Take Back the Media

“Of course the people do not want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism” Herman Goering-Nazi Leader-Nuremberg Trial

Name:
Location: United States

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Cyber Security Expert: Hackers Planning To Steal Election For McCain


Spoonamore says electronic voting machines represent national security threat, Israel, China and Russia have capability to rig presidential outcome

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Stephen Spoonamore warns in a new interview that electronic voting machines represent a national security threat and that hackers are already planning to steal the 2008 presidential election for John McCain.

Spoonamore is a GOP member and a lifelong Republican, having worked on election campaigns with Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. He also has 20 years worth of experience in encrypted and networked communications systems for banks, TV, telecommunications, EMS, Military and other uses.

In an ten part You Tube interview, Spoonamore warns that hackers are planning to steal the election on behalf of the McCain camp and even predicts the margin of victory, that McCain will make a “shocking recovery” and win 51.2 percent of the vote with three electoral votes over Obama.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


“This is a national security threat,” said Spoonamore, “it is very possible for a foreign government to begin manipulating that transmission of code just as they attempt to do fairly often with our financial data….we deal with it every day on the commercial side,” he added, noting that China, and not the American people, has a greater chance of choosing the next U.S. president.

Spoonamore also fingered Israel as another foreign government that was planning to attempt to hack the 2008 election.

“We don’t know who’s changing the vote now - these weird results are coming in all over,” said Spoonamore, adding that the danger of the vote being hacked by Israel, China or Russia is an even greater threat than partisan vote fraud on behalf of the Democrats and Republicans.

“You’ve built a vulnerable system and many people would want to exploit that vulnerability and not all of them have the best interests of our nation at heart,” he added.

————————————————————————————-
Get the inside story on the elite’s agenda for population reduction - ENDGAME: BLUEPRINT FOR GLOBAL ENSLAVEMENT - watch it in high quality right now at Prison Planet.tv!
————————————————————————————-

In the interview, Spoonamore stresses how easy it is to hack an electronic voting machine and rig an election.

“If people think that a voting machine that calls in to a tabulator is any different than all those cash registers calling in to the central processor - it’s the same thing,” said Spoonamore. “If you put a man in the middle attack, a computer sitting in the middle that can change or capture or manipulate the information, it will do so,” he added.

“It’s valuable to be president….if you can steal it for a couple of million bucks why not,” said Spoonamore, adding that the last two presidential elections were stolen.

Spoonamore said that he had personally witnessed people attempting to hack election systems and since going public with his testimony had received threats not to talk about vote fraud because it would undermine American’s confidence in the voting process, to which Spoonamore responded that people should doubt their vote because “it’s being stolen”.

Spoonamore said that top Republican operatives had told him that election hacking was “just a different methodology” but they didn’t grasp the fact that if you build a hackable system, “there’s hundreds of sharks that want to hack it and you will not know who the final hacker was.”

Spoonamore said that the only way to prevent elections being stolen is a complete return to paper ballots, a “move back to what worked so well for 190 years,” and the elimination of electronic voting machines.

Watch a key clip below or watch the entire interview via this wmv link or via You Tube.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Royal Mail Honors Eugenicist & Nazi Sympathizer


Family planning pioneer Marie Stopes advocated sterilization of non-whites & poor, sent love letters to Hitler; But respondents agree that most humans should be sterilized or killed

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, September 12, 2008

Royal Mail is set to honor Marie Stopes, a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized, by adopting her image for a new set of stamps.

Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)


Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist) , Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.

Several prominent individuals have expressed their outrage that Stopes is to be included on the 50p stamp in Britain.

Chaplain to the Stock Exchange Peter Mullen, who is Rector of St Michael’s in the City of London, branded Stopes a ‘Nazi sympathiser’.

He said: ‘She campaigned to have the poor, the sick and people of mixed race sterilised.

‘Stopes extended her vile doctrines even to her own family. She cut her son Harry out of her will after he married a near- sighted woman - actually the daughter of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb deployed by the Dambusters.

‘She planned to adopt a child herself-but stipulated that “the boy must be completely healthy, intelligent and uncircumcised”.

‘The managers of the Royal Mail deserve to be condemned for their honouring Marie Stopes.’

Anthony Ozimic of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said: “Praising Marie Stopes as a woman of distinction should be as unacceptable as praising Adolf Hitler as a great leader.”

“Both promoted compulsory sterilisation and thereby the eventual elimination of society’s most vulnerable members to achieve what they called racial progress.”

Others are now campaigning to return any items of mail with the new stamp on them.

————————————————————————————-
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
————————————————————————————-

The fact that the image of Stopes was chosen by a group of female academics and historians underscores the very real foothold that eugenics-style thinking still maintains amongst 21st century elitists.

Alex Jones’ 2007 documentary End Game exposes how the origins of eugenics began not with Hitler and the Nazis, but in fact with the Anglo-American elite towards the end of the 19th century.

The same sentiments continue to be advanced, albeit under different guises such as the Optimum Population Trust movement and some aspects of environmentalism, such as the promotion of one child policies to reduce global warming.

Infamously, an Australian ABC News website aimed at children caused outrage back in May when it advised kids of “when you should die” by calculating their “carbon footprint.”

Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that many would still find common ground with Stopes’ disgusting Nazi ideology even today. Indeed, one of the first reader comments on a Daily Mail article on the subject in response to Stopes’ advocacy of sterilizing parents who the state decrees to be of “bad character” states, “I do not agree with many of her ideas but this one is probably not a bad idea for todays society.”

In fact - the majority of the respondents to the article agree that most humans should be sterilized and/or killed.

“A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” writes another.

“Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.

Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;

We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.

The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us - humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.

Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler. Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.

The nature of these comments is so fundamentally sick and twisted that one is tempted to dismiss them as a joke - but these people are deadly serious.

The kind of people who express such sentiments to ‘improve society by sterilizing the scum’ or to “save the planet’ are blissfully ignorant of the fact that to elitists we are all scum too. Anyone who is not a member of the elite, whether they are middle class or working class, are considered inferior and this is why the prevalence of such ideas is so dangerous to everyone.

In addition, those advocating the wholesale genocide of over 4 billion people and dismissing it as nothing more immoral than the culling of livestock seem to be somewhat reticent to offer themselves or their family members up as the first to be sacrificed ‘for the good of the earth’.

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Remember, CIA saying Saddam Had no Link to Al Qaeda!

Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'
President Bush commenting on the death of Zarqawi
Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for war
There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.

The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.

They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,
Senate report
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

Democrats said the White House was still trying to make the connection between the former Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq.

Less than three weeks ago Mr Bush said in a speech that "Saddam Hussein...had relations with Zarqawi".

Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of these attempts.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in the early 1980s and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

The Right Dictates MSNBC's Programming Decisions

By Glenn Greenwald

08/09/08 "Salon" -- - MSNBC's announcement that it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews with David Gregory as anchors for its main political events (the upcoming presidential debates and election) vividly illustrates several long-obvious facts. First, nothing changes the behavior of our media corporations more easily than vocal demands and complaints from the Right, which petrify media executives and cause them to snap into line. From today's New York Times article identifying some of the causes for MSNBC's decision:

The change -- which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle -- is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel's perceived shift to the political left. . . . When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted "NBC" . . . . Mr. Olbermann, a 49-year-old former sportscaster, has become the face of the more aggressive MSNBC, and the lightning rod for much of the criticism. . . . The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. . . . Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann.

This was preceded by an episode in May in which White House Counselor Ed Gillespie "sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of 'deceptively' editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran." Gillespie warned NBC as follows:

I'm sure you don't want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network's viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don't hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Yesterday, Gillespie got exactly the "response" that he demanded from a super-compliant MSBNC. There is no question whatsoever that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and the Right generally have recently made it a top priority to force MSNBC to remove Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from playing a prominent role in its election coverage, and MSNBC has now complied with the Right's demands. Does it need to be explained why it is disturbing in the extreme that the White House and the McCain campaign can so transparently dictate MSNBC's programming choices?

Second, in response to media criticism that the press is insufficiently substantive and adversarial to political power, the claim is frequently made that media outlets are simply driven by the profit motive, and that their programming choices are nothing more than a by-product of ratings. But in MSNBC's case, that is plainly untrue. Back in 2003, they actually canceled their highest-rated program, Phil Donahue's show, for purely ideological reasons -- because, at a time when the establishment "liberal media" were systematically amplifying the Government's pro-war views and excluding anti-war views, that short-lived MSNBC show was one of the only venues in America where one could hear anti-war viewpoints, and NBC's fear of angering the Government and the Right clearly caused them, first, to impose extreme and unusual restrictions on the show's content, and then to cancel it altogether.

And now here is MSNBC publicly removing (and therefore diminishing) the person who is, by far, its most valuable asset: Keith Olbermann. The NYT article noted:

As Mr. Olbermann raised his voice, his ratings rose as well, and he now reaches more than one million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network. As a result, his identity largely defines MSNBC. "They have banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann," one employee said. . . . At an anniversary party for Mr. Olbermann in April, [NBC CEO Jeff] Zucker called "Countdown" "one of the signature brands of the entire company."

The irrefutable fact is that nothing attracts ratings for MSNBC -- and nothing has attracted ratings in the entire history of that channel -- the way that Olbermann does. Yet here is MSNBC removing him from the anchor position, reducing his role in its political coverage, and clearly diminishing his stature (and implicitly criticizing his coverage). That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset. It is plainly doing so for ideological, not ratings-based, reasons: namely, it fears doing anything to anger the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right in this country.

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a "liberal media." That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn't Rush Limbaugh as a "liberal." Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a "liberal," as is Alan Greenspan's wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews -- for years a prime target of liberal media critics -- is some sort of "liberal." That's the same "liberal" Chris Matthews who, over the years, has said things like this:

I like [George Bush]. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left . . . We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. . . . Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. . . . Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We're huge fans [of Rice] -- bring her back with you next time.

Or see the "liberal" Matthews fawning over Fred Thompson's attractive manliness and Rudy Giuliani's powerful authority and the charming masculinity of Republicans versus the "geekier, nerdier" Democrats. That is who is deemed to be a "liberal" in our political culture because the reality, as Atrios frequently puts it, is that the only hard and fast rule is: "Your liberal media: no liberals allowed."

This has been going on for years. As I wrote in response to the uproar generated at places like The New Republic over the fact that MSNBC has now given an actual liberal, Rachel Maddow, her own show and is thereby jeopardizing non-partisan, objective, high-minded journalism:

Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O'Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of [TNR's Sacha] Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse.

Several of those hosts had and continue to have atrocious ratings (Carlson, Beck, Scarborough), yet were kept for years.

Beyond that, network and cable shows routinely convene panels filled with right-wing views and devoid of anything remotely approaching liberalism, and that creates no controversy. Just this past weekend, I subjected myself while traveling to ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and the panel discussing Sarah Palin was composed of right-wing ideologue George Will, establishment-spokesperson Cokie Roberts, and reporter Sam Donaldson. That is typical for television panels: right-wing partisans such as Will are "balanced" not by any liberals but by allegedly "neutral journalists" such as Roberts or Donaldson. That's because the Right has created a reality where anyone who isn't explicitly Rush Limbaugh is deemed to be a "liberal" (hence, Donaldson likely qualifies) and no actual liberal ever needs to be included. That's how we have a "liberal media" where the principal rule is that actual liberals are systematically excluded, and it's why the ascent of Olbermann (who is, in fact, far more of a Bush critic than a doctrinaire liberal) has created such turmoil -- because it violates that central rule prohibiting liberals from appearing in the Liberal Media.

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann's role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor -- someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he's not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

The Washington Post's Howie Kurtz -- while repeatedly lamenting the ascent of Olbermann (and Maddow) as a threat to objective journalism -- proclaims that "Hume is no partisan brawler" while Charlie Gibson gushes: "He has a wonderful style which makes you want to hear what Brit has to say, in an age when so many people are in your face." The Associated Press recently declared that Fox News has never gone as far as MSNBC in producing partisan news coverage, asserting that "Olbermann's popularity and evolving image as an idealogue (sic) has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity" and that "Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result." Even the NYT article this morning echoed this view of Fox, noting:

While some critics argued that [Olbermann's] assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly anchor on election night -- something that has never happened -- MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

The proper analogy to Olbermann as anchor is not O'Reilly as anchor, but Brit Hume as anchor. Hume explicitly acknowledges his political conservatism. His entire show relentlessly promotes a right-wing narrative. Every night, he convenes panels composed of right-wing partisans such as Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and Mort Kondracke, and -- at most -- sometimes "balances" that with one of those allegedly neutral journalists such as Mara Liasson. Everything Brit Hume touches is designed to promote a right-wing perspective, yet he continues to be held out as some sort of legitimate news anchor -- he actually hosted a Democratic Party presidential debate in 2004 -- while MSNBC's promotion of Keith Olbermann is some unique threat to the profession of journalism.

The single dumbest claim in our political culture is that the huge corporations which own our establishment media outlets promote a "liberal" ideology. Why would General Electric ever use NBC and its other media assets to promote political liberalism? They lavishly benefit from the whole panoply of right-wing policies -- from endlessly expanding defense spending to deregulation. Their multiple businesses depend upon maintaining good relations with the right-wing ideologues who run our Government. Even ignoring all of the above-documented empirical facts, the very idea that a corporation like GE -- or Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC) and Time Warner (CNN) -- would actively promote a left-wing agenda in its news divisions and undermine the very Government power centers on which they rely has been the most self-evidently moronic premise one can imagine. As Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone confessed in 2004:

Senator Kerry is a good man. I've known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.

And yet the myth of the large-corporation-owned "Liberal Media" persists, and even intensifies.

This decision by MSNBC is as alarming as it is illustrative. They just implicitly chided and overtly demoted their most popular and valuable news personality because the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right demanded that they do so. It's fine for Brit Hume to host a "news program" and for hard-core right-wing ideologues to dominate cable news. The fact that Dick Cheney (understandably) viewed Tim Russert's Meet the Press as the ideal forum to allow the White House to "control the message" bothered nobody outside of a few online critics, and didn't remotely impede the perception of Russert as the Beacon of Tough and Objective Journalism. But MSNBC's ratings-based decision to feature Keith Olbermann is a grave threat to modern journalism and must be stopped. So decrees the White House and the McCain campaign, and so the GE-owned MSNBC complies.

UPDATE: There's one other point really worth making here. Throughout the primary season, Clinton supporters were furious at what they endlessly complained was MSBNC's biased coverage in favor of Obama and, more so, its intensely hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton. Whatever one's views on the primary war were, there is no question that Olbermann and Matthews in particular were extremely hostile to Clinton and supportive of Obama. But MSNBC executives ignored those complaints, even derided and mocked them, with MSNBC executive Phil belittling angry Clinton supporters in The New Yorker as nothing more than abused, disillusioned girlfriends with nowhere else to go:

[J]ust as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network's Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. "It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he's funny and he's clever and he's witty, and he's all these great things," Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. "And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

Again, regardless of what one thought of the primary wars or even MSNBC's coverage of the Clinton/Obama race, the contrast between (a) MSNBC's dismissive reaction to complaints of bias from Clinton supporters and (b) its obedience to similar complaints from the Right is stark and revealing. The overriding attribute of the Liberal Media is a deep and abiding fear of angering the Right.

Relatedly, I'll be on Rachel Maddow's radio show tonight (exact time posted once I know it) to discuss the Right's complaints about media bias in the context of the presidential campaign. Local listings and live audio feed are here. Rachel's MSNBC show debuts tonight.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.

Video Shows US Carnage In Afghanistan


Harrowing video film backs Afghan villagers' claims of carnage caused by US troops

By Tom Coghlan in Kabul

08/09/08 "The Times" -- - As the doctor walks between rows of bodies, people lift funeral shrouds to reveal the faces of children and babies, some with severe head injuries.

Women are heard wailing in the background. “Oh God, this is just a child,” shouts one villager. Another cries: “My mother, my mother.”

The grainy video eight-minute footage, seen exclusively by The Times, is the most compelling evidence to emerge of what may be the biggest loss of civilian life during the Afghanistan war.

These are the images that have forced the Pentagon into a rare U-turn. Until yesterday the US military had insisted that only seven civilians were killed in Nawabad on the night of August 21.

Monday, September 08, 2008

16 US troops commit suicide in Iraq


Press TV
Monday, Sept 8, 2008

Sixteen US troops from the 57th Unit of the Airborne Division have committed suicide inside a military base in Iraq, security sources say.

Iraqi security sources have revealed that 21 US troops had committed suicide inside a former Iraqi air force base 27 days ago, Fars News Agency reported on Monday.

According to the sources, the 21 troops were treated in a hospital but only five soldiers have survived and they are in a critical condition. Security officials said they used potent narcotics to kill themselves.

(Article continues below)

The troops’ motivations for suicide are not known but according to Iraqi sources the servicemen belonged to the 57th Unit of the US Airborne Division that was behind the massacre of several Iraqi families– mostly women and children– in northern Baghdad, said Ali al-Baghdadi an Iraqi security official.

The suicides took place in the soldiers’ dormitory after the dinner time.
“The bodies of the US troops became misshapen such a way that they looked like 5000-year mummies,” said a witness.

According to Iraqi officials’ estimates, some 600 US troops, including senior officers, have committed suicide in Iraq since the invasion of the country in 2003. Half of the suicide attempts have been successful.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Rage Guitarist: Government Sponsored Terror "Embedded in the DNA" Of American Politics


Tom Morello speaks to We Are Change on false flag terrorism

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thurs
day, Sept 4, 2008







StumbleUpon

Tom Morello, guitarist with rock protest band Rage Against the Machine, spoke out against false flag terrorism on the same day an impromptu performance by the band was shut down by police outside the RNC.

Morello spoke briefly to members of We Are Change Tuesday just before appearing at an event being held by independent candidate Ralph Nader in St. Paul, Minnesota.

"When the media speaks of terrorism it tends to be in the context of lone bandits from middle eastern countries when most of the terrorism that occurs in the world is government sponsored." Morello told Change reporters.

"Whether it's the Bush administration or the Putin administration, terror is not something that is unfamiliar to governments."

"It is nothing new," Morello continued, "From Gulf of Tonkin to the Maine, in the Spanish American war, it is something that is embedded, unfortunately, in the DNA of American politics."

Watch the video:

(Article continues below)

Earlier in the day Rage announced they would make an unscheduled appearance and perform at the Ripple Effect Day Festival at the Capitol in St. Paul.

However, as soon as police got wind of the plans, state troopers were dispatched to the scene, the power was cut and the band were barred from the stage.

An official quoted in reports claimed that Rage were prohibited from performing because they were not included on the festival's permit, however the Ripple Effect website insisted that permit "held no artist-specific provisions."

As the crowd grew restless, Morello and frontman Zack de la Rocha took to a megaphone and led the protesters in a sing-a-long of some of their hits anyway:

Last night the band were allowed to play a pre-arranged show at the Target Center in St. Paul. After the concert ended at 10.30pm riot police had surrounded the building in waiting for protesters who emerged and took to the streets to march and chant.

Police reportedly used batons, pepper spray and fired bean bag rounds and tear gas to disperse the demonstrators, in scenes more akin to the streets of communist China. After whittling the crowd down to around 75, police surrounded them, ordered them to the ground and arrested them all.

"We are free citizens of America, and we are here because we love our country," said a girl who was leading the crowd, who refused to give her name. 102 people in total were arrested.

The activity marked a second night of indiscriminate police crackdowns throughout the city on innocent protesters.

Katrina Redux and the Removal of Public Housing and Low Income Property





Global Research, September 4, 2008







Renamed and back, but first a personal note. Post-Katrina, writing about "The New Orleans Aftermath and (its) Ugly Glimpse of the Future" turned this retiree into a writer and radio host.

Now three years later, Gustav threatened and, on August 30, got New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin to hype the risk, scare the public, and order a dusk-to-dawn curfew and evacuation of the city's 239,000 residents ahead of what he called "the mother of all storms." Many hundreds of thousands more along the Gulf coast. "Nearly two million people from Texas to Alabama," according to an August 31 New York Times report. Thankfully without cause as "the storm of the century" made landfall as a Category 2, weakened to a tropical depression on September 2, and Louisianans were spared the worst of their fears.

According to The New York Times, New Orleans' levees "were tested by a heavy storm surge but held, even though the repair and reconstruction work from Hurricane Katrina, is far from finished....waves pounded against a floodwall on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, considered a particularly weak link. Though water lapped over the wall for hours, (it) was only ankle-to-knee deep....on the edge of the (Katrina-hit) Ninth Ward." Overall, no serious flooding or major damage occurred, and the Army Corps of Engineers expected no levee breaks. No thanks to its shoddy work as discussed below.

Over the weekend, nonetheless, Mayor Nagin was insistent and suspiciously over-eager to evacuate the city. Those staying behind, he said, were making "one of the biggest mistakes" of their lives because no emergency services were offered and no "last resort" shelters arranged like for Katrina - inadequate though they were. Case in point - residents weren't allowed near the heavily guarded Superdome and Convention Center.

Then on Monday night with the threat passed, Nagin refused to say when residents would be allowed back. Now he'll allow it on September 4 but kept a dusk-to-dawn curfew in place, and warned about power outages and lack of sanitation. Earlier, Governor Bobby Jindal stated that return would be delayed until roads and bridges were inspected and debris cleared. A worrisome sign that something's up. Just like post-Katrina. Many evacuees may be denied reentry. One-fourth of them had no transportation and were bussed out. New Orleans poorest and mostly black. How they'll get back isn't clear. And the fact that DHS chief Michael Chertoff was in town is another reason to be suspicious.

As well as thousands of National Guard forces and USNORTHCOM contingents from across the country. Militarizing the city along with local police and other security forces. Mobilized in place to crack down. DHS and FEMA also and reports about Blackwater Worldwide and other paramilitaries.

Very likely reliable as post-Katrina, Blackwater mercenaries were deployed on New Orleans streets and in neighborhoods. Protected by immunity, they came in full battle gear right after the storm hit and spread out into the city's chaos. Their cover was to provide hurricane relief, but they functioned as vigilantes. Empowered by federal, state and local authorities. Terrorizing local residents. Removing them from choice areas for development. Assuring they couldn't return. A part of America's "war on terrorism" that's heading for citiies everywhere.

They patrolled the Cresent City like Gestapo. Threatening in SUVs with tinted windows and their logos on the back. Others in unmarked cars with no license plates. Menacing in full battle gear. Wearing flak jackets. Carrying automatic weapons with extra guns strapped to their legs. Licensed to use them and kill. Their role as "the world's most powerful mercenary army (employing) some of the most feared professional killers in the world accustomed to operating without worry of legal consequences (and) largely off the congressional radar," according to author Jeremy Scahill in his book on the company. Part of a scheme to militarize America with New Orleans the first test case. Making its streets resemble Baghdad and perhaps back now for an encore.

Earlier the National Hurricane Center (NHC) called Gustav "extremely dangerous" but remained cautious about the threat. Powerful nonetheless at Category 2 (with winds around 110 mph) when it made landfall on September 1 - downgraded from its expected Category 4 strength the preceding weekend. NHC said it struck land at Cocodrie, LA, about 70 miles southwest of New Orleans, so the city was spared a direct hit. Nonetheless, rainfall was intense, flooding occurred, and along with it damage to add to Katrina's fallout.

It was more powerful with winds up to 130 mph and a storm surge topping 27 feet, far above Gustav's eight foot level with some forecasts that it could reach 14 feet. Katrina also made a direct hit on the Mississippi coast while Gustav skirted along Louisiana's shoreline at "a more gentle angle," according to the National Weather Service. Nonetheless, widespread power outages and flooding were reported from Texas to Mississippi, and earlier the storm killed up to 100 people in the Caribbean as it roared across Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, the Cayman Islands, and Western Cuba.

Reports from Kingston cited 11 deaths and "massive damage to roads, bridges and utility lines as a result of mudslides and flooding." The Dominican Republic at least eight more. Haiti, however, fared worst - 66 or more dead, at least 10 reported missing, dozens hurt, and many thousands displaced and their homes destroyed. Schools and other buildings also. Roads cut. Bridges submerged and villages inundated in the most vulnerable country in the Hemisphere.

Cuba was best prepared the way it always is with tens of thousands evacuated in time. No deaths were reported (nor in the Caymans), but widespread damage from wind and flooding in the western part of the island near Havana. Guantanamo is far to the East and was out of the storm's path.

Remembering Katrina

On August 29, 2005, it hit the Gulf coast and flooded New Orleans. A city below sea level. Shaped like a bowl, and woefully unprotected in areas housing poor blacks. Targeted for removal through forced ethnic cleansing to let developers swoop in and take over. Federal, state and local authorities complicit with corporate predators and ready. The city militarized with police, National Guard, and Blackwater mercenaries. Licensed to kill and they did. Making New Orleans safe for capital. Ready now for an encore. What some observers call "disaster capitalism." Exploiting security threats, "terror" attacks, economic meltdowns, competing ideologies, and national disasters like Katrina and Gustav.

New Orleans is a metaphor for capitalism's most savage form - outside of war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. In summer 2005, Katrina wiped out public housing. Erased communities, and let developers replace them with upscale condos and other high-profit projects on choice city real estate. Gentrification writ large. Disneyfication of one of the country's most desirable tourist destinations. Removing poor blacks to make it possible. Assuring most would never return. Remaking New Orleans for profit. Long planned and awaiting a storm to do it. Taking full advantage when it hit.

The Bush administration was heartless with other things on its mind abroad and busy cutting social services budgets at home. It refused emergency funds for public sector salaries so 3000 city workers were fired. Charity Hospital had to close and remains shut. Public transit was gutted and lost half its workers. Most public housing was targeted for removal. Some sits on prime land close to the French Quarter. Developers want it for luxury properties. Katrina (and now Gustav) remade New Orleans to make it possible. It's a window on America's future and business as usual no matter who wins in November. Hopeful optimists be prepared. Disappointment is the operative word for 2009. "Fooled Again," according to Mark Crispin Miller. Democracy here is for the privileged. The rest are to be exploited by neglect and abandonment, then forgotten.

Rules are being hardened. New Orleans is a domestic version of what Iraq pioneered. Creating an open field for capital. Giving administration favorites like Halliburton and Bechtel big contracts. Providing nothing to the poor, disadvantaged and displaced. Importing cheap undocumented labor instead of local workers. Suspending Davis-Bacon Act law that assures prevailing wage rates must be paid on all federally funded or assisted construction projects. Letting developers pay poverty scale instead and deny benefits. Suspending environmental regulations, and dispensing with unwanted people in the way. Assuring the inevitable by leaving New Orleans unprotected, and ignoring FEMA's early 2001 prediction of the three most likely US disasters:

-- a terrorist attack on New York;

-- a major San Francisco earthquake; and the one considered most likely and catastrophic

-- a hurricane and flood in New Orleans.

Experts cited a city below sea level. Vulnerable on the nation's Gulf coast. With inadequate evacuation routes. Poor levy protection. A deteriorating ecosystem from overdevelopment. A catastrophe waiting to happen. Little recollection of when Betsy (in 1965) buried New Orleans under eight feet of water. It at Category 4 entering the Gulf, then downgraded to Category 3 when it struck the city. A future Category 5 one will be disastrous and sure eventually to come.

The city is a bowl ringed by levees, protecting it from the Mississippi to its south and Lake Pontchartrain in the north. At its bottom depth, it lies 14 feet below sea level. Pumping out routine rainfall draws water from the ground. That dries and sinks it deeper. A problem called "subsidence." The city continues to sink. When big storms hit, the bowl fills, and there's no place for water to drain.

Louisiana loses 25 square miles of land a year through erosion. Wetlands are disappearing. Solutions involve huge remediating efforts so far not made. Rebuilding the protective delta. An adequate levee system replacing poorly designed floodwalls not built to standard. Totally overhauling years of planned neglect. Waiting for a chance like Katrina and now Gustav to change the face of New Orleans forever, displace its majority black population, and make the city whiter.

Three years post-Katrina, nearly three-fifths of them aren't back. Most never will be with developers remaking the city into a tourist playground. Housing the wealthy in luxury condos. Keeping out poor blacks in the way. Upgrading New Orleans for profit. "Revitalization" according to city authorities.

Low-cost housing is being phased out. Public transportation as well along with public schools and health facilities that low-income people depend on. FEMA is now exploiting a tragedy and making it worse. Kicking people without homes out of trailers and stranding them on their own.

Bill Quigley is a law professor and Director of the Law Clinic and Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University in New Orleans. He's also been an activist public service lawyer for 30 years - for numerous social issues, including post-Katrina justice.

In an August 26 article, he wrote about the "Katrina Pain Index: New Orleans Three Years Later" and explained the way the city looks today. Some of his data and more are covered below.

-- No Louisiana renters are getting financial aid under the Louisiana Recovery Authority's (LRA) handling of the $10 billion post-Katrina federal Road Home Community Development Block Grant; it's directed to 116,708 homeowners instead and excludes most blacks.

-- No rebuilding plans are in place for the 963 St. Bernard Housing Development units demolished.

-- No data is available to evaluate privatized charter schools; Katrina destroyed half the city's public school buildings; scattered tens of thousands of students and teachers across the country; federal and local authorities jumped on the chance; millions in federal funding went to convert public schools to charter for-profit ones with no debate, input or even knowledge of parents and teachers; all unionized city school employees were fired; then selectively rehired at less pay and fewer or no benefits; New Orleans schools were handed to business; the remaining poor, mostly black population, was disenfranchised; consigned to under-funded schools and denied the education they deserve; 40% fewer special education students (needing extra help) now attend charter schools compared to underfunded public ones; most city schools today are for-profit; plans are for all of them to be.

-- Virtually no rental homes were repaired - 82 out of a projected 10,000 in need.

-- New Orleans ranks first in the nation in percentage of vacant or ruined housing units.

-- Four of the 13 city Planning Districts are as much at flood risk as before Katrina.

-- Only 11% of hard-hit Lower Ninth Ward families have returned; pre-Katrina, it was one of the country's richest cultural communities; one community leader said it had an "atmosphere of engagement;" in dialogue, music, words and history; a Make It Right Stakeholders Coalition promotes rebuilding and helps residents return to the neighborhood; federal and city authorities are committed to obstructing them.

-- Experts estimate it will take 20 to 25 years to rebuild New Orleans at the current pace of reconstruction.

-- There are 25% fewer hospitals in the metro area than pre-Katrina; 38% fewer hospital beds.

-- One-third of city neighborhoods have less than half their pre-Katrina households; ones where poor black people live.

-- Rents have risen 46% making housing unaffordable for poor and low income people.

-- 81% of city homeowners got insufficient funding to repair their homes.

-- post-Katrina, 10,000 homes were demolished.

-- thousands are still in temporary trailers; FEMA is slowly displacing them.

-- the homeless population doubled post-Katrina.

-- 32,000 children never returned to public schools; their population is half the pre-Katrina total.

-- 39,000 Louisiana homeowners applying for federal repair and rebuilding aid never got it.

-- 46,000 fewer black voters were eligible in 2007 than 2003.

-- there are nearly 72,000 vacant, ruined or unoccupied city houses.

-- the city's population was reduced by 214,000 and is now 239,000, according to the latest US Census Bureau estimate; and

-- billions of FEMA damage and repair funding has yet to be made available to city and state residents; it likely never will be.

Meanwhile, three years post-Katrina, $15 billion in New Orleans hurricane protection construction has barely started even though the US Army Corps of Engineers says 20% of it is completed. All of it is supposed to be by 2011, and the Corps claims New Orleans "now has the best flood protection in its history."

Point of fact - it's woefully inadequate. The city remains vulnerable, especially in its eastern poorer areas. Too little is being done to prevent another Katrina disaster that's inevitable from a powerful future storm. If a Category 5, it'll be disastrous, and a shocking April 24 WWL-TV report provides evidence.

It's headlined: "4 Investigates: Floodwalls stuffed with newspaper?" "It blows my mind," according to St. Bernard parish president Craig Taffaro showing videotape evidence on-air. An indictment of a US Army Corps of Engineers hired contractor. A resident said two years ago he witnessed the expansion joint opening between floodwalls being stuffed with newspapers. "The whole length" of it. And when he confronted the contractor he was told "when Congress sends down the money, it would be repaired the proper way."

It wasn't as Gustav approached, and WWL asked a local American Society of Civil Engineers member to investigate. A man ASCE named Louisiana's outstanding civil engineer in 2003 - Subhash Kulkarni. He said: "I cannot even comprehend that somebody would stuff some newspaper in there." Floodwall expansion joints have three lines of defense:

-- an elastic strip to help keep out water;

-- waterstops in the middle that's most important; the St. Bernard floodwall has them; and

-- rubber joints in between to keep out foreign objects; St. Bernard floodwalls lack them; newspaper was used instead; Kulkarni called it "very serious; it doesn't take a lot of stress to cause the failure of these floodwalls; we don't know after two or three years how the main joint will perform; this is the first line of defense."

For its part, the Corps of Engineers defended the work and denied any of it was shoddy, but a Corps emailer disagreed. He told WWL that "sponge rubber" is required next to waterstops - the same areas where newspaper was used instead. Ecron Corporation did the work. Contractually it was obliged to do it right. The company president didn't respond to WWL's "repeated requests for a comment," and the station discovered that his company "is not even licensed by the state's board for contractors." Apparently not a problem with the Corps of Engineers. Or with the Bush administration and its corporate allies who crave another chance to make New Orleans even whiter and free up more choice real estate for high-profit development.

A total city makeover with billions in federal and local funding to assist. Welcome to America's future. Upscale tourist destinations. Luxury accommodations for the privileged. Gated communities for the wealthy. Every amenity imaginable. For most others and the nation's poor - exploitation by neglect and abandonment. Growing numbers on society's fringes ignored and forgotten. A two-party duopoly assuring it. Militarizing the country for enforcement. Planning an unfriendly future by making America into a police state. Replicating the model everywhere. New Orleans and Iraq are incubators. Not the kind of country for young people to inherit. High time that enough of us realize it's our job to prevent it.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10016

Stephen Lendman is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Lendman

Who Is Wrecking America?



By Paul Craig Roberts

03/09/08 "
ICH " -- - Does the liberal-left have a clue? I sometimes think not.

In his book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas?,” Thomas Frank made the excellent point that the Karl Rove Republicans take advantage of ordinary’s people’s frustrations and resentments to lead them into voting against their best interest.

Frank’s new book, “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule,” lacks the insight that distinguished his previous book. Why does Frank think that conservatives or liberals rule?

Neither rule. America is ruled by organized interest groups with money to elect candidates who serve their interests. Frank’s book does not even mention the Israel Lobby, which bleeds Americans for the sake of Israeli territorial expansion. Check the index. Israel is not there.

Does Frank think that rapture evangelicals are conservative, that Christian Zionists are conservative? If so, where did he learn his theology?

Frank can’t tell the difference between Ronald Reagan and Cheney/Bush. He conflates the collection of opportunists and fanatics that comprise the Bush Party with the Reagan conservatives who ended stagflation and the cold war. The adventurer, Jack Abramoff, is Frank’s epitome of a conservative. Abramoff is the most mentioned person in Frank’s story. In Frank’s view, conservatives are out to ruin everyone except the rich.

But it was the Clinton administration that rigged the Consumer Price Index in order to cheat retired people out of their Social Security cost of living increases.

It was the Clinton administration that vanished discouraged workers from the unemployment rolls.

It was the Clinton administration that wrecked “effective government” by encouraging early civil service retirements in order to make way for quota hires.

Why doesn’t Frank know that the “Reagan deficit” was due to the collapse of inflation below the forecast, thus reducing the flow of inflated revenues into the government’s budget, whereas the Bush deficit is a result of what Nobel Democrat economist Joe Stiglitz has calculated to be a $3 trillion dollar war in the Middle East?

Frank doesn’t want to know. Like so many fighting ideological battles, he just wants to damn “the enemy.”

But who is Frank’s enemy? He calls them “conservatives.” But the Bush regime is a neoconservative regime. Neoconservatives, despite the name, are not conservatives. They have taken over formerly conservative publications, think tanks, and foundations and driven out the conservatives.

Neoconservatives are in the tradition of the French Jacobins of the 18th century. Having had the French Revolution, the revolutionaries thought that they should take it to all of Europe. Napoleon exercised French hegemony over Europe. The American neocons desire American hegemony over the world.

The true American conservative does not believe in foreign wars. In US history, conservatives were derided by liberals as “isolationists.”

There is nothing conservative about launching wars of aggression on the basis of lies and deception in order to control the direction of oil pipelines and to enhance Israeli territorial expansion.

Frank misses all of this.

And what a pity that is. A false conservative-liberal fight distracts attention from the growing police state that is destroying civil liberties for all Americans. It obscures the real motives of policies in behalf of special interests that are leading to nuclear confrontation with Russia and China.

What is wrecking America is not conservatives, but a neoconservative ideology of US hegemony.

What is wrecking America is the “impeachment-is-off-the-table” twins, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

What is wrecking America is the Democratic Party, which was put in control of the House and Senate in the 2006 congressional elections to stop the gratuitous wars and gestapo police, but, instead, has continued to cooperate with the Cheney/Bush regime in behalf of war and police repression, such as we witnessed at the Republican National Convention.

Frank’s book, “The Wrecking Crew” falls into the scapegoat category of blaming the innocent and irrelevant. The Democrat Party could impeach Cheney/Bush and cut off funding for the wars and corrupt military contracts. But they do nothing and get a free pass from Frank.

“The Wrecking Crew” does have one virtue. Frank shows that the Republicans have spawned a new generation of brownshirts that lust to imprison, torture, and kill people. These ignorant bloodthirsty thugs see enemies everywhere and fervently desire to nuke them all. The Republican brownshirts are equally willing to kill American critics of the Bush regime as to kill Taliban and al Qaeda.

The latest “enemy” is Russia. The Bush regime, complicit in its Georgian puppet’s war crimes against South Ossetia, is attempting to hide its responsibility for ethnic cleansing by demonizing Russia. With every threat the Bush regime issues against Russia, the war drums beat louder. Yet, the print and TV media and Democratic Party have jumped on the war wagon.

The rapture evangelicals and the neocons are euphoric at the prospect of nuclear war. Frank’s misguided barrage at conservatives, who are a brake on war and the police state, hastens end times.