are wholly owned creations of the CIA and British intelligence. With Kosovo independence, the US, British, and NATO stand ready to use armed force to defend the right of a terrorist gang to assert sovereignty over a segment of modern Europe. The criminal obscenity of this policy could hardly be greater, but for Brzezinski all methods are legitimate provided that they increase tension with Moscow, and in that respect Kosovo independence is already a glowing success.
2. SPACE WARFARE — The shooting down by the Pentagon of a US satellite over the Pacific is a very provocative military stunt designed to intimidate both Moscow and Beijing, who happened to be Brzezinski’s immediate targets. This reckless and irresponsible action has raised the specter of an uncontrolled arms race reaching into outer space.
3. SYRIA — Zbigniew Brzezinski himself, fresh from addressing a retreat of House Democrats in Williamsburg Virginia, is now in Syria at the head of a RAND Corporation delegation. The purpose of this mission should not be construed as peace in the Middle East, although some foolish observers may read it in that way. Brzezinski’s goal is immediately to lessen Russian influence in Syria, including the closing of certain naval facilities that the Russian navy has maintained in that country. In the longer run, Brzezinski would like to turn both Syria and Iran into components of the ring he means to forge around Russia for the purpose of the strategic encirclement of that rival superpower. Zbigniew’s argument against the neocons is, why attack Iran and Syria, when you can turn them into kamikaze stooges, play them against Russia, and get rid of all of them that way? Europe and China are destined to play similar anti-Russian roles in Brzezinski’s playbook.
4. CIA UNILATERAL KILLINGS IN PAKISTAN — Back in July 2007, Obama attracted much unfavorable attention when he announced his plan to bomb targets inside Pakistan without reference to the government of that country. He was vigorously criticized by Bush, McCain, and Mrs. Clinton. Obama turned out to be a bigger warmonger than Bush himself, since the tenant of the White House said that it was absolutely essential to work with the government of Pakistan against terrorism, and not humiliate them unnecessarily. Now it turns out that Obama’s puppet master Zbigniew Brzezinski is more powerful than Bush on this issue.