Pics and toons 9/20/12 (1)

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

5 Reasons Why Conspiracy Theorists Are More Popular Than You Think

5 Reasons Why Conspiracy Theorists Are More Popular Than You Think
by Saman Mohammadi

From now on, conspiracy theorists should be described as public intelligence analysts. We are part of a public intelligence community whose headquarters is the entire world. Our loyalty is to truth, freedom, and peace. We investigate reality to serve humanity, and bring nations together under the banner of peace and co-existence.

1. Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans and Westerners agree with the views of "conspiracy theorists" more than those of government officials and media personalities.

Public opinion polls show that public trust in government and the media is at an all time low. Their record of lying to the Western public is difficult to conceal, even with the biggest propaganda machine in history at their disposal. The growth and influence of the global alternative media has broken the magic spell over the public. The "mainstream media" is no longer mainstream. The old fringe is the new mainstream.

Conspiracy theorists have been proven right about so many issues and historical events, with 9/11 being the most important among them. The views of conspiracy theorists are more popular than ever because they are telling the truth.

Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, tested this truth with a live CNN audience on Piers Morgan's show on Monday, September 17, 2012. At the 11:45 mark in this video, Piers Morgan tells Jesse Ventura, "I think you make some very sensible points and you make some crackpot points." Ventura responds, "That's your opinion," and then asks the live audience, "How many people here think I make crackpot points?" One person puts up his hand. He follows up, asking, "How many think I make sensible points?" The audience cheers and claps. Ventura turns to Morgan and says, "You're in the minority, my good friend."

2. The label "conspiracy theorist" has been used to death, and it is no longer effective in sidelining anti-government narratives to the fringe of public thought and public discourse.

Honest Western intellectuals have caught on to the fact that the label "conspiracy theorist" is a ridiculously overused in Western public discourse and serves no other purpose than to marginalize dissent. The label is used by abusive government officials and media personalities to subvert the democratic will of the American people and attack the credibility of dissidents.

It is a sign of social progress and intellectual development that more people are aware of the true intentions behind the habitual use of this totalitarian label by the government and media.

3. The global alternative media is raising the political consciousness of America and the West, and liberating millions from a propaganda prison whose bars are made of language and official narratives.

The reasons why people reject conspiracy theories are more well known today because of the Internet and global alternative media. This profound change has had the effect of creating a highly self-aware and super-conscious public that cannot be easily fooled into believing government false flags and deceptions as it was before.

Millions of thoughtful individuals are learning to treat anti-government narratives rationally and maturely, whereas in the past they used to stick the label "conspiracy theory" on them and didn't take them seriously. In the new language of mental resistance to government oppression, the term "conspiracy theory" is not applicable to alternative readings of history and alternative interpretations of current events.

4. The contradictions within mainstream narratives are harder to gloss over than before.

It is impossible to keep track of all the official deceptions. Recent revelations in Libya and Syria have put mainstream narratives of the conflicts taking place there into question. After unofficially arming and financing Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in both countries, certain Western policy makers and their counterparts in Israel and the Arab monarchies are dishonestly making the argument that the growth of radical Islam demands greater Western intervention.

But their manipulative policy is the reason why the influence of radical Islamists is growing in the Arab world, so their case for more war is built on sand and illusion.

In this new information environment, conspiracy theorists are able to make the case that their interpretations of epoch-making historical events are factually correct by providing evidence and historical analysis to back up their controversial statements.

5. The growth of the public intelligence community over the last several years is counter-balancing the power of anti-freedom forces in secret intelligence communities and their spies in the corporate media.

From now on, conspiracy theorists should be described as public intelligence analysts. We are part of a public intelligence community whose headquarters is the entire world. The public intelligence community has bases in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, China, Russia, and the Middle East. Our loyalty is to truth, freedom, and peace. We investigate reality to serve humanity, and bring nations together under the banner of peace and co-existence.

Public intelligence analysts such as Webster Tarpley, Thierry Meyssan, Alex Jones, Tony Cartalucci, David Icke, Gerald Celente, Paul Craig Roberts, and many others are destroying deceptive mainstream narratives that have been created to justify needless conflict between countries and civilizations.

The global 9/11 truth and justice movement is the fruit of the public intelligence community. And it will grow exponentially as more people wake up and look into the 9/11 events with a more critical eye.

Conclusion: The propaganda paradigm is collapsing. The truth about 9/11 is surfacing to global collective consciousness. Be optimistic about the future. The answers are staring us in the face. The solutions are in front of us. All we have to do is look.

http://wariscrime.com/new/5-reasons-why-conspiracy-theorists-are-more-popular-than-you-think/

Ron Paul May Join W. B. Jones and John Hospers in the History Books, at Romney’s Expense

Ron Paul May Join W. B. Jones and John Hospers in the History Books, at Romney's Expense
Written by Gary North on September 19, 2012

I'll bet you don't remember Walter B. Jones. I do. I'm a history buff, with a Ph.D. to prove it.

Back in 1956, a member of the Electoral College from Alabama was determined not to cast his vote for Adlai Stevenson. So he voted for Walter B. Jones, an Alabama judge. Therefore, Jones' name is forever in the record books.

In 1972, a friend of mine was elected to the Electoral College. He voted for John Hospers, a libertarian and a professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California.  His name was Roger Lea MacBride. He was a lawyer. He even wrote a book on the Electoral College. He was also the heir of Rose Wilder Lane, the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Roger owned the rights to Little House on the Prairie. He even wrote some of the follow-up books in the series.

It's legal. It happens every so often.

Two members of the Electoral College say they may vote for Ron Paul instead of Romney.

If the vote is close, then this will change American history.

But, so far, it's not looking close.

Continue Reading on www.allgov.com


http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/09/19/ron-paul-may-join-w-b-jones-and-john-hospers-in-the-history-books-at-romneys-expense/

Washington's Mideast Follies

Washington's Mideast Follies
Doug Bandow
September 19, 2012

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton honor the victims of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. An American ambassador murdered. A consulate ransacked. Multiple embassies under siege. A U.S. school looted. Protests in "liberated" Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans again wondering: Why do they hate us?

Yet some Washington policy makers never learn. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the latest attacks on Americans resulted from a lack of U.S. "leadership." GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan blamed administration weakness and Pentagon spending cuts. The cause, according to the last Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, was President Obama's "weakness" and "feckless foreign policy," most notably Washington's failure to impose its will on the Muslim world­by intervening in Syria, coercing Egypt, continuing to occupy Iraq and more.

Although the administration reacted more responsibly, it sent drones, ships and Marines to Libya in an attempt to track down the Benghazi killers. It's a worthwhile objective, but striking back blindly would be worse than doing nothing. Extensive drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen have inflamed anti-American sentiments. In fact, the Benghazi airport was closed after hostile militias fired missiles at U.S. drones.

The GOP attack on the Obama administration's foreign policy reeked of desperation. Republicans offered no plan of their own. Nevertheless, Romney aide Rich Williamson claimed: "There's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation." Yes, the situation likely would have been worse.

In practice, there is very little difference between the Bush and Obama administrations on foreign policy. Both engaged in routine political interference, promiscuous military intervention, and continuous warfare in the Middle East and around the world. And this policy has turned out badly irrespective of the party in control. The invasion of Iraq was merely the most spectacular recent failure in American foreign policy, highlighted by the death of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Moreover, despite the Sturm und Drang of the presidential campaign, there are few substantive differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney. The latter just promises more, and perhaps a lot more, of the same. In his opinion, Washington does not intervene enough. If only the United States­apparently an international shrinking violet in Romney's view despite its ubiquitous presence around the globe­told Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, Pakistanis and everyone else what to do, abashed foreigners would instantly genuflect toward Washington. Evil would disappear from the earth, the lion would lie down with the lamb and world peace would blossom.

In the Bush-Obama-Romney view, the president need merely pronounce his will to a waiting world. When that approach fails, it is deemed the fault of the administration, not the policy. It's an appealing vision but one utterly at odds with reality. Even when Washington intervenes on the side of the good guys (sometimes, but not always), the result usually is counterproductive. Blowing up other societies typically results in unpredictable blowback.

Iraq was a painful lesson for many people. So should be the Afghan war, which continues in its eleventh year even though it no longer bears any connection to the initial triggering event of September 11. However, Barack Obama twice doubled down on the Bush policy. Romney talks of victory even as he refuses to take a clear position. And McCain complains that neither presidential contender will commit to keep American troops in Afghanistan forever.

The Obama administration's "splendid little war" in Libya promoted regime change on the cheap in the name of humanitarianism. U.S. intervention was supposed to save Benghazi from the depredations of dictator Muammar Qaddafi. Yet residents of Benghazi showed their gratitude by storming the U.S. consulate and murdering the ambassador and three other Americans.

Of course, the mob may not reflect majority sentiments. And radical jihadists of one stripe or another may have taken advantage of popular anger. However, the details are irrelevant: it was Western intervention in Libya's civil war which made this latest round of violence possible.

Another consequence of the conflict was widespread looting of the old regime's military arsenals. One of the Americans killed in Libya was tasked with tracking down weapons that had fallen into the wrong hands.

As for the Arab Spring, Washington policy makers seem congenitally unable to admit that Tunisians, Libyans, Egyptians, Syrians and others have wills of their own. The readiness of some on the "Arab Street"­and many Muslims elsewhere­to resort to murderous violence in response to a perceived insult to Islam betrays a culture ill prepared for self-government.

Indeed, protests such as those in Benghazi, Cairo and Sana actually do more than anything else to justify the most virulent critiques of Islam. Yet much more is at stake. For instance, the U.S. government spent four decades underwriting autocracy in Egypt in the name of stability. Americans held abstract discussions of policy in Washington while Egyptians suffered in Cairo under a dictator embraced by Washington. That record, along with the Obama administration's very public reluctance to abandon Hosni Mubarak, tainted America in the eyes of even liberal-minded Egyptians. Today Washington can ill afford to array itself against democracy. The only thing worse than working with a president from the Muslim Brotherhood would be backing another military junta.

Anyway, the United States does not control events in Cairo or elsewhere in the region. Rather, Washington's insistence on trying to micromanage the region has created its most serious problems today.

For example, fomenting a coup in Tehran in 1953 led to long-lasting Islamic rule, which today poses the most serious challenge to U.S. Mideast policy. Backing Saddam Hussein against Islamist Iran encouraged him to later invade Kuwait, pulling America into war. Later, Washington stationed troops in Saudi Arabia, which sparked the Khobar Towers attack and spurred Osama bin Laden's efforts. Finally, Washington invaded Iraq to "drain the swamp" it had helped fill. That conflict sowed the wind throughout the region; now the whirlwind is being reaped.

U.S. policy makers should step back and shut up. Avidly blowing up countries with no idea what will follow­whether Iraq, Libya or Syria­is foolish. Moreover, "leadership" would best be exercised without publicly lecturing disdainful governments and peoples about Washington's opinion on anything and everything. Better to talk privately on fewer issues.

Americans deserve a real debate on foreign policy. The latest tragedy in the Middle East highlights the virtues of humility and prudence. The U.S. government should never apologize for the liberties that undergird American society, though officials should sharply distinguish private opinion from public action. However, Washington should apologize for the genuine horrors that have resulted, even inadvertently, from its past policies and actions. And the next president should abandon Washington's attempt to constantly reshape the world, a policy that has so dramatically failed at such high cost.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/washingtons-mideast-follies-7486?page=show

Romney and the 47 Percent

Thursday, September 20, 2012
Romney and the 47 Percent
by Sheldon Richman

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. . . . These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. . . . And so my job is not to worry about those people­I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

This quote is from the infamous surreptitious video made of Mitt Romney's speech at a fundraiser last spring. What are we to make of it?

The first thing to note is that Romney is typical of the right wing of the ruling elite, which often portrays lower income beneficiaries of the welfare state as a threat to the established order. In this view, they are dependent on government; they wish to remain that way; and they see themselves as victims.

Of course many people who qualify for welfare-state benefits take advantage of them, but it doesn't follow that they want to remain in that postion. Katherine Newman, author of Chutes and Ladders: Navigating the Low-Wage Labor Market, maintains that low-income people are far more industrious and ambitious, as well as determined to achieve independence, than the public generally believes. (Listen to her EconTalk conversation with Russ Roberts.)

Far less interested in independence from government are the large corporations, banks and otherwise, that exist by virtue of government contracts, guarantees, bailouts, and intellectual "property." The government's security establishment provides untold opportunities for companies to live off the taxpayers, which is much more secure than attempting to achieve market share among consenting consumers. (See Nick Turse's The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives.)

Strangely, Romney's speech had nothing to say about that sort of corrupting dependence.

As for feeling like victims, the working poor didn't seem to display this attitude to Newman during her extensive field research. Yet why wouldn't they be justified in regarding themselves as such? The corporate state, with its myriad barriers to competitive economic activity, including self-employment, blocks many routes to prosperity.

Romney is trying to distract attention with a 14-year-old audio of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing a mild form of income "redistribution." Government distribution of wealth, of course, is objectionable, just as government itself is. But Romney to date has had nothing to say about the systematic upward transfer of wealth that the corporate state effects in a variety of way. To offer just two examples: Intellectual "property" law prohibits free competition, creates artificial scarcities and thus extra-market profits, and privatizes value that would have naturally been "socialized" in a freed market. Second, barriers to competition (again, including self-employment) reduce the bidding for labor and hence workers' bargaining power, resulting in lower wages than would otherwise be seen in a freed market. (See these articles by Charles W. Johnson and Gary Chartier.)

It is certainly true that no one is entitled to other people's stuff. That is just as true of the powerful and well-connected business interests that through government intervention amass great wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

When Romney begins talking about that sort of "redistribution of wealth" I will start to take him seriously.

http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2012/09/romney-and-47-percent.html?spref=fb