mardi 15 février 2011

‘Cheney Stand Down Order’ #1 on Google Trends

‘Cheney Stand Down Order’ #1 on Google Trends

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
February 15, 2011

Great job again to our listeners for driving “Cheney Stand Down Order” to the top of Google’s Trends this Tuesday, February 15, 2011.

'Cheney Stand Down Order' tops Google Trends this Tuesday, February 15, 2011.

From Aaron Dykes’ article “WeAreChange Confronts Dick Cheney on 9/11 Standdown Order“:

The testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 Commission leaves compelling questions about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s actions on the day of 9/11. Then Transportation Secretary Mineta witnessed Cheney refuse to contradict an apparent standdown order as an aide warned of something incoming at the Pentagon. Cheney has given conflicting reports about what time he entered the PEOC bunker. Mineta later confirmed his suppressed 9/11 Commission testimony and refuted Cheney’s account of arriving later.

During the CPAC conference, confronted Cheney about these questions, which he refused to address.

“Hey Mr. Cheney, what did you do in the underground bunker on 9/11? Dick Cheney we know what you did on 9/11 with the standdown order. Norman Mineta testified against you on the 9/11 Commission report. What happened on 9/11?”

Here’s the We Are Change confrontation that brought Dick Cheney’s actions on 9/11 to the forefront once again:

Luke Rudkowski and James Lane of We Are Change confront Dick Cheney in Wahsington D.C. at CPAC 2/10/2011.

WeAreChangeOklahoma – Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney (CPAC 2011)

Obama’s Budget Banter Omission: The Banks Broke the Bank

Obama’s Budget Banter Omission: The Banks Broke the Bank
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Nomi Prins
Zero Hedge
February 15, 2011

Since the White House announced its 2012 budget, the requisite punditry stream has been breaking down its specific pluses and minuses. I could grab illustrative quotes from various places and people, or add to the analytical details, but for the most part, it boils down to something like this:

GOP and GOP supporters: Obama didn’t make enough spending cuts, he’s not taking this whole budget thing seriously. Oh, and about the cuts he did suggest with regard to corporate tax benefits, high-end mortgage-holder deductions and (his-own) extension of wealthy individual Bushian tax breaks – well, that’s just plain anti-American and – will kill jobs. (The fact that corporations were contributing just 6.6% and 7.2% in 2009 and 2010, of the total federal tax receipts, a 50% drop relative to the rate before the financial crisis, or about $150 billion per year, isn’t relevant in the scheme of things.) Now, where can we cut another $100 billion?

DEMs and DEM supporters: Obama inherited a bum economy, bum budget and bum deficit from Bush. And, he’s turning around the crap hand he was dealt, slowly.  That means he has to cut back on some important programs, but he’s gonna champion a high-speed railway, electric cars (to drive along side the high-speed railway?), and clean energy initiatives, and those will most certainly put millions of people back to work. Yes, he appointed Tim Geithner, one of the lead bank bailout builders, whose Treasury department colluded with the Fed, under Ben Bernanke, the other guy Obama kept on deck to help the economy, to increase the amount of US Treasury debt to $9.4 trillion from $5.4 trillion since the financial system began inhaling subsidies in the fall of 2008, and went on to post record bonuses and profits. But, he had no choice.

The intent of the actual discourse kind of makes me imagine a burning building across the street, raging flames, engulfing smoke, crumbling over its foundation, and there are two people watching, one’s a Democrat and one’s a Republican. While the fire intensifies, they are arguing over whether it’s better to use a thimble or a teaspoon of water as an extinguisher aid. Somewhere, off in the distance, is an engineer trying to figure out how to rebuild the building over its ashes.

The sad truth is that the budget deficit is a direct outcome of the economic policies that were adopted by both parties over the years. National debt nearly doubled under Bush, and continued to grow under Obama, while the financial system pillaged the country for trillions of dollars twice – first, during the leveraged build-up to the economic collapse, and then, via a stockpile of creative subsidization awards afterwards, the underlying debt build-up for which, lingers like a bad hangover.

Unless the real economy becomes healthier, more people are employed and we institute a far more progressive tax and distribution structure, there is simply no mathematical way, to balance this budget.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

So, there is no silver bullet amount of spending cuts that is sufficient to balance it either, particularly as long as we are only looking at, and debating about, the spending side of the US balance sheet, and only a portion of the non-discretionary component, at that. Quibbling over whether Obama is cutting enough or not enough, is quibbling over the wrong question. Obama showcasing just the cuts as these ‘hard choices’ that will get us more towards balance, is meaningless. It is equally misleading for the GOP  to focus on a separate subset of potential spending cuts, and conclude that this extra $100 billion will do the trick. Making $1.1 trillion of cuts over ten years, all things equal, with a projected deficit per year that’s higher than that, won’t balance any budget, for any political party.

You know what would have been really cool?

If Obama had just said – you know what – the budget can’t be balanced, deal with it. And you know why? Because over the past two years, the economy, that was trashed by the banking sector, still sucks. And, during the entirety of the Bush administration, while prepping the economy to suck, debt to pay for wars and tax cuts kept growing. And, when the banking system was facing the abyss, we opened our checkbooks, we stimulated the hell out of it, but we did it mostly through issuing Treasury debt and the magical Fed printing machines – so it doesn’t show up in the budget that we’re all debating, except for a couple hundred billion to Fannie and Freddie and what remains of the stellar TARP project. And you know what? I admit that was a stupid thing to do. It was stupid when it started under Bush, and it was stupid when it continued under me and the economic team I appointed to keep it going. The bailout binge increased our public debt by 50% under my reckless economic advisors, Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve. And, hell if other countries decide to dump Treasuries in bulk, and their interest rates rise, and Bernanke can’t QE them down fast enough, our budget deficit will gap like the Grand Canyon.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Meanwhile folks, we need revenue. Just like banks need profits to pay bonuses. And, that’s something that can only be remedied through a healthier economy – not just for corporations, stock market investors and banks – that are sitting on $2 trillion in cash, with $1 trillion parked at the Fed  - but for the general population that still counts 26 million people under or unemployed, not to mention a historically high 48.9% unemployment rate for youth, rising food and basic needs costs, continued foreclosures on entire families, and health insurance rates that will double within the next three years. You know what, when this country needed revenue in the past, Republican presidents and congresses did the math. Now, it’s my turn. Let the GOP explain exactly how a lower corporate tax contribution created more jobs in the past two years, and while they’re trying to figure that out, I’m gonna show some real leadership, and do everything I can – not to balance the budget – but to balance our economy.

Oh well.

Les conseils d'un marchand d'armes pour réduire la dette publique


G20 Pushes Globalist SDR and China’s Role

G20 Pushes Globalist SDR and China’s Role
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Kurt Nimmo
February 15, 2011

On Monday, French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde said her country will work to realize a planned transition to a global financial system based on several international currencies. France is currently head of the G20.

Lagarde and the G20 want to undermine sovereignty of nations by moving away from national reserves into SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund.

The G20′s mid-February meeting in Paris will concentrate on “reform” of the international monetary system.

“Continuing demand for the U.S. dollar as the world’s de facto reserve currency, consequently still widening trade imbalances, and ongoing worry over how long the dollar can retain its excessively high value relative to other currencies, are sowing the seeds of renewed global financial instability,” warned Robert C. Hockett, an expert on international finance and professor of law at Cornell University.

Hockett said the Chinese yuan will likely be added to the dollar, euro, pound, and yen as one of the principal currency components of the Special Drawing Rights.

Lagarde and the G20 are currently debating the role of China. She said France favors including the renminbi in the currencies that make up SDRs even before the Chinese currency is fully convertible.

In 2009, Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank’s governor, said he wants a new globalist reserve currency to be controlled by the International Monetary Fund.

On Monday, Japan acknowledged that China’s economy is now the second-largest. Due to China’s furious growth, the country is expected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2030.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

China outpaced the United States in manufacturing this year. In 2009, the U.S. created 19.9 per cent of world manufacturing output, compared with 18.6 per cent for China, with the US staying ahead despite a steep fall in factory production due to the global recession, according to Global Insight, a U.S.-based economics consultancy.

The G20 is dedicated to transforming the IMF into a globalist version of the Federal Reserve. The authoritarian slave labor nation of China plays an instrumental role in this proposed transformation.

During recent G20 meetings, China worked closely with the United Nations to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. China’s central bank insists the dollar’s global role allowed the U.S. to borrow cheaply abroad, fueling the credit boom that led to the financial crisis.

“A new world order is emerging,” declared former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the conclusion of the London G20 summit. Brown later characterized the globalist takeover scheme as the emergence of “one global progressive family.”

The IMF considers China – with its authoritarian government and a slave labor workforce – as the economic model of the future.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

“The signals being sent by Brown, Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn, Geithner, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and others should be setting off high-decibel alarm bells,” William F. Jasper wrote after the London summit in 2009. “We are witnessing the demolition of our constitutional system and the piecemeal replacement of it with world government. Over the coming months, the architects of this new global system intend to wring every opportunity possible out of the current economic crisis to bulldoze through our constitutional checks and balances that stand in the way of empowering the IMF, the WTO, and the United Nations.”

Kurt Nimmo edits He is the author of Another Day in the Empire: Life In Neoconservative America.

Alex Jones and Midas Resources has come together to offer you three of the most hard hitting videos ever produced: End Game, Obama Deception, and Fall of the Republic.

After viewing this collection you will know who is pulling the strings of our puppet government. It’s not about Left or Right: it’s about a One World Government. The international banks’ plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.

If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this eye-opening film collection is for you. For a limited time this collection is being offered with three constitutional silver dollars, the real money our for-fathers intended for us to use. Order this special collection today and get the perfect solution to the perfect economic storm.

midas offer

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama

Ron Paul: I Can Beat “Warmongering” Obama
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Paul Joseph Watson
February 15, 2011

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Congressman Ron Paul dropped perhaps the biggest hint yet that he is preparing to announce his campaign for the presidency, affirming he has the ability to unite Republicans, independents and progressive to defeat the “warmongering” Barack Obama.

Asked if he could beat Obama, Paul responded, “The reality is it would be very, very difficult, but if you look at the polls, and there aren’t that many, my appeal is to a lot of independents and a lot of progressive Democrats who are sick and tired of Obama for opting out of cutting back on some of this militarism,” adding that his numbers would be even bigger when stacked up against Obama than they would be in a Republican primary.

“He’s a war monger,” Rep. Paul added. “He’s expanding the war. My numbers would be much bigger running against Obama than they will be running against some conservative in the Republican primary.”

Indeed, an April 2010 Rasmussen poll showed that Paul was almost level with Obama if the two were to go head to head for the presidency. Following a 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, Obama has pulled away from all potential Republican candidates, but given the momentum Paul could build with his energetic grass roots base, beating Obama would be a distinct possibility.

Despite the fact that a Rasmussen poll released last week showed that Paul was ahead of Sarah Palin in terms of having the ability to beat Obama, a Fox News poll released yesterday, which showed all of the establishment Republican candidates trailing Obama by some margin, did not even include Paul in the survey.

Exemplifying again how the establishment consistently tries to derail Paul’s momentum by ignoring his very existence, obscure names like John Thune and Jon Huntsman were included in the Fox poll and yet Paul was omitted entirely.

During the MSNBC segment, the Congressman pointed out that the debate over military spending was a matter of semantics, arguing that the issue had little to do with “defense” and more to do with propping up the US military-industrial complex and occupying foreign countries.

“I think the problem we have is with the semantics,” said Paul. “They have conditioned us all to use the word defense spending. Who wants to cut defense? I don’t want to cut defense. I want a stronger defense.”

“I want to cut the militarism, the interventionism, the stuff that hurts us, that makes us more vulnerable,” he added. “If we separate defense from militarism, maybe more people would be willing to accept it. Who wants to be on record who says I just voted against the defense budget.”

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

“I think it’s a perception and a semantics problem that we have to try to reeducate the people to understand what we’re talking about.”

Paul’s ostracization by the self-proclaimed “conservative” Young Americans for Freedom organization, a group that vehemently supported the Democrat-led war in Vietnam, for his refusal to support the interventionist and neo-liberal expansion of the US military-industrial complex, should be worn as a badge of honor.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.

By lumping Ron Paul in with the “feeble and appeasing” Obama administration, Marks attempts to make a distinction between Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, by portraying Obama as weak on “defense,” when in reality, the Obama war chest has been bigger than anything ever passed under Bush year upon year. Obama’s 2011 war chest swelled to more than 700 billion dollars – that’s more than Bush ever got.

Indeed, as soon as Obama took office his first action was to send 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan and to expand the Bush-era bombings in Pakistan, as well as opening up a new front in Yemen. There are more US troops deployed globally under Obama than there ever were under Bush.

Bush and Obama have both followed identical interventionist foreign policies that mainly revolve around carpet bombing goat herders in broken-backed third world countries, something that Paul rightly points out has nothing to do with the “defense” of the United States.

The fact that Obama has a bigger military budget than Bush ever did gives a pretty clear indication that occupying and invading foreign countries has nothing to do with true conservatism – it comes from the foundational beliefs of those whom the Young Americans for Freedom organization would undoubtedly champion – neo-cons who are nothing more than Trotskyites – they believe wholeheartedly in the welfare-warfare state.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Ron Paul should be honored to be kicked out of this pitiful little group – because it only crystallizes his character as a real conservative, while the Young Americans for Freedom are nothing more than a mouthpiece for neo-cons who have more in common with historical Marxists than they do the founding fathers of America.

Ron Paul is a true icon of genuine conservatism – every policy he embraces would have a ringing endorsement from the founding fathers – who staunchly advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Has There Been An Egyptian Revolution?

Has There Been An Egyptian Revolution?
  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store

Paul Craig Roberts
February 15, 2011

I popped the champagne cork to celebrate the Egyptian people’s success in driving out of office the American puppet, Mubarak.  However, as I wrote on February 1, Mubarak’s departure doesn’t guarantee that his successor will not find himself wearing the same American harness.  As Gerald Celente puts it, “Meet the new boss, same as old boss.”

It remains to be seen how much of a revolution has occurred.  Marx and Lenin would be put off by the idealistic jubilation over a spontaneous revolution that caused Mubarak to resign after a couple of weeks of protests.  Marx and Lenin would say that nothing has changed.  The materialist basis of the old order is still in place: the elites, the police, the army, the bureaucracy, the U.S. Embassy.   Moreover, no vanguard has appeared to lead the revolution to completeness.  Marx and Lenin would heap scorn on the prevalent idea that the material interests of the old ruling order, which is still in place,  have been brought in line with the material interests of the Egyptian people. 

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Marx and Lenin, believed that no revolution could succeed that did not destroy all representatives of the old order. The effective force in history, Marx and Lenin said, was violence. The Bolsheviks murdered every member of the Czar’s family in order to obliterate any hope that the old order could be reinstated.  

How many revolutions have succeeded without violence?  Even the American Revolution was violent, and not merely against King George.  Colonists who thought of themselves as British and remained loyal to England were dispossessed and had to flee to Canada.  Although not Marxists, the American revolutionaries were unforgiving.

Perhaps what we have witnessed in Egypt is just the opening stage. If Egyptians find out that not much has changed, they will erupt again in a more decisive manner, this time under focused leaders. If this revolution is put down, the next development could be civil war, leading on to Celente’s prediction of regional wars developing into the first “great war” of the 21st century.  

The elites are greatly outnumbered, and in every country the elites have monopolized resources and opportunities and possess more wealth and income than they know what to do with.  The few armed with vast wealth are unlikely to prevail against the many armed with vast anger.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Still, too much should not be given to Marx and Lenin.  Material interests are important, but they are not all.  There is good and evil in the human breast.  People can change their mind. The Soviet Empire was not overthrown by a revolution.  It collapsed because the ruling class, the communists themselves, changed their minds, acknowledged the wrongness of their system, and let go of it.  

Perhaps this will happen in Egypt and elsewhere.  

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.