Did Bin Laden die a long time ago or not? How convenient that Obama is able to get Bin Laden at the beginning of the election year, right after having the lowest approval ratings. Now they are sky high...
Towards the middle of this article, you will see the info I wrote about Hitler. I just finished a Nazi hunter book written by an elite Mossad team that tracked down Joseph Mengele. They basically concluded that Hitler, with over a 90% accuracy, was allowed to escape to Argentina where he lived out his old age and died. Hitler had some top level allies in the United States including Skull and Bonesmen like Prescott Bush and there were sympathizers like Rockefeller and Ford. Prescott Bush was apart of a conspiracy with other industrialists and powerful Americans to overthrow FDR and align with the Nazis, andPrescott Bush was even charged with treason at one point for trading with the enemies during the war and financing the Nazi war machine. There were Nazi sympathizers in the U.S. who could manipulate US forces to allow a path for the escape. They even found submarines from Nazi Germany abandoned in Argentina. Listen, you can't just find those laying around and they were not easy to access or maneuver. They found that town in Brazil with hundreds of time higher rate of blond, blue eyed twins. Mengele continued to do his genetic research there where he then traveled to Canada to work on mentally handicapped children, torturing the. To investigate the claims, they dug up Hitler's body and found it was the remains of a woman, which added validity to this conspiracy. Photo annalists found that the death photo we received to identify Hitler turned out to be a fake.
Anyway, lets talk about Bin Laden. Ironically, both Bin Laden and Hitler were declared dead on the same day. I put in this article all the links that show how many time Bin Laden was reported dead, the probability of it and the reports of how he "got away" which would explain that if he was dead, they were chasing a ghost anyway.
Think about all this info as you read this article. Don't you think it is weird we never heard from Bin Laden in years and all of a sudden, at the start of the election year, when Obama's ratings are lower than Bush's were in 2004 election year, they role out this info? Donald Trump was a registered democrat in 2008 and gave millions of dollars to both Obama and democrat Harry Reid. I think it is pretty convenient that he starts his year off with the birther thing when Obama was almost suspiciously ready to release his long form birth certificate, the one he conveniently never released for 3 years that sparked the issue to begin with, which some say is still not over. He had that ready fast. It ended the chance for a birther president, since the popular vote thinks that is even more dead of an issue now and then the week later Obama finds Bin Laden, huh? Wow. Must be great to work in PR these days, they are doing incredible stuff just to get votes.
I can see this a mile away, but I just don't know if others can.
So now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, what do you think is going to happen. Here is what I want to ask all my Democratic friends to consider. I do not support these wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. With that said, will they end now that we "got our man" or will the United States continue to wage these wars that kill innocent civilians as well as nationalist locals who see us as an invading force? These people claim that they are defending themselves from an aggressive attack by the west into their country for 9/11 which most of these people being targeted in the middle east had nothing to do with.
If you haven't seen my documentary, "Core of Corruption: In the Shadows," you can watch it here. I cover the grounds that the attacks of 9/11 had complicit parties that have not yet been charged with the crime and the United States is largely unaware of the fact that the attacks on 9/11 were the result of a much larger network of terrorists that go unnamed and are not being pursued. These terrorists include complicit figures from with powerful establishments and governments. Evidence has mounted that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and even the United States have a small rogue element from within its intelligence community, namely the counter-intelligence community, that may have had some involvement in the financing, training or carrying out of the attacks. I know it sounds crazy at first, but watch my documentary on 9/11 and I think you will see the overwhelming evidence for this case.
Before we examine the claim that some are making which is that Bin Laden may have been dead for years, lets look at this Pakistani hideout he was allegedly at. Bin Laden needed regular dialysis from medics and his compound was within meters of where Pakistan's top general frequently visited. But Pakistan insists it didn't know he was there.
The Indian security establishment is convinced that Osama bin Laden was in the safekeeping of Pakistan Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), and purposely left his huge Abbottabad mansion unwatched to avoid attracting attention, sources reportedly told the Sakaal Times.
Certainly the ISI keeps many people under 24/7 surveillance, so it seems inconceivable that in a garrison town an ‘outsider’ like bin Laden would be able to move into and and live in a large and distinctive house so close to a military academy without the knowledge of the ISI or some other Pakistani government agency.
Constructed in 2005, the mansion was eight times bigger than other houses in the vicinity; its few occupants were never seen by neighbors; large vehicles moved in and out of a compound that otherwise showed little sign of any life; and although cameras were fitted at key vantage points, there were apparently only a handful of guards at the gates. In addition, the house had no telephone or Internet connection. It’s hard to see how such a building wouldn’t have attracted attention.
Desperate to defend itself, the Pakistani government has said that Abbatobad is a small town and added that there are a lot of houses with big compounds enclosed within high boundary walls. But this was no ordinary small town. It was within meters of a military academy where one of the periodic guests is the chief of the Pakistani Army, arguably the most powerful and important figure in ‘democratic’ Pakistan. With this in mind, it seems unlikely that the ISI wouldn’t have been interested in who was living in the bin Laden compound.
It’s also widely believed that Bin Laden required frequent medical attention, including dialysis. Unless he had a portable hospital moving with him complete with medics and all the necessary equipment, he would have required regular care by a visiting medical team. How exactly this could have been done without some kind of official ‘assistance’ is difficult to see.
Lets assume for a minute that Bin Laden was at this compound. Are you familiar with the fact that the night before the events of September 11th, Bin Laden was ushered into protection by the Pakistani military and ISI in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. The odds that he was shot dead in Pakistan in a military held city like this are actually pretty high, assuming that the information is accurate that Bin Laden did go into protection the night before 9/11. Here is a CBS news clip about that event:
Did Bin Laden die a long time ago or not?
How convenient that Obama is able to get Bin Laden at the beginning of the election year, right after having the lowest approval ratings. Now they are sky high...
Further down in this article, I address that Hitler most likely never died. The evidence for that is overwhelming, but first lets talk about Bin Laden.
Before I begin, you should know that eyewitnesses said that the area where Bin Laden was reported shot and killed was being guarded by military for a long time.
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Steve R. Pieczenik, says he is prepared to tell a federal grand jury the name of a top general who told him directly 9/11 was a false flag attack.
Steve R. Pieczenik:
“Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s”
Steve R. Pieczenik cannot be dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under three different administrations, Nixon, Ford and Carter, while also working under Reagan and Bush senior, and still works as a consultant for the Department of Defense. A former US Navy Captain, Pieczenik achieved two prestigious Harry C. Solomon Awards at the Harvard Medical School as he simultaneously completed a PhD at MIT.
Back in April 2002, over nine years ago, Pieczenik told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months,” and that the government was waiting for the most politically expedient time to roll out his corpse. Pieczenik would be in a position to know, having personally met Bin Laden and worked with him during the proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the early 80′s.
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.
“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.
“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.
News outlets have repeatedly reported that Bin Laden has been allowed to get away from previous attempts to assassinate or capture him because of US officials ordering the protection:
A few years ago, an elite Delta Force officer went public on 60 Minutes to announce that the US deliberately ordered him off the trail of Bin Laden when his mission was to find and assassinate Bin Laden. Why don't more people know about this story?
In December 1998, Bin Laden was located in Kandahar but Bill Clinton refused to authorize military action. Some tourists even traveled in the area where Bin Laden was hiding and tried to warn authorities but were not taken seriously.
In February 1999, Bin Laden stayed at a hunting camp in Afghanistan’s Helmand province for more than a week, but after US intelligence pinpointed the exact location, authorization for an assault never came.
US intelligence again located Bin Laden’s location in Kandahar in May 1999 but took no action.
For years, Bin Laden was close to being caught. According to the U.S. Senate, Bin Laden was “within the grasp” of the U.S. military in Afghanistan in December 2001, but that then-secretary of defense Rumsfeld refused to provide the soldiers necessary to capture him.
Bin Laden was being interviewed by the press even though he was on the FBI's most wanted list in 1999, 2000 and 2001.
But the truth is, there are several instances where the U.S. had Bin Laden in their sights and deliberately ordered special forces soldiers to stand down or refused to launch air strikes.
In January 2004, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told the Associated Press that the US military was “sure” that they would catch Bin Laden that year, clearly indicating they knew his location.
In October 2004, the San Bernadino Sun reported that, “The Pentagon knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan,” according to 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, who said that his capture was being delayed because there were too many Taliban fighters in the area.
In 2006, a French documentary also claimed that French soldiers had Bin Laden in their sights on two occasions in 2003, but authorization to kill or capture the leader was not forthcoming from US authorities.
Colonel Hunt subsequently wrote an article for Fox News in which he stated, “We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.”
Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey later told MSNBC that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Bin Laden to get away in order to justify the attack on Iraq.
Bin Laden’s shocked neighbors have told the media of their disbelief that Bin Laden or his aides could have lived in the town without being noticed. Indeed, one man who lived next door to the compound raided by US Navy SEALS told Al Jazeerathat residents in the area carry documents because they are constantly asked to identify themselves by military forces.
What a difference a day makes. On May 2nd, 2011 the story was this: Obama administration officials said an armed Osama bin Laden was shot and killed in a firefight while using one of his wives as a human shield. The wife, we were told, was also killed in the process.
But on May 3rd, 2011, the story was this: Bin Laden wasn't armed or using the woman as a human shield. And, well, she wasn't actually his wife. Also, um, she didn't die. But aside from that...
From The New York Times:
The new Defense Department narrative released by the White House, and read at a White House news briefing on Tuesday, said that one of Bin Laden’s wives was shot in the leg as she charged members of the commando team on the third floor of the compound.“In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden’s wife – rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed,” the brief statement said. “Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed.”Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, read the narrative in an attempt to correct statements by administration officials who had suggested that Bin Laden was armed during the raid.Under questioning, Mr. Carney said that the White House stood by its claim on Monday that Bin Laden had resisted capture, but said that “resistance does not require a firearm.” Mr. Carney said that the new narrative was the result of “fresh” information....On Monday, John O. Brennan, the top counter-terrorism adviser to President Obama, said he believed that Bin Laden’s wife had been killed while trying to shield the terror leader during the 40-minute raid.But the narrative released Tuesday by Mr. Carney suggested that the woman who died in the raid was part of another family living at the compound. The narrative says that woman was shot and killed on the first floor, not the third floor, where Bin Laden was found and killed.
What is weird about this is that this isn't the first time Bin Laden was reported dead, either. If anyone recalls, he has been reported dead many times.
On December 26, 2001, Fox News reported on a Pakistan Observer story that the Afghan Taliban had officially pronounced Osama Bin Laden dead earlier that month. According to the report, he was buried less than 24 hours later in an unmarked grave in accordance with Wahabbist Sunni practices.
What followed was a string of pronouncements from officials affirming what was already obvious: supposedly living in caves and bunkers in the mountainous pass between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Osama would have been deprived of the dialysis equipment that he required to live.
On January 18, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced quite bluntly: “I think now, frankly, he is dead.”
On July 17, 2002, the then-head of counter-terrorism at the FBI, Dale Watson, told a conference of law enforcement officials that “I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore,” before carefully adding that “I have no evidence to support that.”
In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN that “I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead.”
In November 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in the Pakistani earthquake of October that year.
In September 2006, French intelligence leaked a report suggesting Osama had died in Pakistan.
On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.
In March 2009, former US foreign intelligence officer and professor of international relations at Boston University Angelo Codevilla stated: “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden.”
In May 2009, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari confirmed that his “counterparts in the American intelligence agencies” hadn’t heard anything from Bin Laden in seven years and confirmed “I don’t think he’s alive.”
Wikileaks had revealed that there would be a nuclear bomb that would be set off in Europe if Osama Bin Laden was ever captured or killed. Let us hope that does not happen. AFP has the story which claims Khalid Shaikh Mohammad made the threat that Al-Qaeda was ready to set off a nuke in Europe if this occurred. So are we to expect something to happen now? I think it is convenient that it is a re-election year for the president and just like in 2004 with Bush, a convenient Bin Laden video came out that actually helped the support for Bush's presidency, even though there was tons of evidence that election was stolen. Let's face it, it is pretty obvious since Bush got 4,000 votes in a precinct with only 800 registered voters in Ohio, and I don't think the New York Times counts as a conspiracy blogger. And considering their secretary of state was co-chair of the committee to re-elect bush and owned stock in Diebold, a company whose CEO is on the record as stating he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the Republican party," there certainly is plenty of room for finger pointing. If you have never seen "Murder, Spies and Voting Lies" it is one of the best films about how the 2004 election was stolen, and there are countless documentaries out there about that.
Read more about the 2004 election controversies here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies
With all this said, I think that having been told Osama Bin Laden is dead signifies the beginning of a major propaganda campaign for the president to run a re-election. I think you will not be able to go anywhere without hearing this story. It is already happening now.
So since we are about to hear that Obama is "getting the job done" I just want to re-iterate that the job is not being done that we all want done. I do not think any Republican is capable of getting this job done and I feel it is obvious that the job has not been done under Obama but since Bin Laden is dead, it will be made to appear that much has been accomplished.
Let me just say this, if Bin Laden is dead, is it not fair to say we can reverse all those tyrannical attacks on our liberties? The Defense Authorization Acts, the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act, and countless other bills and executive privileges created and passed that were all created to balance the threat of terrorism.
Don't you think it is pretty convenient that at the start of the election year that Bin Laden is announced to have been shot dead? Look, when Bush ran for re-election, if they had announced Bin Laden died, that would have ended the support for the war WAY too soon. Ironically, a Bin Laden video came out during the 2004 election year and the info on that shows us that the manipulation of the public's mind by the government helped get Bush elected because of the use of terror threats begin thwarted, among many other things including the increase of the terror alert level and announcements of Bin Laden videos right during the election debates. Don't you think that if Bin Laden was alive this whole time we would have seen tons more videos from the guy? I think it is extremely convenient that they dumped the body somewhere in the middle of the ocean and NEVER took photos of the guy. No victory photos, nothing, huh?
Look, you should consider the following facts. Lets review that the establishment announced Hitler was found dead at the end of World War 2 and there was never confirmation of that death. I say this because many do not know these facts about Hitler's death:
Want to know something really weird? Hitler was declared dead on the exact same day, May 1st, that Bin Laden was declared dead. Coincidence? Check this out.
Just for the sake of mentioning it, I want you to consider this. You should know that there is overwhelming evidence that Hitler never died. Just like his top generals and top scientists (Project or Operation Paperclip) a lot got away and Nazi hunters from Israel and the specifically the Israeli Mossad claim he lived. We never had confirmation of his death. In fact, American forces were told over the radio that Hitler was dead and Russian forces which got into the bunker before us claimed the story. Then it was uncovered that the photo that Americans were given of the death of Hitler turned out to show someone else, according to our photo experts. Take a look for yourself, this is a joke. You tell me that this looks like Hitler? Give me a break:
AND then we found out that Hitler's remains were dug up and the skull turned out to be that of a woman's and not Hitlers. See that here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216455/Hitlers-skull-really-womans-Fresh-doubts-death-tests-bullet-hole.html
Then it turned out that evidence mounted that Hitler lived in Argentina. Some of the top scientists, like war criminal Joseph Mengele, lived in Brazil where they continued genetic experiments, even top establishment backed sources confirm this.
You can also watch a special about it here:
Then it was uncovered that The United States let in over 1500 scientists in Project Paperclip:
Here is more on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
The evidence is Overwhelming that Hitler never died.
Conveniently, Osama Bin Laden is now being "buried at sea" so we will have no official confirmation of Bin Laden's death.
If you want more confirmation that the US Military is disposing of Bin Laden's body so no one will ever be able to confirm the identity or story of Bin Laden's death, check out this LA Times article about how they through it into the ocean: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-bin-laden-buried-20110501,0,7069834.story
And here is Reuters reporting the same thing: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/us-binladen-burial-idustre7411ya20110502
We are just going to have the take the "word" of the US Government on this one. They are not that credible, in my opinion, but whatever. How funny because I am sure we will here how Bin Laden's death proves Obama is getting the job done, even though he isn't. According to conspiracy celeb Alex Jones, Bin Laden has been dead, according to Jones, and that Bin Laden has been dead for years to be saved "on ice" to be revealed as captured and killed for propaganda purposes later on. Alex Jones alleges that "Osama died in 2001 of kidney failure and has been on ice to be used as an "ace in the hole" to roll out whenever they need to."
According to a Taliban Leader, an obituary published in an Egyptian news paper, the public reading of his will, Pervez Musharraf, Hamid Karzai, and the FBI's counter-terrorism chief, he died in 2001. Here are countless examples of confirmation of that story:
A few points:
(1) The man needed kidney dialysis to stay alive. What was he doing from 2001-2005 prior to this "mansion" being built? Hiding out in one of these?
(2) Why not show some proof to the world? Why bury him at sea immediately, ensuring his body can never be recovered or examined less than a day after he is "killed"? I mean we're just hearing about his death at the same time we're already hearing that the body has been tossed in the sea? Suspicious much? (Also: the alleged leaked photo floating around is from 2009, not recent, and likely fake)
I'm not saying that he's not dead... I'm just skeptical, and would like to see some proof.
Here is what I think people need to realize about President Obama:
The thing that astonishes me the most about America is that we consistently blame one person for all of our problems and then when that person is gone we elect a new one to blame. Nothing ever gets better because we never hold the right people accountable. What I am largely referring to here are the administrative positions of the white house and all the lobbyists or think tanks as well as the multinational corporations who write policy or manipulate policy.
These are not "elected" people, like for example the cabinet positions. The cabinet positions are decided by the people who gave the money to the president when they were campaigning, that's what we know now from the insiders. They all admit it happens, that the president chooses the heads of the various departments based on the suggestions given to them from the people who financed their campaigns. So I guess that is one of the ways that string-pullers don't need to run for office to write policy, they just get one of their own into office. Why bribe people when you can actually become a politician and get what you want? That is the new thing these days.
There are so many documented events where a corporation(s), think tank(s) or lobbyist(s) have manipulated a public official or government office for their own interests. There are just as many examples where a politician has come from the corporate environment that they may be involved with regulating as a government official. Like when a defense contractor becomes defense secretary and then coordinates the military contracts to go to the contracting firm they just worked for or currently hold stock in. Did anyone see when Monsanto CEO became head of the department of agriculture and coordinated laws that require the purchasing of seeds or pesticides from Monsanto. How about when Halliburton's Dick Cheney decided that Halliburton got all those no-bid contracts? That is what is supposed to be great about America, right?
Capitalism is supposed to encourage competitiveness in the market and get people to bid each other for better jobs and technology because there is always a motive and they keep finding better quality products or more efficient designs or cheaper alternatives and so on. But what about no-bid contracts? You mean to tell me that the government gives the work to a company and no one else is allowed to offer a better price or a better product? That is not going to create competitiveness, that is just an insult to "free market capitalism" and is a corrupt form of corporatism.
How about when lobbyists don't just advise politicians on policy, but bribe them for agendas. Or when think tanks don't just recommend or write pieces on social change, they actually formulate policy that is written and passed into law. Do you realize there are admissions in biographies out there where people admit they were literally handed policy from a think tank they were apart of or some advising firm and then they passed it into law? Why am I voting again? A representative is supposed to represent the people of their district or state or nation, but when this stuff happens, it defeats the whole point of asking me to vote. Why bother asking my opinion if these guys are just going to do this, I feel insulted when they ask my opinion, its such a joke.
I guess if you just say the words and tell people you are transparent and run a campaign on television with the complicity of the corporate run media than it must be true, right? The same corporate run media who gave more donations to him than any other president in the history of the United States, than it must be true right? Its a fact that after Obama attended Bilderberg he was given more corporate donations than any other president in history.
He said a lot of things that turned out to be untrue. He even made promises that he campaigned on, that got him the popular vote, that didn't just go ignored, but in some cases he approved the exact opposite regulations, decisions and reformations that he said he would do. That's like saying you are going to campaign for a new bus driver and claim you are turning the bus around but once you get into the chair you step on the gas in the same direction while still telling people you turned around. Obama's support base is still made up of people trying to make excuses for his failure to deliver change that was expected of him, that got him elected. No one wants the republicans for obvious reasons, like for example how their party is completely controlled by the same corporations and think tanks that destroy our nation's image. But how many Democrats want to admit that the Democratic party is the same thing and is controlled by the same corporations and think tanks?
So there is a website out there claiming Obama has delivered on hundreds of his campaign promises. Really? This includes a few litigation and paperwork changes, regulation reforms and book keeping procedures made to sound like a big transition. It happens to be a matter of fact that the majority of the base support for Barack Obama's campaign was for these major promises below, to which ALL of these below did not come true, and in fact the opposite happened. So this website counting these little changes in his administration is attempting to manifest the belief that a lot has been done, when in reality, the people who voted for him didn't get what they wanted and they voted for him based on the understanding that these issues would be undertaken. Let's review:
Remember Obama promised these
#1
The end of the war.
"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined." Now international leaders are calling the Nobel Committee to strip him of the title. Obama stated that day 1 he would start removing troops from this war. Well actually, here is one of the many quotes on this so you can see for yourself, you can even click on the quote and see the video of the speech: ""I will promise you this; if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home; We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank!" - Oct 27th, 2007 Well what does that mean, really? Well what it means is that the people were so fed up with the war they needed a presidential candidate to tell them the war was over, but instead of promising that, he got into office and said he would begin to withdraw troops from Iraq and re-locate them to Afghanistan. So his promise of "bringing the home" wasn't truly kept, was it? Actually, he told Americans that his administration approved the sending of many thousands more Americans to Afghanistan in a surge. Afghanistan, where not one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers came from and where the majority of Afghan fighters don't even know about 9/11. Can we stop pretending the war in Afghanistan was ever justified? The Taliban wanted to hand over Bin Laden, we didn't care. Funny thing is that the Iraq war was largely hated so much because of the crimes committed by private contractors such as Blackwater. Blackwater conducted so many illegal murders of civilians that they were kicked out and banned from the country. They chose to change their legal corporate name to Xe and got back in. So if the Iraq war was hated largely because of the private contractors there kidnapping people and carrying out assassinations, why then did Obama move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan only to replace these troops with countless thousands of more private contractors, the biggest problem makers out there? Seems like just saying the words of troop reduction makes the people believe the war is over, even though it is increasing. More private contractors replaced American troops than he relocated to Afghanistan, where he also sent more troops. Wait a second, more private contractors in Iraq and more troops to Afghanistan... Hmmmmmm. And people believe he "ended the war..."
Sounds like the best damn Public Relations campaign ever! Do people remember the massive anti-war movement that was created under the Bush years? Do people remember the huge effort by the left to make it clear that the wars, both of them, were illegal and needed to be over with? What's better than that is the fact that people believe these wars somehow ended or are ending and yet we ended up sending more people off to these wars and more private contractors. I don't know if I am supposed to laugh or cry here. This is almost pathetic. It is even worse to meet people who don't realize this fundamental fact yet. The thousands and thousands of anti-war protesters don't march like they used to demanding the end of the wars, only small protests occur and the mainstream media makes no effort to tell Americans about these protests because they can't afford all the people to find out nothing changed who believe this Public Relations hype of a "dialed down war"
60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009, which means that the Nobel Prize winning president has been responsible for the majority of American deaths in 1 of 3 separate wars. People forget that the Libyan conflict is in its early stages of war similar to the first 2 years of Iraq. It doesn't look so good for him.
#2
The closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Well almost immediately after getting into office, Obama announced it would remain open while the press printed stories of it being shut down. Funny how it stayed open and just a few weeks ago Obama officially created an executive order to keep the facility open indefinitely and to continue to hold these people indefinitely. These people are being held indefinitely because no court can find them guilty of any crime. The whole war on terror is pre-emptive, which means that they arrest people they "suspect" of plotting to commit terrorism, not just people who have actually done it. That was the "Bush Doctrine." So if it was Bush's policy, why did Obama continue it? This means that they have no case against the people they are still holding, legally, but they are still going to hold them anyway. What are we going to just continue to hold them forever now; No matter who is in office? These people are not given rights to see what they are being accused of and they are being tortured to sign confessions, let alone the fact that there are up to 14 more detention facilities in the war on terror similar to Guantanamo that are also being used.
#3
The end of torture.
The majority of Americans do NOT support the use of torture or enhanced interrogation methods, first of all. Second of all, of the minority that supports the use of these controversial actions, the majority of that small group believe torture is being used to gather intelligence. What is disgusting here is that while the majority of Americans want the use of torture to end, the majority of Americans refuse to support investigations into alleged torture right now. How oxymoron like. Well unfortunately, the majority of cases against the government for these detainee torture cases are actually accusing the government of using torture to sign confessions. This means that the people illegally being detained are then tortured to sign a confession to a crime they may not have committed. What is this the dark ages? Is America a country with the rule of law and respect for liberty and freedom it loves to parade around saying? Is America a country defined by its constitution and does it maintain a reputation that reflects its moral beliefs and direction of law and order, that being innocent until proven guilty, among many other philosophies? The question we have to ask ourselves here is this, why are so many Americans unaware that water boarding is NOT the only enhanced interrogation method being used? Countless numbers of detainees have documented cases of serious physical torture and autopsies of murdered detainees (that is correct, many are murdered) reveal serious blunt force trauma, bullet wounds, cuts, strangulation, sodomy and more. Seriously, have a look for yourself here: http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
So while Americans are handed down a cut-out debate by the corporate run mainstream media discussing the "controversy" of water-boarding, people are being shot, raped and beaten to death. And they are not using these methods to find out intelligence because for thousands of years mankind has known that torture doesn't bring about accurate or reliable information. People will say anything to get the pain to stop, hence why torture is used by totalitarian regimes, monarchies and brutally oppressive dictatorships. America used to pride itself on not performing in that manner, whether on enemies or not, because of a moral integrity, among other things.
Of the minority that support the use of torture, the majority of them WOULD NOT support the use if they were aware it was being used to force people to sign a confession. So this means that in reality, the majority of Americans, including the ones who support torture now, would probably stand unanimously together against the use of torture (or damn near close to that) if this information was widely known. But it is not widely known. Perhaps because the US Government claims it has the right to use "states secrets" and national security privileges to claim they don't have to disclose this due to it being sensitive and classified information.
So why then did Obama claim this fundamental and ethically important promise of ending torture would happen if that weren't the case? Perhaps because in the 2008 presidential campaign, the entire base support against Bush was that he created this torture and we wanted it over with. You couldn't get elected unless you made that promise.
As soon as he got into office and since that time, Obama has continued the use of torture. Period. Even the liberal websites post their objections to the continued use of torture.
#4
The end of the patriot act.
Does anyone remember the campaign year when Obama was going around the country telling people that he was a constitutional lawyer and every time he was asked about ending the patriot act he kept saying that it was a no brain-er, he would obviously end it. Well a lot of my democrat friends love to try and claim that the congress and senate control the Patriot Act continuation, but actually the fact is that it was written to require the president's extension seeking FIRST before they have a say in it. Funny how Obama promised to end the Patriot Act and then his first year in office he sought to continue its extensions. He also was seeking the continuation of the Patriot Act in his 2nd year. I'll bet you money he will go for a 3rd time, who wants to bet me?
#5
Killing Americans? Obama promised the restoration of civil liberties taken away by the countless reformation throughout the executive branch of government.
The Homeland Security Act, the Defense Authorization Act and the countless other legal parameters out there that were created or changed to give the government the authority to pretty much do what it wants in the name of the war on terror by labeling people "enemy combatants" and such. Once a person is an enemy combatant, they are no longer entitled to their rights, internationally or domestically. So why on Earth did Obama approve of an assassination program against terrorists that include American citizens? See, it is not like Obama approved the assassination of this 1 terrorist who just so happens to be an American born citizen, it is that he actually drafted the executive privilege and made it law that he can do this and the executive branch in general can do this to any person they claim is one of these kinds of threats, whether American or not. Talk about exploiting circumstances to gain support for totalitarian shifts. Do these American born citizens not have a right to a trial? Do they not have a right to defend against accusations of criminal activity? Why did Obama approve the bypassing of the system of law and pursuit of justice, which DEFINES American and used to separate Americans from the totalitarian dictatorships it claims it is not like? So now some unelected officials, whether military or private contractors, can be judge, jury and executioner. Am I supposed to jump for joy about this "change" that was promised?
Oh we got change, people. Bush never even legally authorized an assassination program. We were screaming about how upset we were over his illegally kidnapping and detaining people without charges but Obama took it a step further. Why even bother having courts with this kind of stuff going on?
#6
The end of warrant-less searches and seizures.
In October, 2007, Obama vowed that he would filibuster any such bill that contained retroactive amnesty for telecoms which participated in Bush's illegal spying program. Once he had secured the nomination July, 2008, he turned around and did exactly that which he swore he would not do!
The whole idea of getting a warrant to search someone's property or take anything is to make sure that some public representative reviews the evidence against a criminal or suspected criminal to make sure the government has a defense to go through your stuff and take it. Never has the executive branch been denied these warrants in cases they asked for. NEVER. In fact, not only are they usually granted, but they are granted extremely fast, sometimes within an hour. So why is it necessary to remove this entire procedure of checks and balances? They are in place to keep the government in check. Inevitably, everyone knows that there isn't a time or place in history on this planet that mistakes aren't made or people get carried away with their anger for someone and abuse their privileges. These are not rights given to cops, military and the rest of the executive branch, they are privileges. People need to understand that warrants are in place to protect YOU, the people, from the natural and regularly expected corruption of authority that does show its ugly head from time to time in our society. We all know it has happened before and we all know it happens all the time, so why was this warrant procedure removed? Does anyone gain from this? No. Obviously when Americans were told that warrant-less searches and seizures would continue, it was clear that Obama had no intention of shifting towards a liberal philosophy of respecting people's liberty and privacy. This was one of the promises that really wasn't asking much, I don't know how Obama couldn't deliver this one at least.
Not sure what I am talking about? Try these 3 for starters, since Obama is responsible for either letting this happen or introducing this:
-American born citizens coming back from any country can have their computers and cell phones confiscated without cause and searched.
-Obama continued the controversial warrantless spying program started by Bush
-Americans can be selected by choice or at random to be scanned by machines that emit radiation without their consent and naked scanned photos of them stored onto computers. If they refuse, they are then physically pat down as criminal suspects without any warrant or probable cause, and this is being done to old grandmothers in wheel chairs and little children. This kind of crap happened in Nazi Germany and Americans vowed that would never happen here...
The interesting thing about the TSA body scans is that less than 1% of all the thousands and thousands of shipping containers and cargo into the United States are checked or scanned before or at the time they enter US ports. So if we are to believe the US Government that Saudi Billionaires finance terror, then doesn't that mean these people have enough funds to fly people here that will pass our TSA body searches and scans and then go to some location where they can receive a shipment or shipments to re-assemble any kind of weapon or device? Makes that whole TSA scan look pretty stupid, doesn't it? I mean lets face it, these guys that allegedly finance terror, including Osama Bin Laden, are always multi-billionaires. They could send hundreds of shipments, from various, untraceable locations and have hundreds of sleeper cells waiting. What good does that scan and molestation from these TSA low life jerks really accomplish? NOTHING.
That was all thanks to Obama's approval. So people on the left need to stop defending this guy claiming he made change. He didn't change anything, now accept it already.
#7
The end of medical marijuana raids by the DEA.
Remember how the youth was asking for legalization of marijuana and decriminalization at the very least? Well that wasn't taken seriously by his campaign but he did promise to end DEA raids on medical marijuana facilities. Well unfortunately, multiple raids have taken place all over the United States on legal growing operations, and continue all the time, even in California. Also, the controversial no-knock raids have continued. These are when the DEA or local Police get a team of guys together in military gear, sneak up on someone's house in the middle of the night, make a quick few knocks saying "Police, open up" and then breakdown the door shooting anything in sight, like little children, or people's innocent dogs, or old grandmothers. They knock and demand to be allowed in really, really quickly so that they can "legally claim" they asked first before entering, even though they choose the middle of the night knowing people are sleeping and only give the person a few seconds to answer the door. They go in with guns drawn and loaded, ready to kill whatever. Recently, Huffington Post posted an article that finally called out Obama's selling out on promising an end to DEA raids and even questioned the legality of a president to overrule state decisions about medicinal marijuana.
#8
More transparency.
We were promised more transparency and change. His administration acted on fewer requests for information last year even as it was asked for more, a tally documented by the AP.
How come the Democrats are usually unaware of his aggressive effort to prosecute federal workers who leak information toshed light on wrongdoing. Or that despite his anti-lobbyist rhetoric, his aides are meeting with lobbyists just outside the White House, allowing the administration to keep the meetings off the books from public view.
We wonder if he’ll even take a question from the press pool, a practice Obama seems to have grown to hate.
Did you know that questions at the White House have to be pre-submitted in writing before you enter and they can choose who to call on? Thats like pitching the ball to the hitter and having a rule before hand of telling the hitter if it will be a curve ball or fastball so the hitter can prepare for the game.
Or how about the use of "States Secrets" where the government can go into any trial or court case and demand it end in their favor because of "national security" if the case continues. Like whistleblower cases against corruption inside the government.
How is this transparency?
That was a scandal that didn't receive enough attention, to say the least.
I have to hand it to Jon Stewart for getting on board with criticising Obama's administration. At least he kept honest through the post-Bush years and has the balls to call out Obama:
My final Argument:
So I guess what I am trying to say here is that watching the Republicans hijack the liberty campaigns setup by the libertarians and Ron Paul types who were ignored by the party during the election year and even made fun of for being anti-war and such, I realized something. The Tea Party claimed to be constitutional and all about liberty. When they retook the congress, the Patriot Act continued, as did the war and all the same old crap.
Watching Obama receive the Nobel Peace Prize BEFORE he even served a single year as president was pretty obvious to me that people are trying to brand his presidency and control the hype in media to project this illusion that something has changed and that this change is somehow legit because the news says it, the Nobel Peace Prize says it, or that this Openness Award he is receiving now says it. You know what I say? I say Bulls**t!
This man has increased the war and gone back on every promise that got him support. PERIOD. And I don't want any more Republicans because they are just as full of crap!
Now that I am older and have seen the left and right take control of the system back and fourth many times now, I realize they literally say what you want to hear but policy never changes in Washington, only the belief of their promises.
Enough is enough. When are Americans going to get it? It's like a magic show that is doing magic tricks you know the secrets to. When the magician says pick a card, you know it will be the same card no matter what you pick, because it is an illusion.
So when you vote and they say red or blue, you need to realize its an illusion. It is the same corporations, think tanks and lobbyists who control both sides. They succeed because they run the best damn propaganda and public relations the planet has ever seen, convincing you there is a difference between the parties on the Federal level, when in reality, the difference is barely noticeable on the local level of politics.
Voting republican or democrat is like a rapist coming up to you saying he is going to rape you but give you the option of how you will be raped, because he believes in choice...
This, my friends, is what I call, The Mad Divide.
My film "The Mad Divide" is in the process of being edited and it explores the left/right divide in this country and exposes how there is no difference between the two parties.
Secure your copy of the film today and help me continue to do what I want to do in life, which is replace the mainstream media with a REAL voice of dissidence.
As a part of the film, The Mad Divide, I set out to find why there is a divide in politics in the country and where the divide is rooted. What I found out completely blew me away, and I never realized that the divide is irrelevant, until I started interviewing the activists in the different activist communities. It hit me like a ton of bricks. I realized, people don't know the truth. The media is literally keeping it from you, to control you.
The goal of the film project is to show the left/right paradigm and how it's used against the people. It will explore how civility and rational discussion was a common practice in the town square. Open debates were common and people had a respect for the proper etiquette of dialogue. After slowly introducing name calling, card stacking and other propaganda techniques, the society and even the individual has been broken down, socially engineered to fight like an animal.
This film introduces people to the activists that attempt to push for real change and the battle they face.
This film is not about Obama bashing. Every single presidency, there seems to be an abundance of documentaries that are exposing the corruption and lies of the administration presiding over that period. There was Clinton Chronicles, among many others, during Clinton's reign. There was "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," and "Uncounted," and "Bush's Brain," and about a thousands other ones during George W Bush's presidency, and now there is "The Obama Deception," and "Fall of the Republic." I am sick and tired of seeing films that only address to half the story and half the problem. It makes it next to impossible to get people stuck in the left/right paradigm to wake up to what you are trying to discuss if the only available films out there are presented with a bias either center left or center right. It is time for a film to address both parties, and span multiple generations of presidents. It is time for a film to show the big picture. It is time for a film to present the case for the left/right paradigm and show how there are more than just similarities between the establishment democrats and the establishment republicans. There are plenty of differences on the local level of politics, where it may be socially acceptable to have some of these cultural paradigms. On a national level, however, where we all come together as a nation of diversity attempting to find a representative for all of us, deciding that representative on local politics and social norms for your personal lifestyle is really not what the Federal politics was setup for, at least for the most part. A lot of this depends on your philosophy of government and the separation of powers that the constitutional creators intended.
What is interesting is that when you start to pay close attention to certain aspects of the presidential policies in terms of regulations on Wall Street, policy with lobbyists, whistle-blower cases, transparency with media, the war, the diplomatic structure, and many others, you will find that there is virtually no difference between the parties. In fact, when it comes to corporate policy and think tank advisory, the Republicans and Democrats are almost completely the exact same. So why is it that people don't realize this? Perhaps because there is hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Public Relations firms during the campaign to make sure people do not pay attention to these things since they will never change. Also, the people seem to be together as a majority about how they want to deal with or respond to these areas of policy, which is something you might not expect. In fact, the people are so together on a lot of these issues that the Republicans and Democrats are not even electable based on these fundamentals. So there is a very serious effort on the part of campaign advisers and public relations specialists to make sure that the politicians discuss socially divided issues like abortion. These issues the politicians know you are not together on as a society so they know people will naturally divide.
It is the old game of divide and conquer just mixed in with the magician's slide of hand distraction tactics as well. Think about it. The politicians know we are all together on the policy related to the war, Wall Street, corporate regulations, whistle-blower cases, etc, etc, etc, so by getting everyone divided and focuses on abortion or some other social political paradigm, the people will divide into groups and fight. This in turn creates misdirection and the campaign can then be controlled. See, all the same corporations and lobbyists fund both sides of the election and all the think tanks and banks get the same guys in the administration no matter who wins. The cabinet is always made up of the insiders that never change, for the most part, so it is a major benefit for the politicians to get the people divided as soon as possible with as many issues as possible. The only thing is, the United States of America has something called the separation of powers, which is a philosophical government construct where politics is separated on local, state and federal matters. The whole idea of that structure was because the United States was founded on the idea of liberty, so it was NOT ever supposed to be a place where people dictate a way of life, they protect everyone's way of life so long as it doesn't get forced on others against their will. The idea is simple, really. All the land owners in an area get together and form a town or municipality, and they decided the laws for that area, since they are the land owners and therefore they are the sovereign controllers of how they dictate what is legal and what is illegal. For the most part, the purpose of the separation of powers was to protect everyone's different ways of life so that when you travel around the United States, you may enter in one town that has laws against certain practices or language or behaviors and you can experience the true diversity of a democratic-republic.
That is what America is called, by definition. A democratic-republic. It is not quite a democracy and it is not quite a republic, with the separation of powers you act democratically on a local level, where 50% or more of the vote decides the local and state interpretations of law, which is more of a democratic concept, while you still elect representative to make decisions for you, which is more of a republic concept. It is really neat when you think about it.
"The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm but because of those who look at it without doing anything." -Albert Einstein
The thing that astonishes me the most about America is that we consistently blame one person for all of our problems and then when that person is gone we elect a new one to blame. Nothing ever gets better because we never hold the right people accountable. What I am largely referring to here are the administrative positions of the white house and all the lobbyists or think tanks as well as the multinational corporations who write policy or manipulate policy.
These are not "elected" people, even the cabinet positions. The cabinet positions are decided by the people who gave the money to the president when they were campaigning, that's what we know now from the insiders. They all admit it happens, that the president chooses the heads of the various departments based on the suggestions given to them from the people who financed their campaigns. So I guess that is one of the ways that string-pullers don't need to run for office to write policy, they just get one of their own into office. Why bribe people when you can actually become an politicians and get what you want? That is the new thing these days.
Secure your copy of "The Mad Divide" today and help make my effort to become a jouranlist full time a reality and replace the establishment cronies lying to you. http://coreofcorruption.net/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=46
There are so many documented events where a corporation(s), think tank(s) or lobbyist(s) have manipulated a public official or government office for their own interestts. There are just as many examples where a politician has come from the corporate environment that they may be involved with regulating as a government official. Like when a defense contractor becomes defense secretary and then coordinates the military contracts to go to the contracting firm they just worked for or currently hold stock in. Did anyone see when Monsanto CEO became head of the department of agriculture and coordinated laws that require the purchasing of seeds or pesticides from the company they worked or work for or hold stocks in. How about when Halliburton's Dick Cheney decided that Halliburton got all those no-bid contracts? That is what is supposed to be great about America, right?
Capitalism is supposed to encourage competitiveness in the market and get people to bid each other for better jobs and technology because there is always a motive and they keep finding better quality products or more efficient designs or cheaper alternatives and so on. But what about no-bid contracts? You mean to tell me that the government gives the work to a company and no one else is allowed to offer a better price or a better product? That is not going to create competitiveness, that is just an insult to "free market capitalism" and is a corrupt form of corporatism.
How about when lobbyists don't just advise politicians on policy, but bribe them for agendas. Or when think tanks don't just recommend or write pieces on social change, they actually formulate policy that is written and passed into law. Do you realize there are admissions in biographies out there where people admit they were literally handed policy from a think tank they were apart of or some advising firm and then they passed it into law? Why am I voting again? A representative is supposed to represent the people of their district or state or nation, but when this stuff happens, it defeats the whole point of asking me to vote. Why bother asking my opinion if these guys are just going to do this, I feel insulted when they ask my opinion, its such a joke.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Krishnamurti
SO what happened? Well, corporations, lobbyists, think tanks, establishment families and big banks all started to co-opt this system and start to control the debates, only allowing Republicans and Democrats to debates and even restricting other parties from being on ballots. The idea of controlling both parties is great to them because the only difference between the 2 parties is domestic interpretation of the law, while Republican and Democratic policies on a foreign or international level never change. They also never change in regard to regulations and corporations, and they rarely ever change in regards to Wall Street. In fact, most of the cabinet heads in each presidential administration keep things pretty much the same, depending on how you look at it. Instead of corporations bribing politicians, which still goes on anyways, they just run for office now. IN fact, corporations just finance a campaign and tell the winner of the election to pick their own people for cabinets. IT is much more efficient to a corporation to literally have their own people in government, rather than mess with the controversy of "advising" or bribing the leaders. Kind of tricky, isn't it?
Well the problem is, it got so bad, that now there is virtually no difference between the parties and the only way they can get away with this is by making sure that every 4 years, they hype of the president and they hype up social paradigms that divide us so that it creates the illusion that "change" can be brought to Washington. The truth is, very little changes, in fact, there is a common agenda and there has been for a long time. IN short, that agenda is basically a common interest, sometimes written, to centralize power, cease geo-political interests globally, combine wealth and take more control. The age old quest for global order and the age old theme of greed combine to make what we see today. It is not a system where the representatives you pick are representing you at all. Politicians represent their constituents who paid for their campaigns and the politicians represent the big banks, multi-national corporations and lobbyists while picking "advisers" from these elitist "think tanks" that practically write policy. You pretty much are a nobody and you have no influence. In fact, for the most part, the majority of the people don't have a say in anything any more, but they are given the illusion that they have choice and they are given the illusion that there are diverse issues between the parties by focusing on these locally related political paradigms that don't concern the Federal government. If we all get together to pick representatives on a local level, social constructs and ways of life make sense, but if we all get together as a nation to pick a common representative, like a president, well we certainly don't have our specific practice of liberty in common, we are too diverse as a nation. The only thing we have in common is that we are all Americans and that we all pay taxes. The president's job has very little to do with social constructs, so why are we deciding a president on that concept? Isn't that what the local representatives are for?
See the whole point now? The whole idea of the left/right paradigm is a construct that has been co-opted and used for misdirection and divide and conquer on a scale we have never seen before. The elections are so state of the art with the public relations now that fireworks and extravagant shows are conducted alongside incredible powerful propaganda of waving flags and moving speeches that have very little actual specificity or direction. Smiles everywhere for the cameras snapping thousands of pictures with flashes all over stadiums. Musicians, actors, performers of all kinds and just general celebrities fill red carpet events as politics has been turned into pop culture right before our very eyes. The application of public relations 2.0, a level of PR we have never seen is being conducted. You have no idea that you are being mislead and you are being molded, shaped to believe that there is diversity and that there are only 2 ways of deciding policy. Like yes or no, or good and evil. Policy is so complex that there are literally thousands of ways to write it, but you have been intentionally mislead to think that there are only 2 ways to do anything. The left or the right are the only options. Every effort imaginable is employed, including some of the most advanced psychological warfare tactics to try and convince you that your vote is not actually a vote if you do not vote for these 2 parties. Hitler couldn't even have dreamed of accomplishing this level of propaganda where the sheep are literally acting as their own sheep herders, barking at others to stay in line and vote establishment every time.
The social stereotypes of the left and right keep people in a false belief that there are these religious people on the right, even though countless Republicans are gnostic or atheist, according to many of their biographies. They literally say what they need to say to get the support and votes. Fundamental Christianity is a common stereotype for the "right" in America, and they tend to be adamantly anti-gay in their policies but there are more cases of homosexuality among Neo-conservative men who are openly fundamental Christians than any other demographic in politics. Another social construct given to you is the false idea that Republicans are "fiscally conservative." The largest debts can be attributed to Neo-conservative campaigns. The "small government" ideology of the right is certainly not in the Republican administrations of Reagan or Bush W, who claimed to be small government. The government literally tripled in size during George W's campaign. Under Nixon, the "war on drugs" was launched and it continued with expansion under Reagan while it was his administration that was in power when Iran-Contra hearings uncovered that the majority of cocaine being brought into the US was under CIA protection since the Contras had no other form of payment. The CIA literally protected drug shipments and even was investigated for running Cocaine themselves, which is nothing new.
The attacks on civil liberties are not just something Democratic administrations have done, since Republicans want to point that out.
And what about the social stereotypes of Democrats? How about the "anti-corporate" stereotype. It is a corporate party with some of the largest corporations in the world backing it and controlling its most influential seats. Hillary Clinton sat on the board of directors for the legal team of Wal Mart. Wal Mart started in Arkansas and when Clinton was governor there, Hillary made a lot of major connections with the multi-national giant before it was even legal to become the multi-national giant. It was during Clinton's administration that NAFTA was expanded and the World Trade Organization was created, and heavily protested by the leftist communities. The WTO literally paved the way for the outsourcing the gave birth to Wal-Mart and started to destroy the American economy, at least its internal economic infrastructure.
And Democrats are supposed to be liberal, but it has been Obama's administration that continued every single attack on our liberties that Bush initiated after 9/11. Don't believe me, read this article I wrote about this where I cite some of the most reputable sources to prove nothing changed when Obama got in office, in fact, one might argue it got worse.
"The slogans of Newspeak are, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength." -George Orwell
I think you get my point. It is obvious that the social construct given to us is false. Every single stereotype you use to justify your support for these two parties they control is just not true. The Republicans and Democrats do NOT represent the people, they don't on a Federal level at least. Period. So why do we continue to vote for them. Look, if they are going to win anyway, and I can prove to you they throw elections and have for years, then why roll over on command? Why be pushed around? Why conform and let these establishment cronies get one over on ya. They already work you to death and steal all your hard earned money. They already screw you day in and day out, so why be their cheerleaders?
I don't care if I am the only person that votes a 3rd party, you asked for my vote, I gave it. Enough is enough of the propaganda that they paid millions of dollars for you to eat up and spit back out saying things like "oh well those votes don't count." Really? NONE OF THE VOTES COUNT. They RIGGED THE WHOLE SYSTEM. The parties are the same, period. Don't say any more of this non sense of "well if I don't vote for this guy then the other party will win. THEY ALWAYS WIN, GET IT!? Both Parties are the same. They want you to think that when Republicans or Democrats are in office, that things are different. They aren't. They never have been. And there is no such thing as "throwing away your vote." If you want to throw your vote away, then vote Republican or Democrat, because you might as well just say it out loud that you like to be pushed over by bullies and people with more money than you . They love it when you go out there and bark at people for voting their conscious. The establishment LOVES IT when you go around acting as their little cheerleaders.
What I am saying here is pull yourself together. Realize this right now, realize one thing. It doesn't matter if you vote Republican or Democrat. They ALWAYS win, no matter who is in office, and they will always get "their guy" in office and that means they will get even more of "their guys" in the administration. Voting 3rd party is not just about voting your conscious, its about voting with intelligence. Its about a protest vote. It is because you no better that you vote 3rd party. It is because you realize things are never going to change with these 2 parties that you vote 3rd party. There isn't any reason to not vote 3rd party, all the reasons they have handed you by their well paid public relations experts don't make any sense. They are logically invalid. Like "throwing away your vote." Throwing away your vote would be to keep the establishment parties in office. Period.
Do the right thing, do the intelligent thing. Don't be a pushover. Stand up for yourself once in a while and vote who you want. Don't be scared to vote for who you want, they asked you, now tell them who you want. Don't be scared. They want you to be scared. They want you to start telling yourself things and convincing yourself of the propaganda. They want you to manipulate your own mind, because that's how they win. They love that they don't have to try very hard because most people coward and talk to themselves, telling themselves to do things they don't want to do. That is how you know propaganda is in place. It is clear as day.
It is time for people to start realizing there will never be any change, until you start to drop your support for the Republicans and Democrats on the Federal level. Get the lobbyists, think tanks, CEO's and banks out of office. It is time to get some of our own people in there. Otherwise it just isn't worth it. If you can't get your people in there, the people you want, then maybe it is time for something else.
Secure your copy of "The Mad Divide" today and help make my effort to become a jouranlist full time a reality and replace the establishment cronies lying to you. http://coreofcorruption.net/product_info.php?cPath=3&products_id=46
Here are the truths about the left and right you won't hear right now -
As for the Democrats in our society, it is time for people to review exactly what has happend since Obama took office and where we are to understand the full scope of the lies we were told. Here is an article I wrote to address this exact issue:
Now, here is the truth about the Tea Party you won't hear:
I am not a republican or democrat. I just want to share with people that I was an activist very involved with different causes and groups during the 2005-2008 years when we were protesting Bush and his wars and attacks on our freedom. I remember those days. I remember I once called myself a democrat when I was younger, but I left the democratic party and became neutral. For a while I thought I was a conservative who believed in that too, so you could say I have switched sides and tried them both out. As I got older and studied politics, I became an activist for a while and realized there is no difference between the two parties. At least no different for the issues that are important to me, like the economy, foreign policy, war, corporate oversight, election reform, whistle blower protection, pre-emptive war, indefinite detention without trial, indefinite detention without charge, etc, but that is for another discussion some other time. I plan on exploring this left/right paradigm in my film The Mad Divide (TheMadDivide.com)
Anyway, I just wanted to make clear that I watched the Tea Party come alive from its early days to its decapitation. I believe in willful regard for the truth, at least the truth as I see it. In all honesty and fairness, those who hate the tea party need to understand this fundamental truth about its short lived history.
First of all, we all know that the TEA Party is doing things that a lot of us don't agree with, but they should be taken seriously and not called names or ignored. Engage these people, just as someone on the left should be engaged in dialogue with people on the Right who don't agree with them. It is a matter of self-respect more than it is a matter of respecting them. You don't have to agree with their politics, but you should be able to talk to them and through the discussion, it will become self-evident that there is an underlying truth that may or may not be noticed by both parties in the conversation. Usually, if discussion is embraced with empathetical focus, one side will see the others points and a lot was accomplished. Noam Chomsky even asks people to take the Tea Party serious. Take a look at this article:
Another thing to consider is that Ron Paul was originally a Libertarian presidential candidate but because they don't invite 3rd parties to debates, even if they have a majority support, he realized he needed to become a "Republican" to get any chance of having issues be represented, rather than controlled as they historically have been. That strategy worked. He got Republicans within the party to start supporting an anti-war agenda, which goes against everything the Neo-conservatives had accomplished.
Libertarians have made it very clear to people in the Tea Party to be careful because the modern day Tea Party does not reflect the Libertarian platform, so it was no surprise to see them declare their association with the Tea Party officially over:
The Koch brothers were the primary organizers of what we now call the tea party, HOWEVER, there was once a REAL grass roots organizing that started during America: Freedom to Fascism days when Aaron Russo was alive. He was touring the country and talking about doing a movie about 9/11 and then died. Shortly after, Ron Paul started speaking up more. Both Ron Paul and Aaron Russo were Libertarian Party presidential candidates. Then Ron Paul announced he would run and grass roots groups sprang up like wildfires. The time frame I am discussing here is between 2005-2007 when it all started to build.
The truth is, Ron Paul was so successful that activists started merging info about the Federal Reserve and 9/11 and Alex Jones documentaries. This was way before it was called the tea party. Then Ron Paul was not invited to debates anymore and broke away, created a REAL shift in the neo-conservative movement and held his own damn convention. DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THIS REALITY? Jesse Ventura spoke at this convention. This was LONG BEFORE the "tea party" was created.
Then when Obama got in office, people like Glenn Beck who were attacking all of the people who had split the republicans up to that point were now claiming to be on board. Glenn Beck and even Sarah Palin, two NEO-CONSERVATIVES who were NEVER apart of this whole damn revolution, TOOK it over and called it the tea party, and FOX News started co-opting the whole god damn thing. Since then its been down hill bullshit.
That is about the shortest version of the story I can give.
Bare in mind that the majority of protests about the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Income Tax and even the Tax day protests have all been taking place for years, even years before 9/11. With that said, a Ron Paul meet-up chapter out in Boston organized a 9/11 truth event called the "Tea Party," believe it or not, and actually threw a bunch of 9/11 Commission Report books into the sea as part of an effort to get people to see the questions about 9/11 that went unanswered. That was the first time anyone in the activist community ever used the phrase "Tea Party." Now, some are split about its impact. Most people who have been protesting the banks and taxes no that those protests and Ron Paul support networks were all in place years before this truther event happened, however, most of those people were also protesting already and recruiting people to the cause of the anti-banking anti-taxing movement. So the truther event known as a "Tea Party" didn't recruit a lot of people to the 9/11 cause, and even most 9/11 activists will tell you that they have also never heard of that event.
As the protests started to get more and more momentum, people were starting to coin the phrase, "Tea Party," as part of their efforts. It wasn't until the election year that FOX News started branding all these random groups with that label. Unlike what many people will tell you on the left, unfortunately, the TEA Party was in deed a grass roots movement for a long time, it was just never called a TEA Party and it used to be dedicated to ending the Federal Income Tax and fighting the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no doubt about this. The problem is, once it was all labeled a "Tea Party" and they started organizing centralized events through FOX News and the Republican leaders, it was officially co-opted and changed, almost immediately, into a neo-conservative effort to retake the lost support Ron Paul caused them. Well, it worked.
The "tea party" as we know it today started during the campaign year for president because of the success Ron Paul got in breaking Republicans away from the party base, so the Republicans, through FOX News, needed to co-opt and take control of the fallen support before and after Obama got in office. The modern day Tea Party as you know it now was created by Koch brothers and Beck, Palin. Mainly a bunch of bullshit neo-cons co-opting everything the liberty bound constitutionalists were doing to make real change. I watched it go down, all of it.
What is sad is that I attended the Bush protests and anti-war protests with the people who now call themselves "tea party" people, not all, some realized it is now all neo-cons and left. I hated Bush's wars and his attacks on our liberty.
That is the truth. We protested like you wouldn't believe and there was NEVER any media that covered us, EVER. We protested the Federal Reserve, the Iraq War, The War on Terror, etc. There were green party people, libertarians, constitutionalists, we the people party and tons more. We were not republicans, we were not democrats. we were Americans.
When Obama got in, he continued the patriot act, he continued the wars, he sent more troops, he didn't close Guantanamo, he continued the use of indefinite detention and torture, he continued the suspension of our constitutional rights. He was Bush version 2.0 for all the hardcore liberals I knew, we all hated what he was doing. We continued to protest, only this time, Mass groves of republicans started showing up. I guess they figured that since we were protesting and Obama was president, we must be in the same demographic as them. The problem is, we weren't. They were neo-cons, many of which were racists, who showed up and ruined everything.
The media though, for the first time EVER, finally showed the protests, only this time, said this was all because of Obama. The media manufactured this link between our anti-war, pro-liberty protests which started under Bush and they linked that with racist neo-cons. How did they do that? Well Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity who all attacked us and called us terrorists when we protest Bush, now claimed to be our allies. FOX news was everywhere to be found. Almost as if they wanted to put the spotlight on us in a certain fashion with an effort to ruin everything by linking us with racists. It worked. The Koch brothers funded mass campaigns and it all went downhill.
Michelle Bachman is considered one of the leader's of the modern day Tea Party. She doesn't reflect anything the Tea Party used to represent. For example, she is supporting taxing single mothers higher rates because she thinks this will somehow encourage family growth. So wait a second, she joined an anti-tax movement because of taxes being used to oppress people's liberty and she is proposing using the government to become a force of tyranny on people's personal finances because they weren't fortunate enough to have a family? What a traitor and opportunist she is for taking advantage or people on the right who think she is for the constitution when really she is for big government oppression through taxing. Don't believe me? Have a look for yourself and read this:
Real libertarians who attend these Tea Party events and start protesting or making an effort to point out it is all neo-cons lying to people get attacked by the Tea Party and kicked out. Have a look at this:
Even the ORIGINAL founder of this so called "Tea Party" has come out saying that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are a joke and that the neo-cons were sent in to take over their efforts:
Even Ron Paul, who the Tea Party praises as its godfather of the movement has come out and Ron Paul is now saying that the Tea Party and even Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are liars. Ron Paul has warned the Tea Party followers not to continue to be had, but are they listening. See for yourself:
I saw it early on, that's why I stopped attending the protests, because within the 1st month or 2 of Obama's administration I realized the democrats stopped protesting the wars with us and the only activists out there with us were haters of Obama and that pissed me off.
It pissed me off that democrats went to sleep. It pissed me off that democrats, stuck in their own paradigms too, didn't realize what was taking place. Republicans and the establishment were essentially co-opting the whole revolution to destroy it. It worked. Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, even Jon Stewart called all the protesters racists and that was it, you could never protest about our liberty again. Our freedoms were stolen under Bush, they were stolen under Obama. You can never protest about that without someone thinking you are a racist for some reason. Brilliant work by the corporate establishment, and FOX News. Their plan worked.
Now I feel the need to tell people what I observed. I haven't been in the activist seen in an active sense for a year now because I retired to the internet and my film projects I want to get done. I am focusing on my websites. But i wanted to tell everyone, I wanted to tell the fake tea party neo-cons who think they know what all that is and how it started and I wanted to tell all the democrats who think all those protests started when Obama got in office. The truth is, you are both wrong.
Cindy Sheehan, a friend and fellow activist of mine, was interviewed in my upcoming film about this left/right divide called TheMadDivide.com stated that the anti-war protests are over. The democrats went to sleep. Everyone I interviewed for this film are activists and leaders of the REAL revolution, we have been protesting for years, before Obama. We are against the war, we are not racist. We want our freedom back. Our voice hasn't been heard. This advanced, propaganda, public relations show put on in the last years has been so effective that people I used to respect, intellectuals I used to believe got it are now falling for this bullshit.
To all of you, I hope you watch my film, The Mad Divide. I will expose the left/right paradigm, the media and the real issues. I will show you the activist community and the struggle for those of us who hate corporations AND government tyranny. They both work together and they both co-opt the efforts of our cause. Don't fall for it, I beg of you.
I hope this was insightful and I wish peace upon you and others.
