“End The Fed” Protest in Washington DC on July 3, 2010

Just say NO!vember

Audit the Fed Update: It’s Over… For Now

Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which had previously attracted 320 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, failed by a vote of 229-198.

All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

How They Voted

Watch Ron Paul’s Video Update

Audit the Fed Update: The Fed has won the battle but they will lose the war

Ron Paul discusses the latest in the efforts to get a full and complete audit of the Fed as well as the future of Fed transparency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IixLg4AtNI

Ron Paul’s attempt to audit the Federal Reserve, which was previously co-sponsored by 320 members of the House (HR 1207), failed by a vote of 229-198. All Republicans voted in favor of the measure with 23 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans. 114 co-sponsors of HR 1207, all Democrats, jumped ship and voted against Audit the Fed.

The GOP had offered the Fed audit as the minority’s last chance to alter the financial regulation bill. The bill does have an watered-down audit provision in the conference report, but it is limited to loans made by the Fed during the height of the economic crisis. Ron Paul’s bill would have allowed a total examination of the Fed’s books.

How they voted

KEY: Democrats, Republicans, HR 1207 Co-Sponsors

YEA! = Audit the Federal Reserve System (a private rockefeller/rothschild bank that started in 1913 that bankrupted the USA by 1933 & stole OUR gold, and which is paid INTEREST on this debt in the form of UN-Constitutional unapportioned federal INCOME TAXES on your WAGES that were traded even-up for LABOR)

NAY! Traitors:

Not Voting (cowards, but not traitors)

Bishop (UT)
Taylor
Wamp
Woolsey
Young (AK)

LEARN ABOUT THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

TSLA stock went from an IPO of $17, up to $20 on the first day, up to $24.24 on the second day, peaking at $30 per share.

Tesla Motors sells 2 models of cars:

2010 Tesla Roadster $128,500

- Improved Power and Handling
- Power motor: Hand wound stator and increased winding density for lower resistance and higher peak torque
- 0-60 mph in 3.7 seconds
- Custom tuned suspension: Adjustable dampers and anti-roll bars tuned to driver’s preference
- Dark finish forged alloy Tesla wheels
- Tires: Yokohama A048 Ultra High Performance
- Unique Sport badging

Tesla is now delivering the Roadster Sport, a shockingly high-performance sports car based on the world’s leading electric, zero emission vehicle. Price starts at $128,500 in the United States, €99,000 (excluding VAT) in Europe and £101,900 (including VAT) in United Kingdom.

2012 Tesla Model S $49,900

- 300 mile range
- 45 minute QuickCharge
- 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds
- Seats 7 people
- More cargo space than sedans
- 2X as efficient as hybrids
- 17 inch infotainment touchscreen

With a range up to 300 miles and 45-minute QuickCharge, the Model S can carry five adults and two children in quiet comfort – and you can charge it from any outlet, without ever stopping for gas. World’s first mass-produced electric vehicle offers performance, efficiency and unrivaled utility for a base price of $49,900*, making it the only car you’ll ever need.

Electric Power

Drive Quickly, Tread Lightly. Most electric vehicles operate under the assumption that driving is merely a necessary evil if you need to get someplace you can’t reach on foot or bike. The result has been cars that are designed, built, and marketed in ways that refuse to glorify driving.

We respectfully disagree. We believe driving is exhilarating. Just watch any child on a go-cart and the joy is plain to see. And when you can soar along at top speed, knowing the only oil in the car is in the transmission, the only emissions are the songs from the radio, the ride becomes more enjoyable still.

The Ultimate Multi-Fuel Vehicle

Electric cars equal freedom. Not simply from oil reliance, but from dependence on any specific power source. Electric power can be generated from natural gas, coal, solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear sources — or a combination of all of them — without changing the design of the car. No matter how or when the world changes, the car adapts, making it immune from obsolescence.

We foresee a day when all cars run on electric power and when people will struggle to remember a time when a love of driving came with a side order of guilt.

No More Tradeoffs

Up until now, if you wanted a car with amazing gas mileage, you’d pick something like the leading hybrid; but when you pressed down the gas pedal to zip up a freeway on-ramp, you’d likely be a little disappointed — it takes over 10 seconds to reach 60 miles per hour. On the other hand, if you demanded the 0 to 60 times of a $300,000 supercar, you’d wind up with an embarrassing 9 miles to the gallon in the city.

Acceleration & Torque = Instant Freedom

The first time you drive the Tesla Roadster, prepare to be surprised. You’re at freeway speed in seconds without even thinking about it. There is no clutch pedal to contend with and no race-car driving techniques to perform. Just the touch of your foot and you’re off, without any of the sluggishness of an automatic.

How powerful is the acceleration? A quick story to illustrate. A favorite trick here at Tesla Motors is to invite a passenger along and ask him to turn on the radio. At the precise moment we ask, we accelerate. Our passenger simply can’t sit forward enough to reach the dials. But who needs music when you’re experiencing such a symphony of motion.

Rest assured that this responsiveness works at all speeds, as noticeable when you’re inching your way through parking lots as when flying along freeways.

100% Torque, 100% of the Time
The Tesla Roadster delivers full availability of performance every moment you are in the car, even while at a stoplight. Its peak torque begins at 0 rpm and stays powerful at 14,000 rpm.

This is the precise opposite of what you experience with a gasoline engine, which has very little torque at a low rpm and only reaches peak torque in a narrow rpm range. This forces you to make frequent gear changes to maintain optimal torque. With the Tesla Roadster, you get great acceleration and the highest energy efficiency at the same time. All while requiring no special driving skills to enjoy it. This makes the Tesla Roadster six times as efficient as the best sports cars while producing one-tenth of the pollution.

Tesla Raises Hopes for Cleantech IPOs

Its stock’s 41% jump on Day One may herald a shift in sentiment

With all eyes in the cleantech world focused on Tesla Motors’ (TSLA) first day of trading on June 29, venture capitalists and industry executives released a collective cheer when the stock of the electric vehicle maker surged 41 percent. Even sweeter, the investor support came on a day when the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index and Nasdaq both plunged more than 3 percent.

It’s been a grim time for cleantech investors. Prior to Tesla, there hadn’t been a U.S.-based initial public offering since A123 Systems (AONE), a maker of batteries for electric cars, went public in September. With stock markets worldwide reeling, solar-panel maker Solyndra pulled its IPO filing on June 18, choosing instead to raise $175 million in debt.

That was only part of the reason for skepticism leading up to Tesla’s first day of trading. The company has been losing money since opening for business in 2003, and Tesla says it won’t see profitability for at least two years as it moves from selling $109,000 sports cars to cheaper sedans.

The Palo Alto (Calif.)-based company’s shares rallied on Day One to a stock-market value in excess of $2 billion. Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk sold shares worth at least $24 million. The strong showing had investors seeing a window of opportunity for more “liquidity events,” to use a Silicon Valley term for IPO. “It really lubricates the way,” says Nat Goldhaber, managing director of Claremont Creek Ventures in Oakland, Calif., which invests in energy-conservation companies. “You’ll see a rush of bankers and companies trying to push through new green-based IPOs.”

THE NEXT CLEANTECH IPO?

No one knows which cleantech company might go public next, but the likeliest are those that, like Tesla, have raised tremendous amounts of money—and thus need to find a way to pay back investors. Fuel-cell manufacturer Bloom Energy, biofuel producer Sapphire Energy, and solar companies eSolar and BrightSource Energy each have raised at least $100-million in venture capital. Better Place, which is trying to build a network of battery-swapping facilities—sort of like filling stations for electric cars—raised $350 million in May.

For these and other cleantech companies, the Tesla IPO “is a real confidence builder,” says Gary Bloom, the CEO of eMeter, which makes software to help utilities manage data and bolster energy efficiency. EMeter has raised more than $70 million. While the decade-old company isn’t preparing for an IPO, Bloom says, Tesla’s success is “proving that things are moving in the cleantech sector and that there’s real deliverables.”

Bloom is quick to caution against reading too much into Tesla’s opening-day gains. After A123 raced out of the gates on Sept. 24, the stock proceeded to lose half its value over the next nine months and continues to sell below its offer price.

The bottom line Tesla’s initial public offering may be a “real confidence builder” that paves the way for more cleantech IPOs.

EMERGENCY! Senate Sellout Threatens Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bills HR1207 + S.604

Bernie Sanders sold out to wall street. tell him we want OUR S.604 back, which we already have 32 cosponsors = 1/3 of the senate + 319 cosponsors for it’s sister bill HR1207 = 73% of the house backing us. Audit the Fed! and then End the Fed! that’s why JFK gave us Executive Order #11110

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVBAMQ0j4A

Ron Paul: Audit the Fed! No More Bailouts!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVNvjQobulQ

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had long worked together on their campaign for a full audit of the Federal Reserve, which emerged last year as H.R. 1207 and S. 604. Dr. Paul’s House version of the Audit the Fed bill had 319 cosponsors; Sanders’ Senate version, 32 cosponsors. Despite these bills’ massive popularity with a public grown increasingly suspicious of central banking, efforts to audit our central bank, the Federal Reserve, have been effectively thwarted for the time being.

Last-minute Senate maneuvering on Thursday May 6 resulted in a compromise measure that would require the Fed to disclose more details about its lending practices during the financial crisis, but would permit just a one-time audit of its loans and a one-time review of Fed governance. The compromise would also shield the Fed’s interest rate decision-making procedures from Goverment Accounting Office (GAO) scrutiny.

Dr. Paul, who has long advocated opening the Fed’s books to scrutiny to reveal its dealings with foreign banks as well as its domestic lending practices, expressed disappointment with the compromise in a sternly worded statement released Thursday evening.

Sanders had originally argued, “At a time when our entire financial system almost collapsed, we cannot let the Fed operate in secrecy any longer.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke disagreed. The Wall Street Journal reported his remark that the original measure would “seriously threaten monetary policy independence, increase inflation fears and market interest rates, and damage economic stability and job creation.”

Members of the Obama administration, among their number former Fed officials, backed the changes to Sanders amendment. These include Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former chair of the New York Federal Reserve, and Paul Volcker, who was Alan Greenspan’s predecessor as Fed chair. They gave credit to Christopher Dodd (D-Ct.), Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, for pushing through the compromise bill. Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin stated that the compromise measure would allow for a comprehensive audit of the Fed’s operations “while preserving the existing protections of the Federal Reserve’s independence with respect to monetary policy.” It is just this independence which the Fed’s critics wish to challenge, as it leaves the Fed essentially accountable to no one except other elite bankers — some of them foreign.

On Thursday night, Ron Paul made an urgent appeal in a two and a half minute video (see below) urging Senators to reject the Sanders Amendment when it comes up for a vote, possibly as soon as next Tuesday (May 11). Dr. Paul stated,

I’m not a bit surprised that the Federal Reserve got to the Senate. I had expected Bernie Sanders to offer 604, which was the same as 1207, which is Audit the Fed bill, and at the last minute he switched it and watered it down, and really it adds nothing, It’s a possibility that it even makes the current conditions worse….

But as we speak — this is Thursday night — they are working on this on the Senate floor. And we need to get as many messages as possible to as many Senators you can think of, especially to Bernie Sanders’ office, that we don’t want this version….

But the only thing that would be fair to the American people after all this work and energy that we put into this is to have an up and down vote on what was our 1207 in the House which is 604 in the Senate….

Dr. Paul’s website adds that the compromise “exempts monetary policy decisions, discount window operations, and agreements with foreign central banks from [GAO] audit. This is of particular concern when several countries such as Greece, Portugal, and Spain are seeking IMF help in the midst of their financial crises, because American taxpayers provide fully 17% of all IMF funding.”

“Taxpayers are weary of bailing out privileged banks and corporations in the U.S.,” Dr. Paul added, “and we certainly cannot afford to bail out entire countries. The possibility of this happening behind a veil of Federal Reserve secrecy is not acceptable.”

“This compromise language represents a huge missed opportunity by Congress to finally make the Fed accountable for trillions of taxpayer dollars it administers. Full transparency, via a full GAO audit, is the only acceptable option. However, I am grateful to Senator Vitter for offering the original full audit language in an alternative amendment to the bill.”

The John Birch Society has issued a press release urging opposition to the compromise measure and restoration of the original language. Readers are invited to go to “Ron Paul Appeals for Help to Rescue His ‘Audit the Fed’ Bill in the Senate” and spreading the word on social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Or they may contact their Senators directly to urge support for an amendment that would restore the original ‘Audit the Fed’ language and intent:  “As Ron Paul says in the video,” reads the JBS statement, “it’s vital and urgent that we do as much as we can to bombard the Senate with information that we the people deserve to have an up-or-down vote on Audit the Fed bill.”

View Ron Paul’s complete statement below. The vote on the compromise measure is expected to take place next Tuesday, May 11.

Source: The New American

The anticipation can finally be realized as today sees the launch of Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined, the powerful new documentary which will put the final nail in the coffin of any doubts that a dictatorial elite is openly setting up an authoritarian system of world government designed to concentrate power and crush the freedom and living standards of the middle class.

The Infowars team have poured 18 months of blood sweat and tears into a film that represents a call to action for Infowarriors around the globe to use this tool as a means of unlocking millions more minds from the matrix.

The impact the film will achieve is solely in the hands of you, the audience, in making the movie go viral in the same way as Loose Change, the Obama Deception and Endgame achieved viral success, and in turn waking up millions more people to the New World Order system and enabling them to take the first steps in resisting their tyranny.

Film maker Jason Bermas has collected a truly monumental amount of video archive and document material to render completely obsolete claims that the agenda of today’s ruling elite is not the open move towards a global totalitarian world government which will be run to the detriment of the people in the self-interests of the tiny ruling class that sit atop the power pyramid.

Invisible Empire is all conspiracy and no theory – proving beyond doubt how the elite have openly conspired to insidiously rule the globe via the engines of the CFR, the United Nations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg group, which were born out of the historical Round Table groups first set up by Cecil Rhodes.

Invisible Empire will be more than just a film– it is the culmination of years of research by Jason Bermas into the inner-workings and most revealing public statements by the New World Order and the most trusted stewards of their dark vision. Invisible Empire promises to unveil the long-term agenda for world control, just as Fabled Enemies and Loose Change Final Cut forever stripped away the facade of the official story of 9/11 and exposed the dark truth that lies behind.

Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E

DOCTOR Ron Paul Announces HR4995 Opt-Out of obamacare bill MANDATE! Dr. Ron Paul is a true champion of Liberty and defender of the U.S. Constitution. RP decided the easiest way (to start REPEALING the unconstitutional healthcare reform bill) is to announce a bill that allows people to opt-out of the unconstitutional healthcare MANDATE.

Ron Paul Announces HR4995 on Fox News, 04/12/10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuFJu-vwutU

Ron Paul: “I want to get rid of one item to concentrate on, because I think it’s the worst part. And that is the mandate saying that you don’t have a choice anymore. They’re driving everybody into the system. [...] I want to key in on the one issue, tolegalize freedom of choice, legalize the private option without taking on the whole mess that’s been created. [...] In a free society you have to at least allow people the freedom to opt out of a compulsory system that is imposed on you by government.”

join the HR4995 Facebook group:
End The Mandate – HR 4995 – Stop the Health Insurance Mandate!

Thursday, March 11, 2010 – Congress finally debates the war in Afghanistan. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio-D) forced the debate with a resolution, which did NOT pass – but DK was successful in compiling an accurate list of war hawks in the United States House of Representatives who voted “NAY” on his resolution to end the unconstitutional and illegal occupation of Afghanistan within 30 days.

http://embedr.com/playlist/dennis-kucinich-forces-congress-to-debate-afghanistan-war

On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced H. Com Res. 248, a privileged resolution with 16 original cosponsors that will require the House of Representatives to debate whether to continue the war in Afghanistan. Debate on the resolution is expected early next week.

Original cosponsors of the Kucinich resolution include John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan); Ron Paul (R-Texas); José Serrano (D-New York); Bob Filner (D-California); Lynn Woolsey (D-California); Walter Jones, Jr. (R-North Carolina); Danny Davis (D-Illinois); Barbara Lee (D-California); Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts); Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona); Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin); Timothy Johnson (R-Illinois); Yvette Clarke (D-New York); Eric Massa (D-New York), Alan Grayson (D-Florida) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).

The Pentagon doesn’t want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy.

Ideally, from the point of view of the Pentagon, Congress would fork over that money right away, before the coming Kandahar offensive that the $33 billion is supposed to pay for, because you can expect a lot of bad news out of Afghanistan in the form of deaths of American soldiers andAfghan civilians once the Kandahar offensive starts, and it would sure be awkward if all that bad news reached Washington while the $33 billion was hanging fire.

So it’s a great thing that Kucinich and his 16 allies are forcing Congress to debate the issue, and it would be even better if more Members of Congress would be urged by their constituents to support Kucinich’s resolution. That would be a signal to the House leadership that continuation of the open-ended war and occupation is controversial in the House, and the House leadership should not try to ram through $33 billion more for the war on a fast-track without ample opportunity for debate and amendment.

Every day the Afghanistan war continues is another day on which the United States government plays Russian roulette with the lives ofAmerican soldiers and Afghan civilians.

The British government has more urgency than the US government about ending the war – and is more supportive than the US of a political solution to end the conflict – because in Britain there is greater public outcry.

If there were greater public and Congressional outcry in the US, we could be more like Britain, and get our government on board the train to a political solution, instead of prolonging the war indefinitely.

The first step towards bringing our troops home is for members of Congress to hear from their constituents.

source: truthout

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ry6-1L2Xxs

Video: Ron Paul’s Speech at CPAC 2010

Representative Ron Paul spoke to conservative activists about U.S. foreign policy, the costs of overseas troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as federal spending priorities and monetary policy. He also spoke about limited government and individual rights, emphasizing personal responsibility over the regulatory power of government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-m75YqmrA

Ron Paul Wins Presidential Straw Poll at CPAC

Ron Paul has ended Mitt Romney’s three-year run as conservatives’ favorite for president, taking 31 percent of the vote in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual straw poll.

Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas known for his libertarian views, ran for president in 2008 but was never a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

Romney, former Massachusetts governor and a 2008 GOP candidate, has won the last three presidential straw polls at the annual conference.

The straw poll is not binding — and not necessarily a good forecaster, given that in 2008, John McCain went on to take the party’s nomination over Romney.

This is good news for the Liberty movement and everyone that has supported Ron Paul and his ideas for the conservative movement.

He represents what true conservatism stands for, and has shed is light across many in the movement to take back our country and return it to the ideas of the Constitution.

Source: Conservative for Change

CPAC 2010 Straw Poll RESULTS: Ron Paul Wins Big

Here are the official results:

Texas Rep. Ron Paul – 31 percent
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney – 22 percent
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin – 7 percent
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich – 4 percent
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee – 4 percent
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence – 5 percent
South Dakota Sen. John Thune – 2 percent
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels – 2 percent
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum – 2 percent
Mississippi Gov. Hailey Barbour – 1 percent
Other – 5 percent
Undecided – 6 percent

In a strong reflection of just how strong his standing remains within the die-hard conservative community, Texas Republican and 2008 presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll on Saturday, earning nearly one-third (31 percent) of the entire vote. The crowd, however, booed heavily when the results were announced.

Paul was far and away the most widely anticipated speaker at the three-day conference, with his base of “Paulites” streaming into the main auditorium to hear him rail against government overreach and neoconservativism on Friday afternoon. In many respects, his win in the CPAC poll seemed pre-ordained — his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.

What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone’s guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.

The other potential candidates who scored well and are more “mainstream” picks for the Republican nomination include former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who earned 22 percent of the vote, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who came in third with seven percent. Romney had won the last three CPAC polls. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, another talked about 2012 aspirant, tied “undecided” for fourth place at six percent.

The results provide an interesting reflection as to where conservative hearts lie nearly three years before the next presidential elections take place. But with so much time before formal campaigning begins – and with no White House aspirant even officially announcing a bid- its best to resist the temptation to read too deeply into the numbers. For example, last year, disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford polled at four percent, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal — no longer even on the straw poll — came in second at 14 percent.

Nevertheless, the CPAC poll can provide a nice boost (or, at the very least, attention) to prospective candidates. In 2007, Romney etched out a win over former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani by a margin of 21 percent to 17 percent. Sen. John McCain, who wound up winning the nomination, came in fifth with 12 percent of the vote.

Several of the candidates polled attended CPAC in the days, and even hours, ahead of the results being released. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was a keynote speaker on Saturday, preceded by former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (Penn.). Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty spoke on Friday followed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Paul. Romney addressed the audience on Thursday. All others were not in attendance during the three-day affair.

Source: Huffington Post

January 23, 2010, Oklahoma City, OK – While in Oklahoma City to film probably the most important footage of his career, independent filmmaker William Lewis’ hotel room was ransacked, the thieves getting away with everything…but his camera, cell phone and the clothes on his back.

After checking into his room, Lewis, who normally does not travel alone, went out to grab a bite to eat and scout the location for his exclusive interview with Oklahoma Representative Charles Key. Upon his return, Lewis found the door to his room ajar. Pushing the door open, he found that the only thing the thieves did not get was his well-hidden camera.

Lewis said, “I barely had time to find the (interview) location and grab some pizza.” It took him only seconds to notice that the burglars made off with his duffel bag, lighting equipment, backpack, which included other small equipment and information, and his laptop. Also stolen was the script and early version of the new film, Don’t Tread On Me, and some extra footage.

Gary Franchi, producer and co-writer of the film, commented on the incident, “It is unknown whether or not this was a random or targeted act against the films production but, given the current political climate in America, one tends to wonder.”

The policeman on the scene, Officer Bartel, was very helpful as he went door to door looking for and asking if anyone had seen anything suspicious. The hotel manager was reluctant to allow Lewis to film the rest of the incident, threatening to call the police if Lewis did not hand over the film, but was cooperative in the end, even supportive. “Good thing I keep multiple copies of this stuff and backup everything every few days!” Lewis exclaimed.

Franchi concluded, “Don’t Tread On Me is still on schedule for a spring release and nothing is going to stop it.”

Don’t Tread On Me (DTOM 2010 Teaser)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAVTTGkHEeU

WHERE IS YOUR LINE IN THE SAND?

More and more STATES are answering that question everyday as the Sovereignty Movement sweeps through dozens of state legislatures. Gun control, mandatory vaccinations and quarantines, health care opt out fines and imprisonment, bailout after bailout, the interstate commerce clause excuse… you get the idea. Hear what state reps and state senators are doing to protect individual and state sovereignty and how YOU can make it happen.

Wanna take back Washington, DC?… good luck with that. Wanna make the states more powerful than the federal government? Guess what? They already are, so let’s start acting like it.

DON’T TREAD ON ME

Coming Spring 2010. More teasers to follow.

http://www.DontTreadOnMeMovie.com

Thank God for Helen Thomas, the only person to show any courage at the White House press briefing after President Barack Obama gave a flaccid account of the intelligence screw-up that almost downed an airliner on Christmas Day.

After Obama briefly addressed L’Affaire Abdulmutallab and wrote “must do better” on the report cards of the national security schoolboys responsible for the near catastrophe, the President turned the stage over to counter-terrorism guru John Brennan and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

It took 89-year old veteran correspondent Helen Thomas to break through the vapid remarks about rechanneling “intelligence streams,” fixing “no-fly” lists, deploying “behavior detection officers,” and buying more body-imaging scanners.

Thomas recognized the John & Janet filibuster for what it was, as her catatonic press colleagues took their customary dictation and asked their predictable questions. Instead, Thomas posed an adult query that spotlighted the futility of government plans to counter terrorism with more high-tech gizmos and more intrusions on the liberties and privacy of the traveling public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1pURIukrjw

She asked why Abdulmutallab did what he did.

Thomas: “And what is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why.”

Brennan: “Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents… They attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he’s (sic) able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.”

Thomas: “And you’re saying it’s because of religion?”

Brennan: “I’m saying it’s because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.”

Thomas: “Why?”

Brennan: “I think this is a — long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.”

Thomas: “But you haven’t explained why.”

Neither did President Obama, nor anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is the boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men.

There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks.

Obama’s Non-Answer

I had been hoping Obama would say something intelligent about what drove Abdulmutallab to do what he did, but the President uttered a few vacuous comments before sending in the clowns. This is what he said before he walked away from the podium:

“It is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations … to do their bidding. … And that’s why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death … while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress. … That’s the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.”

But why it is so hard for Muslims to “get” that message? Why can’t they end their preoccupation with dodging U.S. missiles in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza long enough to reflect on how we are only trying to save them from terrorists while simultaneously demonstrating our commitment to “justice and progress”?

Does a smart fellow like Obama expect us to believe that all we need to do is “communicate clearly to Muslims” that it is al Qaeda, not the U.S. and its allies, that brings “misery and death”? Does any informed person not know that the unprovoked U.S.-led invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and displaced 4.5 million from their homes? How is that for “misery and death”?

Rather than a failure to communicate, U.S. officials are trying to rewrite recent history, which seems to be much easier to accomplish with the Washington press corps and large segments of the American population than with the Muslim world.

But why isn’t there a frank discussion by America’s leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive?

Peeking Behind the Screen

We witnessed a similar phenomenon when the 9/11 Commission Report tiptoed into a cautious discussion of possible motives behind the 9/11 attacks. To their credit, the drafters of that report apparently went as far as their masters would allow, in gingerly introducing a major elephant into the room:

“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.” (p. 376)

When asked later about the flabby way that last sentence ended, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, explained that there had been a Donnybrook over whether that paragraph could be included at all.

The drafters also squeezed in the reason given by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as to why he “masterminded” the attacks on 9/11:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed … from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

Would you believe that former Vice President Dick Cheney has also pointed to U.S. support for Israel as one of the “true sources of resentment”? This unique piece of honesty crept into his speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009.

Sure, he also trotted out the bromide that the terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the world.” But the Israel factor slipped into the speech, perhaps an inadvertent acknowledgement of the Israeli albatross adorning the neck of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Very few pundits and academicians are willing to allude to this reality, presumably out of fear for their future career prospects.

Former senior CIA officer Paul Pillar, now a professor at Georgetown University, is one of the few willing to refer, in his typically understated way, to “all the other things … including policies and practices that affect the likelihood that people … will be radicalized, and will try to act out the anger against us.” One has to fill in the blanks regarding what those “other things” are.

But no worries. Secretary Napolitano has a fix for this unmentionable conundrum. It’s called “counter-radicalization,” which she describes thusly:

“How do we identify someone before they become radicalized to the point where they’re ready to blow themselves up with others on a plane? And how do we communicate better American values and so forth … around the globe?”

Better communication. That’s the ticket.

Hypocrisy and Double Talk

But Napolitano doesn’t acknowledge the underlying problem, which is that many Muslims have watched Washington’s behavior closely for many years and view U.S. declarations about peace, justice, democracy and human rights as infuriating examples of hypocrisy and double talk.

So, Washington’s sanitized discussion about motives for terrorism seems more intended for the U.S. domestic audience than the Muslim world.

After all, people in the Middle East already know how Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S. mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents.

The purpose of U.S. “public diplomacy” appears more designed to shield Americans from this unpleasant reality, offering instead feel-good palliatives about the beneficence of U.S. actions. Most American journalists and politicians go along with the charade out of fear that otherwise they would be accused of lacking patriotism or sympathizing with “the enemy.”

Commentators who are neither naïve nor afraid are simply shut out of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Salon.com’s Glen Greenwald, for example, has complained loudly about “how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels terrorism directed at the U.S.,” and how it is taboo to point this out.

Greenwald recently called attention to a little-noticed Associated Press report on the possible motives of the 23-year-old Nigerian Abdulmutallab. The report quoted his Yemeni friends to the effect that the he was “not overtly extremist.” But they noted that he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel’s actions in Gaza. (emphasis added)

Former CIA specialist on al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer, has been still more outspoken on what he sees as Israel’s tying down the American Gulliver in the Middle East. Speaking Monday on C-SPAN, he complained bitterly that any debate on the issue of American support for Israel and its effects is normally squelched.

Scheuer added that the Israel Lobby had just succeeded in getting him removed from his job at the Jamestown Foundation think tank for saying that Obama was “doing what I call the Tel Aviv Two Step.”

More to the point, Scheuer asserted:

“For anyone to say that our support for Israel doesn’t hurt us in the Muslim world … is to just defy reality.”

Beyond loss of work, those who speak out can expect ugly accusations. The Israeli media network Arutz Sheva, which is considered the voice of the settler movement, weighed in strongly, citing Scheuer’s C-SPAN remarks and branding them “blatantly anti-Semitic.”

Media Squelching

As for media squelching, I continue to be amazed at how otherwise informed folks express total surprise when I refer them to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s statement about his motivation for attacking the United States, as cited on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”

And one can understand how even those following such things closely can get confused. Five years after the 9/11 Commission Report, on Aug. 30, 2009, readers of the neoconservative Washington Post were given a diametrically different view, based on what the Post called “an intelligence summary:”

“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States — which included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist … He stated that his contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the United States was a debauched and racist country.”

Apparently, the Post found this revisionist version politically more convenient, in that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” It’s much more comforting to view KSM as a disgruntled visitor who nursed his personal grievances into justification for mass murder.

An unusually candid view of the dangers accruing from the U.S. identification with Israel’s policies appeared five years ago in an unclassified study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board on Sept. 23, 2004. Contradicting President George W. Bush, the board stated:

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.

“Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.”

Abdulmutallab’s Attack

Getting back to Abdulmutallab and his motive in trying to blow up the airliner, how was this individual without prior terrorist affiliations suddenly transformed into an international terrorist ready to die while killing innocents?

If, as John Brennan seems to suggest, al Qaeda terrorists are hard-wired for terrorism at birth for the “wanton slaughter of innocents,” how are they able to jump-start a privileged 23-year old Nigerian, inculcate in him with the acquired characteristics of a terrorist, and persuade him to do the bidding of al Qaeda/Persian Gulf?

As indicated above, the young Nigerian seems to have had particular trouble with Israel’s wanton slaughter of more than a thousand civilians in Gaza a year ago, a brutal campaign that was defended in Washington as justifiable self-defense.

Moreover, it appears that Abdulmuttallab is not the only anti-American “terrorist” so motivated. When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of al Qaeda announced that they were uniting into “al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula,” their combined rhetoric railed against the Israeli attack on Gaza.

And on Dec. 30, Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian physician from a family of Palestinian origin, killed seven American CIA operatives and one Jordanian intelligence officer near Khost, Afghanistan, when he detonated a suicide bomb.

Though most U.S. media stories treated al-Balawi as a fanatical double-agent driven by irrational hatreds, other motivations could be gleaned by carefully reading articles about his personal history.

Al-Balawi’s mother told Agence France-Presse that her son had never been an “extremist.” Al-Balawi’s widow, Defne Bayrak, made a similar statement to Newsweek. In a New York Times article, al-Balawi’s brother was quoted as describing him as a “very good brother” and a “brilliant doctor.”

So what led al-Balawi to take his own life in order to kill U.S. and Jordanian intelligence operatives?

Al-Balawi’s widow said her husband “started to change” after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. His brother said al-Balawi “changed” during last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

When al-Balawi volunteered with a medical organization to treat injured Palestinians in Gaza, he was arrested by Jordanian authorities, his brother said.

It was after that arrest that the Jordanian intelligence service apparently coerced or “recruited” al-Balawi to become a spy who would penetrate al Qaeda’s hierarchy and provide actionable intelligence to the CIA.

“If you catch a cat and put it in a corner, she will jump on you,” the brother said in explaining why al-Balawi would turn to a suicide attack.

“My husband was anti-American; so am I,” his widow said, adding that her two little girls would grow up fatherless but that she had no regrets.

Answering Helen

Are we starting to get the picture of what the United States is up against in the Muslim world?

Does Helen Thomas deserve an adult answer to her question about motive? Has President Obama been able to assimilate all this?

Or is the U.S. political/media establishment incapable of confronting this reality and/or taking meaningful action to alleviate the underlying causes of the violence?

Is the reported reaction of a CIA official to al-Balawi’s attack the appropriate one: “Last week’s attack will be avenged. Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day.”

Revenge has not always turned out very well in the past.

Does anyone remember the brutal killing of four Blackwater contractors on March 31, 2004, when they took a wrong turn and ended up in the Iraqi city of Fallujah — and how U.S. forces virtually leveled that large city in retribution after George W. Bush won his second term the following November?

If you read only the Fawning Corporate Media, you would blissfully think that the killing of the four Blackwater operatives was the work of fanatical animals who got – along with their neighbors – what they deserved. You wouldn’t know that the killings represented the second turn in that specific cycle of violence.

On March 22, 2004, Israeli forces assassinated the then-spiritual leader of Hamas in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin — a withering old man, blind and confined to a wheelchair.

That murder, plus sloppy navigation by the Blackwater men, set the stage for the next set of brutalities. The Blackwater operatives were killed by a group that described itself as the “Sheikh Yassin Revenge Brigade.”

Pamphlets and posters were all over the scene of the attack; one of the trucks that pulled around body parts of the mercenaries had a poster of Yassin in its window, as did store fronts all over Fallujah.

We can wish Janet Napolitano luck with her “counter-radicalization” project and President Obama with his effort to “communicate clearly to Muslims,” but there will be no diminution in the endless cycles of violence unless legitimate grievances are addressed on all sides.

It might also help if the American people were finally let in on the root causes for what otherwise get dismissed as irrational actions by Muslims.

Source: Ray McGovern (my #1 best source on foreign policy & intel)
Original: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/010810b.html

Ray McGovern now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career at CIA, he served under nine CIA directors and in all four of CIA’s main directorates, including operations. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).