Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your BlogV: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Carl Mortished, World Business Editor
Welcome Back The Spotlight 'O Terror
Green - Low: This setting is here just as a reference point. DHS will never use it because it would mean we didn’t need them anymore.
Blue - Guarded: This rarely used setting on the Stoplight ‘O Terror could indicate things like an undocumented worker within 3 square miles of the president.
Yellow - Elevated: This is the standard level of fear. Don’t expect to see anything lower than this as long as the Regressives are in office. Be scared, but not too scared to vote Republican.
Orange - High: Chertoff heard that someone in the CIA’s brother’s boss’ nephew’s sister-in-law heard about a plan to blow up Amish Country Popcorn Factory in Berne Indiana. It’s ok to pee your pants at this level.
Red - Severe: A terror attack was recently narrowly averted. We can’t release any details but just be thankful we saved your asses. Used frequently before midterm elections. See October Surprise. (Oh My God, Take Away My Freedoms and Protect Me From Them There Terrorists, Like Osama Hussein!!!)
Welcome to my Blog, enjoy your stay!
Congressman Ron Paul, MD - We've Been NeoConned
1984 radio broadcast:
Will Grigg's Liberty Minute
January 22, 2008
History professor Andrew Bacevich of Boston University is a Vietnam veteran and West Point Graduate whose only son was killed serving in Iraq. He describes how the much-vaunted “surge” in Iraq has had only one “undeniable success: It has ensured that US troops won't be coming home anytime soon.” And he points out that “this was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place.”
The war costs us $3 billion a week -- a total of $1 trillion so far. Americans are paying the costs of the war at the gas pump and grocery store as inflation – fueled by war spending – ravages the value of our earnings.
Dr. Bacevich notes that “far from draining the Jihadist swamp, the Iraq war is continuously replenishing it.” And the war is critically undermining our sovereignty, since Washington must borrow from China and Saudi Arabia in order to pay for it.
How much more of this fatal foolishness are we going to endure?
Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.
Will Grigg's Liberty Minute
January 21, 2008
Until recently, New Jersey resident Hal Turner was host of an Internet radio program notorious for its unstinting promotion of white supremacy and incitements to murder and other criminal violence.
In late 2006, for example, Turner urged listeners to assassinate members of Congress who voted in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. He takes credit for inciting the double murder of the husband and mother of federal Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow. And last December he claimed to be assembling a vigilante mob from members of “the Klan, Aryan Nations, and Skinheads” to intimidate blacks in Baltimore.
Some suspected that Turner was a government provocateur or, at least, an informant. Those suspicions were validated a few weeks ago when hackers discovered a set of e-mails between Turner and his FBI handler, who was working with the local Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Turner closed down his program and disappeared. But he's hardly the only provocateur of his sort on the federal payroll.
Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.
Will Grigg's Liberty Minute
January 17, 2008
If the United States of America is a republic, rather than an empire, why does the president travel in a fashion suitable to an Oriental potentate?
For his recent trip to Israel, President Bush brought the usual entourage. This includes 250 Secret Service agents, 50 White House aides, 150 military personnel, and at least 400 other federal officials.
An entire fleet of aircraft and automobiles is required to carry the president and his companions. The president's ground transportation requires to use of two identical motorcades containing 20 armored vehicles. In Tel Aviv, the presidential entourage and Israeli security personnel literally booked every available hotel room. The visit cost the Israeli government $25,000 an hour, with the expenses passed along to US taxpayers through foreign aid.
If a republic is ruled by law rather than men, what can we infer from the royal splendor in which the president travels?
Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.
01/21/2008
IT’S THE CONSTITUTION, STUPID!
| by Senator Bob Smith EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE BY SENATOR BOB SMITH In the sweltering heat of Philadelphia from May 25th to September 17th, 1787 fifty-three delegates from twelve of the original thirteen colonies (Rhode Island refused to send any representatives) struggled mightily to come to an agreement to adopt a Constitution for the United States of America. When it was over, an exhausted Benjamin Franklin walked down the steps of the Pennsylvania State House and was asked, "What kind of government did you create Mr. Franklin?" To which he replied, "A republic, if we can keep it." Are our leaders of today respecting and protecting the Constitution that Franklin and his heroic and patriotic colleagues gave us in 1787? Can we keep it? If I hear any of our presidential candidates or elected officials call America a democracy one more time, I may be forced to use profanity! Something I do from time to time when I am really angry and frustrated! New England town meetings are democracies. All the people who want to vote enter a room and vote. The majority determines the issue at hand. The government of the United States is a REPUBLIC. We ELECT representatives who vote in our absence and on our behalf. These representatives take only one oath when they are elected. That oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the President, however, in 1789 the first congress added this requirement to include members of congress and other government officials because they knew that adherence to the spirit and intent of our Constitution was critical to the survival of our republic. Elected officials do not take an oath to any political party. They do not swear allegiance to NAFTA or GATT or monolithic international organizations like the United Nations or the World Court! They do not solemnly swear allegiance to support and defend large international corporations and certainly not to large special interests, lobbyists and political donors! The term "political party" cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Not in the body and not in the amendments. Yet, we allow this insane political party process to select the people who would become our next President! Candidates "win" delegates to party nominating conventions when states like Iowa and Nevada hold caucuses thus forcing people to publicly state who they vote for and excluding people such as our military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan from even voting at all! States concentrate on "leapfrogging" one another to see who can be first, rather than working together to make the process more fair for the voters. The media and pollsters tell us who we are going to vote for before the election and candidates "put their fingers to the wind" to decide how to take a stand on an issue. Candidates who do not stand for something, stand for nothing. We suffer from electile dysfunction! This is hardly what our Founders envisioned in selecting our elected representatives. So, if we do want to keep it, why do we continue to elect members of congress and presidents who place these entities above the document that they swore to uphold? When are we going to stop this madness? This precious document so carefully crafted is being trampled routinely every day! We cannot blame this on those we elect. We must accept the blame for continuing to elect them. John Adams said that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Ben Franklin added, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need for masters." We are getting close to losing it all my friends! Our Republic is in very grave danger! Things have gone seriously wrong and they are getting worse by the day. The sovereignty of the U.S. is constantly subjugated to trade agreements, international ventures, alliances and treaties not approved by congress. Our worshipping at the altar of the "world economy" has contributed to the loss of our manufacturing base and the collapse of the value of the dollar. The "neo-cons" lead us into perpetual wars with other nations without a "declaration of war" by congress. Yes, it is a requirement of the Constitution that we let congress vote before we send our troops into war! Part of the oath taken by our elected officials is defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic , yet they refuse to seal our borders from terrorists and those who come here illegally at a terrible cost to our taxpayers in crime and undeserved benefits. Our porous and uncontrolled borders threaten the very survival of America. Unscrupulous defense contractors sell our weapons systems and secrets to our enemies forcing us to chase our own technology around the world to stay ahead and congress does nothing to stop it. Indeed at times supporting this treasonous action. Even our own ports , where dirty bombs could easily be imported, have been "offered up" to the control of other nations! Congress and the President continue to raise our national debt year after year with no attempt to control spending. There is no effort to rein in so called "entitlements" and other programs while mortgaging the future of our children. The growth and size of the federal government highlights programs, bureaus and departments that have no connection to the Constitution whatsoever. Activist justices on the Supreme Court and judges on the lower courts have shredded much of the Bill of Rights and impose their personal views on the citizenry. These judges impose gun control on honest citizens and routinely put violent criminals back on the streets to kill and rape again. The justices appointed to the Supreme Court with the imposition of Roe vs. Wade have sanctioned and indeed promoted the slaughter of over 50 million of our unborn children since 1973. Is it possible that one or more of those children could have become a President or a researcher who found a cure for cancer? We will never know because those children never had a chance to live their dream. God bless these children for they had no voice. Those whom we elected took it away from them all. Their blood is on our hands. Where do we find "abortion rights" in the U.S. Constitution? Judges take our property without fair compensation or respect for the rights of private property provided under our Constitution. As if this were not bad enough, they have taken God from our schools and public buildings and are determined to remove all mention of Him anywhere. Guess who placed these judges in their positions? When Ruth Bader Ginsburg came before the United States Senate for confirmation several years ago, "conservative" senators voted "aye" to please Bill Clinton leaving Jesse Helms, Don Nickles and me, alone, as the 3 votes against one of the most activist justices ever to be appointed to the bench. Scandal and moral decay are rampant throughout our land. Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Congressman Jefferson and the antics of Bill Clinton in the oval office betray the expectations of Adams, Franklin and the rest of our Founding Fathers. Is it possible to save this glorious constitutional republic that Franklin first informed us about in 1787? George Washington already gave us the answer in 1796 when he said, "…It is essential that public opinion should be enlightened. In a republic, what species of knowledge…and what duty more pressing…than…communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of our country?" Our elected officials have let us down. We must elect strong advocates for our constitutional republic at every level of government from school board to President of the United States. If an election is occurring in your community and no candidate meets that criteria , then we need to search and find one. If you cannot find one, write in your own name! We must change America from the bottom up. Millions of Americans are beginning to figure this out. We have to harness them into a national political movement and we don’t have a lot of time! These folks can be found in the Constitution Party, in the Presidential campaigns of Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Reagan Democrats and Republicans and on main street all over America. We cannot and must not limit our search for support from so-called "conservatives" or existing political parties. There are millions and millions of Americans who support the traditional values of the sanctity of life, religious freedom and family who are not affiliated with any party. They are rich and poor, young and old. They work in factories and offices, they live on farms and in suburbs, they attend churches by the millions and they are patriotic! They are sick of what is happening. They need to be informed of the mission to restore our Constitutional Republic by electing leaders who respect it. They can be harnessed! We need a revival. We must issue the clarion call to action to save our Republic. This is our last chance. When the patriots needed to communicate with one another before and during the Revolutionary War they formed "Committees of Correspondence" to keep each other informed. They wrote the Federalist Papers to garner support for the Constitution. They were prepared to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. If they could do that for us, then we can do it now to save our Republic for our children .They communicated by horseback and newspapers, we have the internet. We can answer Franklin’s concern. Yes, we can keep the republic. We have the battle plan. It is the Constitution of the United States. We all must be "teachers" of the Constitution and we must insist that it is thoroughly taught in our schools. We all need to be the authors of the "Constitution Papers." We must be uncompromising leaders and experts on this document and teach our friends, relatives, co-workers and neighbors that input equals output. Learn and teach what is constitutional and you will in turn get constitutionalists as leaders. In the Presidential campaign of 2000 Pat Buchanan said, "Don’t wait for orders from headquarters, ride to the sound of the guns!" We are millions of Paul Reveres. We can take our republic back. Are you ready? I am! Let’s do it! |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Smith
http://archive.seacoastonline.com/1999news/7_13b.htm
See:
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2241
Also, Lofton's article:
PAUL MISSED EXCELLENT opportunity to answer very important question.By John Lofton, Editor
In the recent (1/10/0
GOP Presidential candidate “debate” there was this exchange between Fox reporter Carl Cameron and Ron Paul:
“Cameron: Congressman Paul, many of your supporters call themselves 9/11 Truthers. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it, or divorce themselves from your candidacy?
“Paul: Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints. I don’t believe that, and that’s the only thing that is important. And so I don’t endorse anything they say. But I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes…
“Cameron: Sir, would you ask them to cease that rhetoric tonight on your behalf?
“Paul: Well, it doesn’t do me any good, so if they care about me, they should. But the only thing I have control over is what I believe and what I say. I can’t tell them what to do. So I don’t endorse what they say and I don’t believe that, so, please, could I participate in the current debate rather than picking this out.?”
Huh? Paul doesn’t endorse “anything” said by these folks? – not “anything”?! This is a cowardly and stupid answer because some of the skeptics of the Feds’ official answers re: 9/11 make more sense than others. In fact, some of the skeptics have raised very serious questions that deserve answers. What Paul should have said is something like this:
“Well, let me, please, answer your important question this way, Mr. Cameron. Our Federal Government, in the past and presently, has lied and is lying, has done things or proposed things, and is doing things, that either murdered people or proposed murdering people to accomplish what was thought to be a greater good. It is arguable that the Iraq War is a current example in the first category. This war was based on many lies with the result being that all who have died and are dying in this un-Godly, un-Constitutional, unnecessary conflict have been murdered. I believe that.
REPORTER CAMERON should investigate what ‘9-11 Truthers’ say instead of assuming, as he obviously does, they are all insane. You know, you report, Carl, we decide? – Fox, fair and balanced, remember?“In the second category — that is proposed actions by the Feds that, had they been carried out, would have murdered people — is something called “Operation Northwoods.” You or anyone can Google this proposed crime where America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.
“So, no, Mr. Cameron, because your demand is much too broad, too rhetorically reckless, and too naïve, I will not repudiate the support of those who, as you put it, believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. And I will not do this because, as I say, in the past, the U.S. government has been complicit in and covered up its illegal, murderous acts.
“I will, sir, however, suggest this, with all due respect. Since some of the questions and assertions by some of the so-called “9/ll Truthers” are better than others, why don’t you, Mr. Cameron, and other national media reporters making the big bucks do your job? Why don’t you get off your respective butts, investigate the charges of the “9/11 Truthers” and find out what is true and what is false? Because if you find out that the U.S. government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and covered this up, this will be one of the greatest, most heinous crimes in history. And if you break this story, Mr. Cameron, you might even win a prize.”
A copyright ABC News story (by David Ruppe) in 2001 reported as follows on “Operation Northwoods”:
NEW YORK, May 1 — In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban (leaders?), sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
RE- ‘OPERATION NORTHWOODS.’ Lots more when you ‘Google.’The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”
Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America’s largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes. The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.
“These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing,” Bamford told ABCNEWS.com. “The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants.” The documents show “the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government,” writes Bamford.
The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic].” The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.
The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it. “The whole thing was so bizarre,” says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.
Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military — not democratic — control over the island nation after the invasion. “That’s what we’re supposed to be freeing them from,” Bamford says. “The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing.”
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military. Whether the Joint Chiefs’ plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.
The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds. There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election. And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a “considerable danger” in the “education and propaganda activities of military personnel” had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn’t get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford. “Although no one in Congress could have known at the time,” he writes, “Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.”
Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan “pretext” operations at least through 1963. One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base — an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war. “There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn’t for lack of trying,” he says.
Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK’s release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public’s access to government records related to the assassination. The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.
Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained. “The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after,” says Bamford.
A Republican cowboy from
| U.S. Taxpayers Party of Michigan |
Okemos Christian Center - Take I96 to Okemos Road (east of Lansing and I127), turn north, 1 mi., west on Bennet, .5 miles to Center on north side of the street.
1:00pm – 5:00pm
Knights of Columbus – Woodbridge
130 Main Street
$10 per person/$15 per family
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call: 800-615-8624 or 908-705-4304
for further information or to confirm attendance.
Please mail payment & contact info to:
Constitution Party of New Jersey
P.O. Box 83
Palmyra, NJ 08065
Payments will be accepted at the door as long as we have your phoned in RSVP by 1/21/08!
Make checks payable to:
Constitution Party of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please, make sure that of your friends and family who live in New Jersey know about this most important Constitution Party event!!
(Below are further details on the meeting and directions -- I hope that you are able open these attachments. If not, please call the above listed numbers for further information.)
| 2 attachments — Download all attachments | |||
| |||
| |||
Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark, according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oil market.
A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.
Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.
The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was also given support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of “Peak Oil” as fallacious. Instead, he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints, including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Speaking to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said that peaks in world production had been wrongly predicted throughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation “as a result of a peaking of demand rather than supply”.
He said it was inconceivable that oil consumption would be unaffected by government policies to reduce carbon emissions. “There is a distinct possibilty that global oil consumption could peak as a result of such climate policies,” Mr Davies said.
The BP economist's remarks were echoed yesterday by Mr Jackson. “It is the above-ground risks that will influence the rate [of oil output],” he said.
Cera analysed the output of 811 oilfields, which produce 19 billion barrels a year, out of total world output of 32 billion. These included many of the giants, including Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the largest known oilfield, which has been at the centre of the debate between peak oil analysts and their detractors.
In his book Twilight in the Desert, Matthew Simmons of Simmons & Co, the consultancy, said the big Saudi fields reached their peak output in 1981 but Cera yesterday said that Ghawar was not failing. “There is no technical evidence that Ghawar is about to decline,” said Mr Jackson.
Cera reckons that oil output, including unconventional oil, such as tar sands, could allow oil to peak at much higher levels of as much as 112 million barrels per day, with average rates of more than 100million bpd.
The Cera analysis targeted oilfields producing more than 10,000 barrels a day of conventional oil and concluded that overall output was declining at a rate of 4.5 per cent a year and that field decline rates were not increasing.
This is much lower than the 7 to 8percent average rate that is generally assumed in the industry. Typically, Peak Oil theorists believe that the output of oil reserves can be plotted on a graph as a bell curve, rising to a peak and then falling rapidly.
It was proposed in 1950 by M King Hubbert, a US geologist, who successfully predicted the peak of onshore oil production in the United States.
His analysis is disputed by many geologists today, who argue that technology has changed the equation, allowing oil companies to produce more oil from reservoirs than was previously possible.
Meanwhile, increases in the price of oil has made the extraction of difficult reserves economically viable
bravenet.com