When Government Becomes Destructive of These Ends

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

-- The Declaration of Independence
www.archives.gov

Recently Congressman Pete Stark made news with his fiery speech about Bush wanting to blow up innocent kids for Bush's personal amusement. Unfortunately, Stark caved in through pressure from Bush's appeasers on both sides of the aisle (and probably a barrage of phone calls stoked by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck). In his apology speech he said that he hoped his mea culpa would allow him to “become as insignificant as [he] should be.”

Now, I ask you, how does Congressman Stark being "insignificant" in congress serve his constituents and the nation? Do we want our representatives to just go through the motions of pretending to be working for the people and thus serving to help legitimize this illegal government? That is called enabling and reflects a similar time when in Nazi Germany the Reichstag passed a law called the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler dictatorial powers and made Germany's legislators obsolete. Is this what Stark and the Democrats are doing?

Many of us have already figured out that the democrats are acting as co-conspirators against the American people and the Constitution. As proof we just can look at the recently passed bill (HR 1955) titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, sponsored by Democrat Jane Harmon. The vote for passage in the House of Representatives was 404 ayes to 6 nays and 22 representatives not voting. Eleven of the fifteen sponsors of this bill are Democrats. There are three main components to defining who is a homegrown terrorist in this bill:

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
www.govtrack.us

Why is this so scary? Well, if I help to promote an anti-war or 9/11 Truth event in front of the White House and someone (a provocateur?) shoves and injures a police officer, I could be liable for prosecution under this new law.

And, who gets to define what is an "extremist belief system"? The President? Jane Harmon's new committee? What about Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly?

Already Glenn Beck has called 9/11 Truthers "Timothy McVeigh" types, and Bill O'Reilly has called anti-war activists "America Haters" and dangerous (see videos below), even though there is no evidence that either of the groups are violently inclined.

No doubt there will now be agent provocateurs who will align themselves with Truthers or anti-war activists to implicate them in some future violent incidences. Let us not forget that Donald Rumsfeld advocated (created?) for an elite "counter-terrorism" group called P2OG that would provoke terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens in order to save U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks. According to sourcewatch.org:

"The Los Angeles Times has revealed the creation of an organisation by US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called the 'Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group.' Its purpose is to 'bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception'. The PPOG's role is to manufacture the terrorism that is to be combatted.
www.sourcewatch.org

It doesn't get any more Orwellian --and more self-fullfilling -- then this.

So, let's thank the Democrats for helping to destroy the First Amendment and our rights to free speech. And, while we are at it, we can also thank them for refusing to investigate massive vote fraud in the last two presidential elections; refusing to consider impeachment of the President and Vice President, men who have committed gross international and domestic crimes; refusing to support a truly independent investigation into the crime of 9/11; refusing to stop financing the phony "War on Terror"; refusing to hold the President accountable for spying on the American people; refusing to insist that torture be stopped by this government; refusal to hold the President accountable for calling the Constitution "just a goddamn piece of paper; refusal to uphold their oaths of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

We are effectively at a time when we should all be reading the Declaration of Independence for inspiration as to where we are in history and what we need to do next.



And here is Bill O'Reilly who says "9/11 Truthers hate America"

The coup d'tat has been televised

Please, somebody help me! I can't stop watching Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly! I am drawn to them like a fly on a hot, steaming pile. But, unlike the fly, I am not enjoying the experience. When I watch these vipers I feel dirty, my skin crawls, my blood pressure rises, the feeling of dread frequently overwhelms me. Perhaps I should take some Prozac like the commercial says.

I know I should banish my TV. Take it out to pasture. Scream at it. Shoot it. Give it a befitting undignified burial. I should have complete and utter contempt of the de-illuminating box; after all, one can only tolerate so many missing blondes, microwaved babies, and mushroom clouds over Beck's head. But, sadly, and maybe insanely, I am compelled to watch the nightly macabre stage shows; after all, how else will we get clues as to what the madmen have planned for us.

Prozac please!

Question: why won't the REVOLUTION BE TELEVISED? THE COUP WAS in vivid detail. Two majestic towers hit by lightening from the sky; people falling; the crown topples -- 9/11 is the trump card of change. We will be forever changed. The master magician has played his hand. It is up to us to interpret the card properly.

Will we?

Maybe Better Bad News has some answers for us in modern-day news vernacular, i.e., random verbal chaos with occasional truth smattered in. Their motto -- "half true more or less 100% of the time." Enjoy.

REPORTS OF NEO-CON MILITARY COUP UNLIKELY IN US MEDIA



Ahh, it's all beginning to make sense now.

9/11 Truth Protesters Disrupt Fox News Programing

Oh, it doesn't get any better than this!

Media activist and 9/11 truther Alex Jones was arrested after he and and a large group of citizens showed up on Fox News' doorstep and disrupted Geraldo Rivera and his "cookie cooking" news analysis with signs and chants that "9/11 was an inside job!"

Presstitute Geraldo Rivera, ruffled and indignant, went into macho mode with "I wish I could..." shaking his fist in the air, implying that he would love to just whack one of the protesters. He also starts calling them everything under the book from "anarchists," "misfits," "nutjobs," "rabble," and the "least attractive group of demonstrators I have ever seen." Ouch! Now that really hurts! (I guess we can't compete with Kyla and the Fox News staff with their little white mini skirts and hooter tops).

Here Geraldo calls the demonstrators everything except what they really are -- citizens who want to get their censored message out.

He even says in one clip that the demonstrators are an "activists radical communist group. I don't know who they are." Geraldo, if you call yourself a real journalist wouldn't it be incumbent for you to bring the microphone out in the crowd and ask them who they are?

Later, after the police come to arrest Alex, Geraldo ask Hooters' waitress Kyla Ebbert (who was escorted off of a Southwest plane for her "provocative" outfit) how she likes New York.

Kyla, "I think I will come back when things calm down in in a few years."

Geraldo "I am not sure of that."

That's right Geraldo, that is the one thing you got right that night. We won't be calm or quiet.







(UPDATE: According to the Philadelphia Inquirer Michael Rivera said that he is has decided to trade in his microphone and run for the Knesset (reported Sept. 16, 2007). He is also quoted as saying that "I would die for Israel."

Asked in the Inquirer:

"And what would he do if elected to the Knesset?

'I would cause a fuss, and every day I would attack someone else,' he said."

And, how would that bring about peace between Israel and Palestine, Geraldo?)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3223928,00.html

A blogger's criticism of Robert Fisk

Robert Fisk is one of the greatest reporters of all time. He has written some of the most insightful, biting criticisms about U.S./Israeli/British foreign policy and provided readers, in vivid detail, a vision of of the plight of people living in war torn areas of the Middle East. I have nothing but sincere gratitude to him for putting his life on the line to give us these excellent stories. But, having said this, I think he is doing a disservice to his readers by claiming his contempt for the Internet and also by his refusal to look critically into the events of 9/11.

As far as Fisk's distain for the Internet, here is what he had to say about it in his latest article published in The Independent:

Robert Fisk: No wonder the bloggers are winning:

I despise the Internet. It's irresponsible and, often, a net of hate. And I don't have time for Blogopops. But here's a tale of two gutless newspapers which explains why more and more people are Googling rather than turning pages.

news.independent.co.uk/fisk/article2788619.ece

With such a broad, sweeping dismissal of the vast expanse of scientific research, political articles, commentaries, and important videos that one would never see on prime time news, calling the Internet "irresponsible" is the epitome of irresponsibility itself.

Most of us who use the Internet have found invaluable information about covert operations and alternative history that one could never find in our school's history books or newspapers. Maybe, if we tried hard enough, we might be able to find a book at the library that would reveal the layers of hidden history, but we would have to try really hard as publishers are reluctant to publish those books. True, on the Net we have to separate out the bad information from the good, but, at least it's there for us to sort out instead of the censors at the Ministry of Truth.

And, as far as his comment that the Internet is a "net of hate". Yes, we know that the Internet will connect people to hate-spewing Nazi propaganda web sites, as well as Zionist ones, but the internet doesn't even come close to being a organ for hate -- with its captive audience to millions -- as traditional media.

For example, Fisk should spend some time watching Glenn Beck as he gives his nightly "two minute hate" speeches on CNN. For those who don't know Beck, his job is to tell Americans how much Muslims hate us and are itching to drop a nuclear bomb on one of our cities. This vile speech often runs simultaneously with a visual of a nuclear bomb going off in the background.

Sometimes the scenarios on Beck's program don't always culminate in a mushroom cloud but are more mundane, though horrifying just the same. For instance, just the previous night Beck had on his program fiction writer and DHS terrorist-scenario creator, Brad Thor, telling American parents that their kids are in jeopardy from a Beslan-like school hostage crisis from depraved, fanatical Muslims. (So much for the notion of corporate responsibility -- this raving lunatic is given a soapbox to voice his hate courtesy of the Time Warner company who are owners of CNN).

And, if you don't get your hate from that bastion of liberalism, CNN, you could always go to Fox New's Bill O'Reilly who hates everything liberal, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough who ran one of the most vicious campaigns to get Rosie O'Donnell fired from The View -- right at a time that she was educating people about 9/11.

Broadcast news and radio oozes hate and fear to millions daily, but, just because it is corporate-sponsored, does that make it any less reprehensible than what one can read on the Internet?

Granted, these organs are not Fisk's beloved print media but the print media was just as instrumental in selling the Iraq war to the American people as broadcast media. After all, who can forget Judith Miller's role in marketing the Iraq War to the American people under the aegis of the New York Times.

And, Miller's case was not an isolated one as biased, pro-government stories like the ones she filed were a constant in the months leading up to the war and after. Newspapers from around the country, almost unfailingly, goose-stepped along with the administration's versions of reality word-for-word, neglecting to do their perceived jobs as acting as watchdogs for the citizenry of this country by holding public officials accountable; and, that is the main point, print media is perceived to be unbiased, but it is not. It is highly controlled and manipulated by corporate and political interests.

All Americans should know about Operation Mockingbird. Here's a description of the program as reveal through details of the Church Committee of 1976:

"The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

One can only imagine the control the CIA has over the media today when our administration has overtly given them carte blanche to disseminate propaganda favorable to the war effort. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Relations gives us some idea of how persuasive these programs are today (see:
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?ID=150

Let's face it, people are leaving print and cable news for the Internet because they are tired of being lied to -- incessantly. They have been lied to on such issues as food safety and election fraud to the rationales for the Iraq War and 9/11.

And, speaking of 9/11, this brings me to my second criticism about Fisk. I spoke with him after a event last year in which he was discussing his latest book, "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East." I asked him if he would look critically and skeptically into the events of 9/11. I felt that this was important to bring up as Fisk's central thesis in his talks and books is that 9/11 was blowback in response to the aggression by imperialistic forces in the Middle East. (He mentioned in his speech twice that there were 19 hijackers that carried out 9/11, when way back in 2001 both the BBC and FBI had said that many hijackers were still alive. See news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm). I suggested to him that if he was going to make such assertions then it is incumbent for him to find out if this was indeed true as there is a body of evidence that indicates that 9/11 was an inside job.

Fisk told me that he does not have time to look into it as he is too busy reporting on events on the ground in the Middle East. I found this explanation odd to say the least. If the central theme of Fisk's beliefs might be based on a lie, and he is promoting that lie to millions, then isn't it his responsibility to look into the veracity of that claim? After all, a lot of people are dying based on this claim that we were attacked on 9/11 by 19 Muslim hijackers. If this is not true then the whole rationale for the war is a lie.

Fisk is quoted as saying that journalism must "challenge authority — all authority — especially so when governments and politicians take us to war" -- Miles, Oliver (2005-11-19). The big picture. Guardian Unlimited.

If Fisk is going to challenge authority, he must also challenge authorities' claims. After all, the administration uses 9/11 as the rationale for all their crimes -- preemptive war, torture, destroying the Bill of Rights. Since Fisk truly cares about the people of the Middle East, it's incumbent that he spend some time on the issue.

For further reading, see: "A Free Press or a Ministry of Truth?" by Paul Craig Roberts, www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18021.htm, and Saddam's Infamous "Human Shredding Machines" www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/3052