Posts Tagged ‘Osama bin Laden’

Whistleblowers tell – Wiretapping one Watergate office, now wiretapping everybody!

June 13, 2013
NSA Spy Center

NSA Spy Center (Photo credit: JamesArtre)


What if the Republicans or Democrats had called for prosecution against Deep Throat? What if the CIA had brought charges? Nixon had an enemies’ list, what if that were a kill list?


What if he had wiretapped not only the Democrats but the Republicans too, and not only political operators but their families, their friends, their acquaintances, and spies, and criminals, and cops, and governors, and Supreme Court justices like Robert Brown, and not only all of those, but every single person living in the United States?


What if this had some connection to Justice Roberts’ sudden change of attitude on the Obamacare decision? Before you answer, remember, PRISM was still called a “conspiracy theory” just ten years ago, and even after the New York Times ran a short article on it.


EDITORIAL: The Whistleblower – Washington Times:


There are a couple of paragraphs that bring out clearly the difference between Watergate and the more recent revelations:


(A couple of editors’ notes -mine- are in [brackets])


The latest revelations will have no pernicious effect [ed: on
terrorists and enemies] because our enemies assume Uncle Sam has been listening. Al Qaeda operatives use codes, dead drops and encryption to carry out attacks, such as the Boston bombings, under the nose of the mass surveillance. That’s what spies and terrorists do.


[The official record of events is that it took ten years to get at
Osama bin Laden, because he did not communicate using the media that
PRISM grabs.]


Google, Facebook and the other companies play along, denying that the government is directly tapping into their servers. This is an empty assurance, considering that these companies could never legally admit to allowing a tap. The court order authorizing blanket interception of “all call-detail records” from Verizon instructs that “no person shall disclose to any other person that the FBI or NSA has sought or obtained tangible things under this order.”


The next paragraph is a point that has not yet been made:


Such extreme secrecy isn’t about making sure that China or the Taliban never learn about U.S. surveillance capabilities, but about keeping ordinary Americans in the dark about what’s going on. The Nixon administration was brought low by the bungled bugging of the Democratic National Committee headquarters 41 years ago. Now every telephone in the country is tapped. A lot of people are unhappy about it, and we can be sure that the unelected bureaucrats in charge of these powerful surveillance tools will say whatever it takes to keep them.

A few analysts operating in secret have access to every embarrassing photograph, incriminating text message and off-color remark ever made on a telephone or over the Internet. The lesson here, so far, is that if the government won’t tell the public what’s going on, someone will. It’s not the way to run a government, but this government brought it upon itself. The Founding Fathers would never have entrusted power over such information to a handful of men. Neither should we.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


The cat is out of the bag, now we all know, the American government has now admitted it, the truth is on the loose and in the wild, wild, untamed wilderness of the Internet. No wonder the president doesn’t like the New Media, Bush didn’t either of course.




In 2012 Old Media was still denying what some of us were protesting against what we knew 20 years ago. As long ago as a six months, the ignored warnings were called “conspiracy theories”.


Nixon was impeached and pushed out of office for covering up the operation to wiretap the phones of the political opposition to listen in to their conversations.


Now, we have a case of two administrations connected with two different political parties, engaging in wiretapping everybody in the nation, not just around the world, and intercepting the communications of ALL of us.




Europe is of course acting all indignant, like they would never do such a thing, but the same watchmen who warned about what the NSA is doing have also fingered the Europeans.


Europeans, Echelon is yours too. Western nations trade intelligence, but they also spy on each other. We know this. But this puts some meat to those bones.




No wonder exposed political operatives and politicians don’t like the New Media. The cyber-security flap is all about getting control, however they can. Copyright, patents, security, they’ll use anything to be able to have the Chinese-style “flip switch” that Joe Lieberman pined for, to be able to shut down the Internet with a button controlled from the White House.


The Chinese had a Cultural Revolution too, were upwards of 20 million were killed for thinking different, with a bunch of personal grudges thrown in, no doubt. What makes the Lieberman think he can get an Internet switch without a cultural revolution government?




Proverbs 15:3
The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.


Luke 8:17
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.


Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.


Isaiah 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.


Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.



Mass. Senate race heats as angry GOP nominee calls Ed Markey ‘pond scum’ – Washington Times

May 26, 2013
Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky, prepared the way for the Beast to “overthrow the kingdom by flatteries” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Gabriel Gomez wins this round. The headline quotes Gomez but you have to read the article to see that the title “pond scum” actually fits the attacks by the Ed Markey campaign against him, like the ad described that used not-so-subliminal tricks to play with a viewers’ minds.


People should educated themselves to those kinds of tricks used in both commercial and political propaganda.


They have already been learning a lot about the Saul Alinsky tricks that “leftists” use to subvert discourse and push their agenda, mostly pulling no punches.


Markey is now associated with “pond scum” and rightly so. A few of Alinsky’s tricks can just backfire on the “pond scum” that use them, like in this case, because associating Representative Ed Markey from Massachusetts with “pond scum” is an appropriate one for defending the vile ad. Markey’s use of the word “desperation” seem to apply to Ed Markey himself, as ads like these show a flailing propagandist’s own desperation.


Ed Markey is drowning in ad hominem, in other words. But acting like you have the morality of “pond scum”, and then defending it, seems to confirm the label.



The Crusades, Terrorism and the Middle East

April 28, 2013

The Crusades were an effort to take BACK by force that which had been taken by FORCE by Islamic conquest.
Wars are brutal and what’s missed in that is (1) the Crusades were opposed by many Christians of the day, including (2) St. Francis of Assisi, who brokered a peace between the two sides on one occasion.

The Inquisition was run by a *political* hierarchy that used the name of Christ for cover, just as today in the West the most vile of corrupt rulers use “democracy” as a cover, and a tyrannical Hugo Chavez used “majority vote” –and even God– as a cover (never mind the fraud).

How can anybody call the Inquisition period a “Christian” thing when a central issue was to BAN THE BIBLE AND BURN ITS ADVOCATES as witches? An identity thief can call himself anything. Kris Kringle or Santa Clause by any other lying name, no matter how much you paint lipstick on that pig.

Recently one Anders Behring Breivik shot 77 peaceful –and unarmed– campers dead in Norway (the first one was the only one armed security man) had advocated “Christian” culture on his web site. As soon as they saw the word “Christian”, CNN ran a feed at the bottom of the screen for hours on end, days, that said “Christian fundamentalist” — a criminally negligent and slanderous accusation against a great number of peaceful Christian fundamentalists. Because on the same web site where they got the word “Christian”, the shooter said that he did NOT believe the Bible and he did NOT believe in Jesus. CNN shows itself again to be “fundamentally” bigoted against the name of Jesus Christ.

It is also a sign of truncated thinking and anti-Christ bigotry to equate Christian and Islamic holy books or actions. Even militant Islamists –as they are painted in the Western media image of them–are no doubt offended at this irrational equivalency-by-monotonous-repetition equivalency meme. Atheists who do not have the need to invent such contortions, are appalled by this too. The worst horrors of history were done by officially and enforced atheist regimes that banned all religious faiths from any public expression.

In one of them, both the central figure (Christ) laid down his life to the death for unbelievers at the beginning, and millions of his followers have done the same since. In the other, the founding figure laid down the lives of unbelievers at the beginning, and 100s of thousands, maybe millions, of his followers have done the same thing since.

Most Muslims want to live in peace, and support their families. I have cultivated close friendship with Muslim co-workers, and we have talked about the principles of our faiths without even raising our voices. Many Muslims risk beheading for accepting Jesus Christ as risen Savior and many Christians risk beheading in many parts of the world for being Christians.

“Terrorism” is a very broad category of tactics used by small groups to leverage such tactics where the proponent is otherwise weak in power.We see the “blowback principle” take effect when the people targeted by such actions become enraged.

The unconstitutional undeclared “war against terrorism” was a Newspeak tactic to propel the U.S.A. and the world into a permanent state of war. All the easier to take away the “freedoms” that “they” supposedly hate us for. It all too easily expands into asking the subjects of the rulers to tell authorities about anybody who “hates the government”. We have seen this movie before.

Michael Scherer said it well, something like, They’re not over here because we’re free to enjoy a few beers at night, they don’t like us bombing and invading them. Nobody can accuse Mr. Scherer of gullibility. He was the head of the team that sought Osama bin Laden all those years and set it up for the next team to find him. I doubt he is portrayed in the Hollywood movie about the search.

He has explained many times in media interviews the established principle of “blowback”, a term often used within the CIA for such a phenomenon, where your actions have reactions. This is *NOT* a “blaming America” thing.

Who decided to bomb and invade over there? Was there ever any debate in Congress, as constitutionally required in the U.S., about a declaration of war? Was it “America”, or was it America’s rulers?

Was there ever a debate in Congress over whether to declare war on Libya? Or did America’s *rulers” decide to send in military force (Special Forces) on the ground while denying it? When the “rebels” began losing, who decided to bomb the crap out of Libyan government forces?

There were lots of talking heads that declared Gaddafi was murdering civilians. But the best evidence of massacre of civilians are the pictures of the town that is no more, obliterated, its inhabitants wiped out and “cleansed”, that the entire town of Tawarga.

It’s not that the murderers who perpetrated this racist atrocity hid anything. They bragged about it, they bragged that they were not going to let it rebuild, they bragged about wiping out the 10,000 black-skinned Africans who built it up. Towarga burning:


Frightened Towarga refugee:

Libyan terrorists make blacks disappear, and the USA is helping them in Syria?!*!

April 11, 2012
We can learn from kids...   (De los niños pode...

We can learn from kids... (De los niños podemos aprender) (Photo credit: i_amici)

In Libya:

Black people have been disappearing all across Libya, with rebels arresting people simply on the basis of skin color, but how does a whole city go missing? It may be quite some time before we learn exactly what happened, but we have hints in media reports dating back to June, when Misrata rebels began openly talking about “cleansing” the region of blacks and were saying that black Libyans might as well pack up because “Tawarga no longer exists, only Misrata.”

And now Syria:

NYT Insults Intelligence in Latest Syrian Op-Ed

While the NYT unprofessionally throws around adjectives like “despicable” “brutal” and describes the events unfolding in Syria as “slaughter,” even by the Syrian opposition’s own admissions and throughout reports by “top rights groups” like Human Rights Watch (HRW), they are fighting just as “despicably,” “brutally,” and committing “slaughter” just as readily. That is because it takes two belligerents to conduct an armed uprising – a fact of reality the NYT attempts to sidestep in their desperate appeal to what they must assume is an infinitely ignorant readership.

The Obama is following the previous interventionist policy that the USA and NATO undertook in fighting for the Kosovo Liberation Army. The same KLA that was on American and European lists of terrorist groups for its brutal abuse of enemies and prisoners, drug trafficking, and various other atrocities, taking them off the list only two months before so they could support them “legally”. Never mind that undeclared wars are still illegal.

So now they repeat the support of political cartels and now in Arab countries, support of al Qaeda allies

Libyan oil field and pipeline, 2011.

Libyan oil field and pipeline, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

taking power. You might be tempted to say the pattern that began with CIA recruitment of Osama bin Laden is coming full circle.

What the NYT also conveniently fails to mention is that the rebels they are so adamant in defending, have outright rejected Kofi Annan’s “peace deal,” in effect rendering the entire deal null and void, declaring their intentions to continue fighting the Syrian government with the constant torrent of cash and weapons pledged to them during the last “Friends of Syria” summit – a summit that disingenuously supported the “peace deal” while openly making provisions to continue the bloodshed. How could President Bashar al-Assad withdraw troops then, even if he wanted to?

God is against so much warmongering, and most people hate war when they have to be in it, and those who love it don’t like it so much when they’re on the wrong end of the results.

The United States Constitution declares that only the Congress shall the power to declare war, for good reason.

The federation’s founders also spoke of “commerce with all nations, alliances with none” for good reason. Or, most of them. When I learned more about central banks and their history, and how hard Alexander Hamilton pushed for one in the Americas, I suspect some of them were not so much “for the people”.





George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign Policy and Mitt Romney is Wrong

February 12, 2012

George Will on Why Ron Paul is Right About Foreign Policy and Mitt Romney is Wrong | Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee:

Writes George Will:

Few things so embitter a nation as squandered valor, hence Americans, with much valor spent there, want Iraq to master its fissures. But with America in the second decade of its longest war, the probable Republican nominee is promising to extend it indefinitely.

Mitt Romney opposes negotiations with the Taliban while they “are killing our soldiers.” Which means: No negotiations until the war ends, when there will be nothing about which to negotiate…

The U.S. defense budget is about 43% of the world’s total military spending — more than the combined defense spending of the next 17 nations, many of which are U.S. allies. Are Republicans really going to warn voters that America will be imperiled if the defense budget is cut 8% from projections over the next decade? In 2017, defense spending would still be more than that of the next 10 countries.

Do Republicans think it is premature to withdraw up to 7,000 troops from Europe two decades after the Soviet Union’s death? About 73,000 will remain, most of them in prosperous, pacific, largely unarmed and utterly unthreatened Germany. Why do so many remain?

Since 2001, the United States has waged war in three nations, and some Republicans appear ready to bring the total to five, adding Iran and Syria. (The Weekly Standard, of neoconservative bent, regrets that Obama “is reluctant to intervene to oust Iran’s closest ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”) GOP critics say Obama’s proposed defense cuts will limit America’s ability to engage in troop-intensive nation-building. Most Americans probably say: Good…

Romney says: “It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon…” (Leon) Panetta says Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is “unacceptable” and “a red line for us” and if “we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it.”

What, then, is the difference between Romney and Obama regarding Iran?

Osama bin Laden and many other “high-value targets” are dead, the drone war is being waged more vigorously than ever, and Guantanamo is still open, so Republicans can hardly say Obama has implemented dramatic and dangerous discontinuities regarding counterterrorism. Obama says that even with his proposed cuts, the defense budget would increase at about the rate of inflation through the next decade.

Republicans who think America is being endangered by “appeasement” and military parsimony have worked that pedal on their organ quite enough.

What black Americans are saying about Ron Paul

January 27, 2012

Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul is a Racist?:


As long as we are still able to tell the truth without incarceration, Ron Paul’s message resonates as true and makes a big contrast between him and all the Elites’ Establishment candidates.

Nobody is laughing anymore.

They all admit that Ron Paul predicted all the economic whiplash of all the decades he has made any statements at all.

They all admit that he knows what he’s talking about when he talks about economics.

They cannot deny that his point about the blowback principle in foreign policy.

Obama claims credit for killing Osama bin Laden and Hollywood is making a movie about it. But the CIA chief that headed up the search for Osama bin Laden, Michael Sheuer, says that President Ron Paul would make for a safer United States of America. And the troops, with their numbers and with their money, are telling us that they would trust Ron Paul as their Commander-in-Chief more than any other presidential candidate including Obama.

The more people hear what Ron Paul really believes, as opposed to name-calling, the more his numbers go up.

Former CIA Agent in Charge of bin Laden Unit Endorses Ron Paul

January 4, 2012

There you go.

This shows that one who knows how USA foreign policy relates to the terrorist threat, who was in the middle of that battle for many years, joins Ron Paul in his fight for a rational foreign policy.