http://mediekritik.lege.net/

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

Cindy Sheehan vars son dödades i Irak har protesterat mot kriget sen sommaren 2005. Nu har hon arresterats när hon och andra kvinnor försökte överlämna en protest med 60 000 namnunderskrifter till FN. Cindy Sheehan släpades iväg brutalt i samband med arresteringen. Ett samhälle som beter sig så mot de som kämpar för fred är ett samhälle på väg mot diktatur! Ett skendemokratiskt samhälle under mediediktatur som ljugit och undanhållit sanningen för medborgarna. Nu på väg att oficiellt gå över till diktatur.

Se:
http://www.womensaynotowar.org/article.php?id=814
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_re_us/sheehan_arrest_2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5667332,00.html


Cindy Sheehan with Iraqi Delegates at the Women Say NO to War press conference outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations.


"Thanks for the liberation from Saddam" Hussein, Dr. Entisar Mohammad Ariabi said, addressing the Bush administration, "now please go out."


Cindy Sheehan holds up the Women Say NO to War Call, signed by more than 60,000 people worldwide, calling for the immediate end of the war in Iraq.


The protesters refused to leave without delivering the petition. As a result, both CODEPINK Cofounder Medea Benjamin and Cindy Sheehan were arrested, cuffed and dragged away.


Cindy Sheehan being dragged away by the police.

Om man vill ta reda på vad svenska media skriver om USA:s väg mot diktatur så kan man Googla på det. Ett namn som är mycket aktuellt i det här sammanhanget är John Yoo. Så gå till Google och skriv in hans namn och lite till - så här:
"John Yoo" site:www.dn.se
Och sen kan man fortsätta med andra tidningar.
"John Yoo" site:www.aftonbladet.se
"John Yoo" site:www.svd.se
Inte ett svar ger detta!
Skrämmande - en fullständig fördumning av svenska folket!

Varför inte testa med den politiske filosof som har byggt upp grunden för en diktatur - Leo Strauss vars lärljunge är Paul Wolfowitz.

"Leo Strauss" site:www.dn.se
1 svar - en bokrecenssion
Den goda människan i Vita Huset av Peter Singer
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1194&a=304272&previousRenderType=2

"Leo Strauss" site:www.aftonbladet.se
1 relevant svar + 1 svar om en musiker vid samma namn
Bara CIA ser bevis som inte existerar av Jan Guillou
med ett citat av Seymor M Hersh

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

LÄNKAR - något oordnade sen får du Googla själv - ämnet är rätt stort...:

911 är nu avslöjat. World Trade Center sprängdes.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
Och läs:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Men vad verklighetsbubblan 911 motiverade - en ny lagstiftning i USA - Patriot Act - är lika skrämmande. Det handlar om att göra om USA till en diktatur.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/bioterror.html
Moreover, the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key Democrats, and the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it (this is not a partisan issue, since this author believes that party affiliation is not a reliable indicator of loyalty to the Constitution; rather, the senators targeted just happened to pose a threat in 2001 to passage of the Patriot Act).

History appears to be repeating itself this week. Only hours after sensors in a U.S. Senate office building detected a nerve agent, key Senators suddenly reversed direction and announced a capitulation to the White House's demands on the renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act.


Federalist Society - Googla på det - har i tjugo års tid jobbat på att göra om USA till en diktatur. I Federalist Society ingår de högsta juristerna - domarna - i USA!

Läs mera och förstå vad som är på gång:
www.larouchepac.com/pdf_files/060109_children_satan.pdf

Vad man kan läsa här vill man helst inte tro - det är precis som 911 man vill inte förstå att de som är ledare kan ha sådana här planer - utföra sådana illdåd.


För att förstå allvaret i det här så kan man läsa om hur man i USA övar på att införa en militärdiktatur - övningen heter Granite Shadow:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2005/09/today_in_dc_com.html
September 21, 2005
Today, somewhere in the DC metropolitan area, the military is conducting a highly classified Granite Shadow "demonstration."

Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military’s extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control.


http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=523712
The Pentagon has developed a comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information. The plan appears in a recently declassified document, “The Information Operations Roadmap”, which was provided under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and revealed in an article by the BBC.

The Pentagon sees the internet in terms of a military adversary that poses a vital threat to its stated mission of global domination. This explains the confrontational language in the document which speaks of “fighting the net”; implying that the internet is the equivalent of “an enemy weapons system."

http://www.larouchepac.com/pdf_files/child_satan_book.pd
It is because the truth would destroy society and the philosophers alike if it became known, that Strauss said that Plato and the ancient philosophers, like Strauss himself, wrote in a kind of code, whose true meaning only disclosed itself to the wise. If the vulgar happened on their books, they would find only the familiar salutary myths about the rewards of virtue, the punishment of vice and the like.

Här finns det en del annat smått och gott:
http://larouchein2004.net/pdfs/pamphlet0401cos2.pdf

Man kan försöka ta reda på vem LaRouche är:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche

John Yoos CV:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=235




John Yoo anser det rätt att presidenten har rätt att tortera barn genom att krossa barnets testiklar:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/090106torturechildren.htm


http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=504353
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.


http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/900/930.html
En diskussion mellan John Yoo och Jenny Martinez, Assistant Professor of Law, Stanford University.

Title: Give Me Civil Liberties or Give Me…Safety?

Peter Robinson: Former Attorney General of the United States and John Yoo's old boss, John Ashcroft. "Some people think that every time there's a law that freedom somehow shrinks. I submit to you that the law is what enshrines freedom. It doesn't undercut freedom when it's properly done." Does the Patriot Act undercut our freedoms or enshrine them? Jenny?

Jenny Martinez: It undercuts our freedoms and it needs to be fixed.

Peter Robinson: John?

John Yoo: I don't think it undercuts them. I don't it enshrines the freedoms either but it expands government's powers. That's true. That's got to be clear.


http://www.usablogg.org/2005/09/12/vem-sjutton-ar-john-yoo/
Bl.a. förespråkar Yoo att USA skall lönnmörda fler misstänkta terrorister än de som mördas idag. Obs ordet “misstänkta”.

Yoo vill också att USAs president skall få diktatorisk makt i landet utan någon kontroll från kongressen eller Högsta Domstolen.

Yoo har tjänstgjort i USAs justitiedepartement där han var en av dom som utarbetade de förhörsregler som ledde till tortyren i Abu Ghuraib. Han har förekommit tidigare i den här bloggen.

Yoo, som föddes i Korea men växte upp i USA är ett levande massförstörelsevapen som mycket liknar de intellektuella som försvarade Nazismen på 30 och 40-talen. Författaren Robert Brasillach som avrättades som kollaborationist efter krigsslutet kommer i tankarna.

Yoo har bl.a. arbetat för USAs fruktade f.d. Justitieminsiter John Ashcroft, en arkitekterna bakom regeringens s.k. Patriot Act som redan har inskränkt de mänskliga fri- och rättigheterna i USA. Får han som han vill så kommer USA snart att likna Nord Korea. Ashcroft verkar f.ö. ha imponerat på Thomas Bodström.


http://lawlawstud.blogspot.com/2006/01/john-yoo-speaks-transcript.html
This is a transcript of what John Yoo discussed at Loyola Law School last night, including questions.

Questions
1.
Isn’t your interpretation exactly the same as Karl Schmidt, who argued to legitimize Hitler’s warmongering?

No. My theory comes directly from Alexander Hamilton. This is the unitary government theory. This predates Karl Schmidt or Nazi Germany by over 100 years. Hamilton’s argument allowed Washington to stay neutral as the Napoleonic Wars started, even though Washington was supposedly bound by the self-defense treaty of 1778 to defend France. That is not to say that there aren’t hard questions here. One such question is: What is a legislative power, and what is an executive power? But Hamilton’s point is, if there is a power, and the Constitution doesn’t assign it to Congress, it should be assigned to the President.


http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://www.mathaba.net/related.shtml?x=504349
Cheney and the 'Schmitt-lerian' Drive for Dictatorship

THE LEADER CREATES THE LAW

This argument has a definite pedigree—even if its proponents, understandably, fail to footnote it.

It is called the Führerprinzip, and its foremost theorist was Carl Schmitt, known in his time as the "Crown Jurist of the Third Reich." Schmitt's theories have been undergoing a revival in the United States and elsewhere in recent years, so it is not surprising to see them popping up here.

Schmitt contended—as do Cheney's lawyers today—that, in times of crisis, legal norms are suspended, and the Leader, in this case, the President, both is, and creates, the law. "All law is derived from the people's right to existence," Schmitt wrote in 1934. "Every state law, every judgment of the courts, contains only so much justice, as it derives from this source. The content and the scope of his action, is determined only by the Leader himself."

The "theoretical" grounding for these arguments in the Nazi period, was provided by Schmitt, who contended that legal norms are applicable only in stable, peaceful situations, not in times of war when the state confronts a "mortal enemy." The Leader determines what is "normal," and he also defines "the state of the exception," when legal norms, and notions such as the separation of powers, and constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances, no longer apply.

"Even in a White House known for its dedication to conservative philosophy, Addington is known as an ideologue, an adherent of an obscure philosophy called the unitary executive theory that favors an extraordinarily powerful President," Milbank continued.

The "theory" traces its origins to the Reagan Administration—and in time it coincided with the formation of the Federalist Society (which, to be historically accurate, would better be known as the Anti-Federalist Society). One of the founders of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabresi of Yale University, is also the foremost proponent of the unitary executive.

At its core, is the dogma that the President has as much right as, perhaps even more than, the Supreme Court, to interpret the Constitution, and that the President must brook no interference from the other two branches with his perogatives and powers. The President is entitled, indeed obligated, to disregard any laws he regards as unconstitutional (although this is, to be sure, a quite perverted meaning of what is "constitutional" and "unconstitutional").

In the Bush-Cheney Administration, under the direction of Addington and his clique, the doctrine has been applied to military and national security matters in an unprecedented manner, even to the chagrin of some of its proponents.


http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=85&num=22269&printer=1
Analyses
The 9/11 Constitution
By Cass R. Sunstein, New Republic 9/1/06
Jan 9, 2006, 10:34

After the attacks of September 11, constitutional law was bound to change. Serious threats to national security have always had large effects on the nation's understanding of its founding document. A major reason is that the president's lawyers tend to see the Constitution as a highly flexible instrument, permitting their client to do what he thinks must be done. Francis Biddle, attorney general under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, said that "the Constitution has never greatly bothered any wartime president." Courts often ratify the decisions of wartime presidents. Roosevelt himself placed Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in internment camps, and the Supreme Court upheld his decision.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
Yoo's academic work includes analysis of the history of judicial review in the U.S. Constitution. (See discussion in the Marbury v. Madison entry.) Yoo's book The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 has enjoyed critical praise from the Washington Times[12], which likened it to The Prince, and from David B. Rivkin Jr. and Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky (The National Review, November 21, 2005) who were impressed with both its scholarship and theoretical elegance. It was cited during the Senate hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito by Senator Joseph Biden. Senator Biden praised Yoo personally as a "very bright guy."[13]

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo authored memos defining torture and American habeas corpus obligations narrowly.[14] Protestors at Berkeley demanded, to no avail, that he renounce the memos or resign his professorship. Yoo, citing the classified nature of the matter, has declined to confirm or deny reports that he authored the position that the President had sufficient power to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of US citizens on US soil without a warrant, i.e. NSA warrantless surveillance controversy.[15]

Yoo contends that the Congressional check on Presidential war making power comes from its power of the purse. Yoo also contends that the President, and not the Congress or courts, has sole authority to interpret international treaties such as the Geneva Convention "because treaty interpretation is a key feature of the conduct of foreign affairs"[16] His positions on executive power, collectively termed the Yoo Doctrine[17][18] or Unitary Executive theory,[19][20] are controversial since it is suggested the theory holds that the President's war powers place him above any law.[21] For a detailed discussion on the subject see Unitary Executive theory.[22]

Consistent with the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo acknowledged during a December 2005 debate at Notre Dame University with professor Doug Cassel that no treaty prevents the President from authorizing the torture of a detainee's child -- including by "crushing the testicles" of the child. When asked whether any law prevents it, Yoo replied that it would depend on why the President was authorizing it. [23] [24] (mp3 audio file).

Yoo is the son-in-law of television reporter Peter Arnett.



http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1173/event_detail.asp
The Powers of War and Peace
The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11
Start: Friday, October 28, 2005 12:00 PM
End: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:30 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

VIDEO

In his new book, The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11, AEI visiting scholar John Yoo, formerly a lawyer in the Department of Justice, makes the case for a completely new approach to understanding what the Constitution says about foreign affairs, particularly the powers of war and peace. Looking to American history, Yoo points out that from Truman and Korea to Clinton's intervention in Kosovo, American presidents have had to act decisively on the world stage without a declaration of war. They are able to do so, Yoo argues, because the Constitution grants the president, Congress, and the courts very different powers, requiring them to negotiate the country's foreign policy.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226960315/002-6422003-8384033?v=glance&n=283155
The Powers of War and Peace : The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11


http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/2006/01/12/
ETT ANTAL INTRESSANTA ARTIKLAR


http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/01/governor_dean_a_1.php
Governor Dean:
Today, an outside the mainstream nominee who refused to be forthcoming with the Senate moved one step closer to confirmation. Over the course of his confirmation hearings and through an evaluation of his writing and records, Americans learned that Judge Alito is committed to a radical agenda that threatens Americans’ individual rights and freedoms. Because Judge Alito simply must not be allowed to use a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to advance that agenda, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee stood together to protect Americans' individual rights and freedoms in voting against this nomination.


http://www.gnn.tv/threads/12236/Unitary_Executive_Theory
Unitary Executive Theory
It used to be that a king’s word was law.
In the New World the european immigrants threw off the colonial yoke of their oppressors in favor of rule by the people. The people would make the law and then the law would be king.


http://www.voltairenet.org/article134993.html
La Federalist Society investit la Cour suprême des États-Unis
Une association professionnelle d’avocats et de magistrats racistes, La Federalist Society, a fourni les principaux conseillers juridiques de l’administration Bush et a rédigé, avant les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, les lois d’exception anti-terroristes. Depuis la confirmation du juge Alito, elle détient 4 sièges sur 9 à la Cour suprême. Son théoricien, John Yoo, justifie les pleins pouvoirs perpétuels du président Bush.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/011106.html
The “unitary” theory of presidential power sounds too wonkish for Americans to care about, but the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court could push this radical notion of almost unlimited Executive authority close to becoming a reality.

Justice Alito, as a longtime advocate of the theory, would put the Court’s right-wing faction on the verge of having a majority committed to embracing this constitutional argument that would strip regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, of their independence.

If that happens, George W. Bush and his successors would have the power to instruct these agencies what to do on regulations and enforcement, opening up new opportunities to punish enemies and reward friends. The “unitary” theory asserts that all executive authority must be in the President’s hands, without exception.


http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060130/holtzman/
posted January 11, 2006 (January 30, 2006 issue)
The Impeachment of George W. Bush
Elizabeth Holtzman
Finally, it has started. People have begun to speak of impeaching President George W. Bush--not in hushed whispers but openly, in newspapers, on the Internet, in ordinary conversations and even in Congress. As a former member of Congress who sat on the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, I believe they are right to do so.

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

Afghanistan, Irak och Iran handlar inte bara om olja. Det handlar om att införa diktatur i USA. Leo Strauss är den politiske filosof som står bakom det här. Wolfowitz är hans lärljunge. Och Leo Strauss är lärljunge till Carl Schmitt - den jurist som såg till att Hitler kom till makten.


http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=222

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steinberg/cst-nws-stein20.html

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

http://www.rense.com/general69/pup.htm

[Leif Erlingsson]

Jag har nedan stuckit in en bra lägesbeskrivning författad av en mail-listvän till mig. Den är väl värd besväret, jag lovar!!!

[Mitch Elder]

Original here: http://life.lege.net/viewtopic.php?p=296#296

Hugo Chavez, Venezuela, Sheehan, the Bushies, the Falkland Islands and oil, oil, oil...

2006-02-18 13:40:39 -0800 updated 2006-02-24 01:10:00 +0200
by Mitch Elder

I just thought I'd take the opportunity to share some points of fact that might illuminate our current global situation. The last 25 years of history has been distorted by the corporate media conglomerates and government and most people really don't know the true reasons for "The War on Terror" the Bush Administration's hatred of Hugo Chavez and Iran, and of course, the Iraq war. So a little history please...

In 1971 Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard. He did this by Executive Order, which technically, was unconstitutional since the Constitution specifically demands the dollar be based on silver (gold has always been considered an acceptable substitute) but that's a story for another time. The point is, we had incurred a significant federal debt as a result of the Vietnam war and foreign countries who had bought Federal Reserve Bonds had been cashing them in for gold. Our strategic gold reserves had been cut in half and were on the verge of depletion. So Nixon severed the dollar/gold connection so he could repay our debts with worthless paper (fiat currency) which we still have today. Since then, incidentally, the value of the dollar has dropped (creating inflation) by over 300%. Taking us off the gold standard set the stage for everything that has transpired since.

With no solid basis of value for the dollar, the US economy would have imploded, but fortunately there was a de-facto standard waiting in the wings: oil. Prior to severing the gold connection, Kissinger negotiated an agreement with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars for oil. This placed the US dollar on an oil standard even though we didn't produce that oil and forced the rest of the world to continue complying with the Breton Woods Agreement which called for the US dollar to be the global reserve currency. Everyone on the planet was effectively forced to store US dollars in order to conduct business.
This arrangement was held in place by various political factors and relationships: 1) Saudi Arabia was, and is, the 900 pound gorilla of OPEC; 2) We held the Shah of Iran by the balls by virtue of our military presence on his soil; 3) the British played along; 4) There were (and still are) only two commodities exchanges on the planet where crude oil can be transacted: New York and London. This meant that regardless whether you were selling or buying, if you transacted oil, you had to do it in the New York Mercantile Exchange or the International Petroleum Exchange in London. And they don't take American Express - only dollars.

Now the stage was set for the oil embargo of the 70's, the hostage crises, the Falkland Islands war, the Gulf War, the Balkans War, the Iraq invasion, the rise of the neocons and a great many other things.

Now, hold that thought while I diverge for a moment. Islamic law dictates that only gold is to be used as money. It forbids the use of fiat currency. When the US dollar was taken off the gold standard, the acceptance of US dollars for oil violated Islamic law and this really pissed off the Muslim oil producing countries. So, meanwhile back at the ranch...

The other OPEC countries of Muslim persuasion ganged up on the 900 pound gorilla and refused to play along with production quotas. This led to the oil embargo of the 1970s which the Carter Administration inherited from Nixon. With the fall of the Shah of Iran, Arab hatred for US meddling, and our support for Israel, the whole thing boiled over and led to the hostage crisis. This just further complicated the oil production problems emanating from the Middle East. It would have gotten a whole lot worse (if you can imagine that) were it not for our own oil production from the north slope which hit its peak in the late 70's.

When the Reaganites hit Washington, they brought with them several key oil industry players, most of whom were, and still are, voting members of the Carlisle Group, a US/Saudi consortium of energy investors including George H. W. Bush, James Baker and Frank Carlucci. They were instrumental in convincing the Saudis to ignore the other members of OPEC and increase their own production to meet demand. In addition, the CIA instigated a war between Iraq and Iran who are well known in the region for having historical/cultural differences. This broke the embargo and the oil started flowing again. With the price of crude coming down, the 80's were a great big party for Wall Street. It had nothing to do with Reaganomics. The 80's heyday stock market was also, more than likely, heavily influenced by the changing of the guard at the Federal Reserve Board in 1982, when Alan Greenspan took over for Paul Volcker. Volcker had notoriously continued to raise interest rates throughout the oil embargo, placing an internal stranglehold on the economy in order to discredit the Carter Administration and launch the conservatives to power. It worked. Within a couple of years after Reagan took office, Greenspan began running the printing presses night and day and flooded the market with cheap money built on cheap oil.

The 80's saw several world events that would have a lasting effect on the oil economy. These were: 1) The fall of the Soviet Empire which led to the opening of Eastern Europe and set the stage for the construction of a pipeline to Western Europe through the Balkans and access to oil fields in the Caspian Sea. Thus, our military intervention in the former Yugoslavia. 2) The Iraq/Iran war lasted for ten years thus occupying the attention of Middle Eastern countries like Libya who would otherwise have had more incentive to attempt a disruption of the US economy through the oil flow. But fears of US military intervention in the region along side the ongoing Iran/Iraq war, all of which, might have resulted in a "spilling over" of the fighting into neighboring countries, led Middle Eastern leaders, especially the Fahd regime, to put a lid on Qaddafi. Our military bombing of Tripoli was simply used to send a message on behalf of King Fahd: Mohammar needed to sit down and shut up before everybody started losing money. 3) The Falkland Islands war. Y'ever wondered why in the hell the UK would be interested in a couple of barren rocks half-way around the world? Easy. Venezuela is a major oil producer and a member of OPEC. When Argentina attempted to take over the Falklands, it was a military attack on a strategic naval base location. Incidentally, the same holds true for Somalia. Look at where Somalia is in relation to the Persian Gulf. Only the US and British Navies are allowed to occupy such a key choke point on the shipping lanes.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. We'll get to Venezuela in a minute.

The 90's brought an end to the Iraq/Iran war. Iran was beaten badly and Iraq was in debt. It needed to pay that debt off and like the US, it wanted to pay it off using someone else's resources. Kuwait was an easy target. Hussein didn't count on the resolve of the American and British commercial interests in the region. In fact, the whole world took notice of this one and moved to keep Hussein from controlling that much of the world economy. If you think the Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait, I've got some great beach front property in Kingman Arizona I'll let you have cheap.

Americans love their consumption lifestyle, but we can't really bear to look the true cost of it in the face. The Gulf War was just too ugly and G. H. W. Bush lost to Clinton as a result of that war, even though it was an economic necessity. An avoidable one, true, but necessary nonetheless. Had we followed the Carter plan for energy independence, we would not be where we are today. But the doves lost the propaganda war with the rise of Reagan and the puppet masters behind Washington have been pulling the strings ever since.

The economic boom of the 90's was not a result of Clintonomics. I hate to tell you folks, but the reality is no president has any real control over the economy. Even their influence on tax policy has little if any lasting effect. The Wizard of Oz was an illusion created by a man behind the curtain. And that man (or men) is the Federal Reserve Board.

Clinton inherited Alan Greenspan, a magician whose greatest trick is creating money out of thin air. Let me diverge again for a moment for a short economics lesson. The Federal Reserve Bank is neither federal nor a bank. It is a consortium of the nations largest banks - banks so large they must go direct to the federal government to borrow money.
These banks, banks like Citibank and JP Morgan Chase, send a representative to the Federal Reserve Board meeting a few times a year and they decide among themselves what the interest rate will be for money they loan each other on a short-term basis using money they first borrow from the US Mint. This is called the Prime Rate. So, wrap your mind around this logic. The nation's largest banks get together and decide how much money they want and what they are willing to pay for it. Then, they send the Chairman to Congress to make their demands.
The US Mint creates the amount demanded, out of thin air, (remember, our money is based on nothing) and these banks then lend this money out to the rest of us for a profit, which they pocket. Now, just to make things even more twisted, these same banks will also lend this created money they get for free, back to the government for a profit by buying US Treasury Bonds. And we get to pay the interest on this debt with our taxes. And that's the scam.

Greenspan ramped up the printing presses and lowered interest rates to ridiculously low levels, allowing anyone to borrow money, including many people who shouldn't have. This caused people to turn their homes into ATMs and led to real estate speculation and real estate prices that have gone through the roof. The US economy is like a bicycle: if it stops moving, it falls. This elaborate house of cards is solely dependent on consumption. If people stop spending money, the economy implodes. And since people don't make any money to start with, they must borrow it to spend it. You see, since the rise of the conservative movement and deregulation, the US has exported its manufacturing jobs. Our economy is now 80% service industry. Service jobs create nothing. Only manufacturing jobs create real wealth by creating things that people need and buy based on need. But since we are all service workers, everything we buy is now made overseas and we are nothing but consumers. Under this scenario, credit must be made cheap and easy in order to give people something to spend. The housing bubble created during the 90's with cheap credit provided that flow of easy money. But it's over now, so look out.

Okay, back to oil and dollars. Something must keep the US economy afloat. The real estate bubble followed on the heels of the Stock Market bubble which followed on the heels of the S&L junk bond bubble.
We no longer have a bubble of artificially synthesized equity to create. In the absence of the creation of any real wealth, we are out of options and the only thing holding the US economy together is the fact that dollars must be used to buy oil. This fundamental requirement demands then, that all nations hoard US dollars for use to drive their own economies. To get these dollars, they buy bonds - IOUs issued by the federal government which then pays an interest. This causes them to invest in our debt. Thus the rising federal debt levels. This house of cards was holding until something went very, very wrong...

Saddam Hussein decided in late 2001 (note the date folks) that he would sell his oil (oil for food program) for Euros instead of dollars. His decision was, to hell with everyone else, don't go to New York or London, come straight to Baghdad and I'll sell you my oil for Euros direct and we'll cut out the middle man. Other countries caught wind of this idea and liked it. It represents autonomy from US control and for Muslim nations, a chance to comply with Islamic law and sell oil for gold. But abandonment of the dollar standard would cause the collapse of the US economy by pulling the value rug out from underneath the dollar. The oil industry was not going to let this happen. A message had to be sent to the world: stop buying our dollars and debt, and we'll kick your ass.

The problem was, how to sell it to the public. There had to be a reason that the average schmuck could get behind. And then, something wonderful happened. A major terrorist organization was planning a big hit on US soil. This was the Pearl Harbor the neocons had been dreaming of. A full report even hit the president's desk a month prior. The front page read: "Bin Laden plans major attack on US." What a deal.
All that needed to happen was a major attack on our land and blame could be placed on Iraq. So the necons just got out of the way and let it happen.

And the Iraq invasion was on.

Iran - and this is getting absolutely no mainstream, corporate news coverage but is all over the financial networks on the Internet - is in the process of setting up in international commodities exchange in Tehran where they will sell oil for Euros. They plan on bringing this on line next month. Their "nuclear program" is almost nonexistent.
They don't have the money for a nuclear program. The REAL nuclear threat to the US is the severing of the dollar/oil connection. And guess who else wants to sell oil for Euros? That's right, Hugo Chavez.

But there is one thing that no one on the planet can avoid and that, is Peak Oil. All of the war, the scams, the shredding of the Bill of Rights, the corporate take over of America is, in the end, the fits and gasps of a dying Empire that was built on a diet of crude oil and is now starving to death.

In Summary:

1970's:

• Gold standard abolished, oil standard established.
  
• Nixon, the first, conservative Imperial President falls under the weight of scandal.
  
• Carter is elected in the wake of the scandal.
  
• Middle Eastern OPEC nations rebel against the dollar standard and create an embargo by refusing to bow to Saudi Arabia's production quota demands.
  
• The Shah of Iran falls and the US loses Iran as an oil producing puppet state.
  
• Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Fed and a member of the neocon inner circle, places additional pressure on the US economy by restricting liquidity through high interest rates knowing that the presidency will take the political blame.
  
• Carter prepares and implements a 30-year plan to remove the US from foreign oil dependency.

1980's:

• Reagan and the conservatives rise to power on the sad health of the economy.
  
• The Carter energy plan is immediately abandoned by the Reagan White House.
  
• James Baker and George H. W. Bush negotiate an agreement with King Fahd to ignore other OPEC members and increase production which, they agree to.
  
• North Sea oil fields are opened by British Petroleum.
  
• Iraq/Iran war begins and along with increased production from the North Sea, the Alaskan North Slope and Saudi Arabia, crude prices drop.
  
• The new Chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan takes control in 1982 and abandons the Volcker choke hold on liquidity.
  
• Cheap, plentiful and easy fiat currency through the Federal Reserve and Central Bank lending, along with relaxed controls on the financial community enacted by the conservatives, fuels the economy by allowing more and larger risky leveraged speculation investment.
  
• Speculatory, leveraged investments on Wall Street lead to the Savings and Loan collapse (the first artificial bubble to be inflated for profit and then allowed to crash leaving naive investors holding the bag).
  
• Soviet Empire crumbles on the worthless Ruble and the Eastern Bloc is opened to the West for petroleum exploitation.

1990's:

• Iran/Iraq war ends and Iraq invades Kuwait to rob its oil wealth.
  
• Gulf War begins.
  
• Balkans War begins.
  
• Greenspan continues easy lending practices and the second artificial bubble is created, this time in the general stock market which reaches artificial and ultimately unsustainable highs during the Clinton years.
  
• Stock market crashes in the later part of the decade. The hardest hit are tech stocks. It goes down in history as "The Dot Com" bubble.
  
• Housing market bubble begins to inflate on the heels of the stock market crash.
  
• The Clinton financial house of cards is better built than the house that Reagan built and the federal debt owed to Central Banks and foreign interests is paid down significantly. Incidentally, Katherine Austin Fitts (www.solari.com) once Assistant Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the first Bush and Clinton, points out that one of the things that the Clintons did to really piss off the neocons was to play the game better than they did. Clinton was, after all, an economics major.

2000 and beyond:

• Having lost an election to both Carter and then Clinton, the neocons vow to never let something as trivial as a national election get in their way again and George W. Bush is appointed by the Supreme Court to the White House.
  
• Already having personal reasons to hate Iraq (and then of course there IS all that oil, after all) the Bushies are itching to open up a can of whoopass on Saddam Hussein.
  
• Hussein gives them another excuse by attempting abandon the dollar standard. For that transgression against The Empire, he pays dearly.
  
• The neocons are handed a golden opportunity (or helped to create it, according to some) when the towers are attacked. Every flimsy excuse under the sun is used to justify the invasion, but never the truth.
  
• Peak Oil threatens to unravel the entire ruse by eliminating the sole source of wealth for the planet. The neocons have now, apparently decided to turn back to a time tested wealth building strategy: indentured servitude.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Mitch Elder

(Posted with permission)

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

http://www.gnn.tv/forum/thread.php?id=12936
http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/audio/2006-02-9-Alex-Jones_-_Cynthia-McKinney.mp3

Alex Jones - http://www.prisonplanet.com/ - och kongressledamöt Cynthia McKinney diskuterar bland annat President Bush och diktatur.

Lite länkar kring deras samtal:

http://www.nndb.com/people/204/000069994/

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/160206renewal.htm

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1006-08.htm

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN AMERICA
http://www.infowars.com/cc_archive.htm

Alex Jones' new documentary, The Order of Death features the exclusive new hidden footage from inside Bohemian Grove.
http://www.infowars.com/video/previews/grove/ood7min_qt.htm

INVASION OF AMERICA: OPERATION URBAN WARROR
http://www.infowars.com/ouwmar9901.html

[11-09-01.blogspot.com]

Cindy Sheehan vars son dödades i Irak har protesterat mot kriget sen sommaren 2005. Nu har hon arresterats när hon och andra kvinnor försökte överlämna en protest med 60 000 namnunderskrifter till FN. Cindy Sheehan klubbades ner brutalt i samband med arresteringen. Ett samhälle som beter sig så mot de som kämpar för fred är ett samhälle på väg mot diktatur!

Se:
http://www.womensaynotowar.org/article.php?id=814


Cindy Sheehan with Iraqi Delegates at the Women Say NO to War press conference outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations.


Cindy Sheehan being dragged away by the police.