Group items tagged

"For as long as the Clintons have been in the national spotlight, people linked to them have turned up dead. We're sure that's only the stuff of mythology among the "vast right-wing conspiracy," but this week brings news of more of the same. Despite FBI and Leftmedia attempts to keep Americans as uninformed as possible about Hillary Clinton's history of corruption and lies, there is new information about the death of an Iranian nuclear scientist named Shahram Amiri. Normally, the death of a foreigner wouldn't catch the attention of many Americans. But in this case, Amiri was in contact with Clinton via email, and the circumstances and timing of his death are more than suspicious. Who was this man that was just publicly hanged shortly after returning to Iran? Amiri was one of Iran's nuclear scientists, and in 2009 he disappeared while on a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, and he reappeared in several online videos in the United States. The timing of his disappearance was at the height of Western efforts to disrupt Iran's nuclear program. In 2010, he returned to Iran, and was greeted with a hero's welcome. Soon after, he disappeared again. This past weekend, he was publicly tried and executed. According to an Iranian judiciary spokesman, Amiri had access to Iran's secret and classified information and was linked to Iran's number one enemy (and financier), America. He was also accused of providing the U.S. with vital and secret information about Iran. So what happened between his 2010 return to Iran and this past weekend? Well, the revelations of Hillary Clinton's email scheme and the release of her emails, which contained several references to Amiri. "

But see this 2007 NYT article, quoting a senior U.S. military official who claims that al-Baghdadi never existed, that he was a fictional character. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/world/africa/18iht-iraq.4.6718200.html The information in that article has ever since been treated as though it does not exist, i.e., the NYT and all other media have treated al-Baghdadi as a real person. Was it time to retire the fictional character?

The State Department's Privacy Act excuse for withholding the location of Sharif Mobley is a load of bull puckey intended for media consumption, not as a serious legal argument. The Privacy Act has an exception for just such situations: "(b) Conditions of Disclosure.- No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, *unless disclosure of the record would be-* ... (8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual;" 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/552a. This is an outrageous cover-up!

"Who owns the Bank of England? A brief history of World Banksters By Dark Politricks First a few historical comments by people who helped create two of the worlds most famous central banks, the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence The Bank of England was created in 1694 by a Scotsman William Paterson who famously said: The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing. - William Paterson The history of the Bank of England and how it was taken over by one powerful family hundreds of years ago. Up until 1946 when it was nationalised the Bank of England was a private run bank that lent money it created out of nothing to the English government and was paid back with interest. A very famous story relates to the Bank of England and the infamous Rothschilds, that all powerful banking family. This story was re-told recently in a BBC documentary about the creation of money and the Bank of England. It revolves around the Battle of Waterloo in which Nathan Rothschild used his inside knowledge of the outcome and his faster horses and couriers to play the market by getting the result of the battle before anyone else knew the outcome. He quickly sold his English bonds and gave all the traders who looked to him for guidance the impression that the French had won at Waterloo. The other traders all rus

Pepe Escobar again.  Cui bono, indeed. It's the first question that should be asked when investigating any mystery.  

There's more article than I highlighted and it's worth reading. Obama should step in here and issue a full pardon to end this young man's torment by Army generals playing to the press. Let's recall here that Obama, when asked to prosecute Bush II officials for war crimes, said he would rather look forward rather than backward. Sgt. Bergdahl, who committed no war crime, deserves no less. Five years of torture and malnutrition as a POW is more punishment than anyone deserves.

"ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS! Click here for PDF version of this article By Michael Rivero "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you wish to remain slaves of the Bankers and pay for the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits." -- Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s, the second richest man in Britain I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this. The United States fought the American Revolution primarily over King George III's Currency act, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest."

Some new thinking about the very strange and mysterious disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. Amazingly, some of the most perplexing and explainable mysteries are very similar to unexplained circumstances on 9/11

Did the U.S. refuse because it wishes to retain the option of exploiting indigenous peoples' lands? 

Blast from the past! In ye olde days, The Wall Street Journal covered this scandal as it unfolded. Nugan Hand Bank was beyond shady; it was a classic Ponzi scheme and its board of directors was like a who's who of former high U.S. government officials. Its director of legal affairs was former CIA Director William Colby. Nugan Hand funneled drug money and illicit treasure for, inter alia, the Shah of Iran, Imelda Marcos, wealthy Saudis, gun-runners, et ilk. But it also bilked many Australians out of millions of dollars. Then poof! It was gone and so was co-founder Michael Hand. Turns out he's been living in Idaho under an assumed name, but using the same Social Security number he got as a teen-ager, which suggests that the FBI didn't look for him very hard when the Interpol and Australian arrest warrrants were received.  

It's good to see The Guardian following through on this story.

"Trump is staging a fierce comeback… Hillary Clinton's post-convention lead in the polls has nearly disappeared. Prominent pollster Rasmussen Reports now has Trump leading Clinton 40% to 39%. Trump also has a 3% lead (45% to Hillary's 42%) in the Los Angeles Times poll. And Hillary's edge in the polls in which she's still leading has narrowed sharply. There'll be more back-and-forth momentum swings in the horse race to come, but these new polls show one thing: The odds of a Trump presidency shot higher this week. And that means the odds of a Fed interest rate hike before Election Day got lower… The fix is in… Look, Janet Yellen isn't going to do anything to jeopardize a Clinton presidency. They're both card-carrying Deep Staters. They're both liberals who served under Obama. They both dress the same: Mao chic. And most of all, Yellen wants to keep her job when her term expires in February 2018. She's a lock to stay on in a Clinton administration. But it won't happen in Trump's. He's already told TheWall Street Journal that he wouldn't keep Yellen as Fed chair. I don't see how Yellen can raise rates between now and Election Day… if Trump can win. If she did, it would tank the stock market, nail the economy and give Trump the White House. When the Fed raised rates in December 2015, the stock market plunged, with the Dow dropping more than 1,300 points in the month following. A plunging market would wipe out trillions in paper wealth and slam the economy into recession."

"Republicans in state had nobody to vote for in November (Investor's Business Daily) - Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief - denial - aren't being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%. To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton's advantage all but disappears. As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton's overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton's huge margin of victory in one state - California - where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump. California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton's margin of victory was bigger than President Obama's in 2012 - 61.5% vs. Obama's 60%."

Over the last couple of months, we've watched U.S. hypocrisy escalate in its Syrian foreign policy, seeking to shelter Al-Nusrah Front from attacks by Russian and Syrian government forces whilst continuing to supply Al-Nusrah via Turkey. A couple of years ago, the U.S. voted for a U.N. Security Council resolution that forbids all forms of support for Al-Nusrah, the Syrian wing of Al Qaeda. But since then, the U.S. warhawks have attempted to repaint Al-Nusrah as a "moderate" force in Syria, deserving of protection from those horrible Russians and the Syrian government. Close observers seem to be united in the view that Al-Nusrah would disappear within s very few weeks if its supplies were cut off. 

"Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. A civil war has begun. This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn't want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn't control. The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don't accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left. It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.   It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it's for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over. It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become "patriotic". There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that's not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it's treason. After losing Congress, the left consolidated

Jeffrey Tucker at The Daily Reckoning wonders about all those Presidential Executive Orders that make Law while by-passing the Congressional process and making mockery of the USA Constitution.  He ends up referencing the great libertarian, Frederick Bastiat's seminal work, The Law - written in 1849.    
excerpt: One party gets annoyed when the other party's president enacts laws without regard to any constitutional conventions.
But what is the law, and what should it be? These are the bigger questions that are not part of public consciousness.
The same was true in the time of Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50). At the very end of his life, he wrote an impassioned plea on the topic. He tried to get people to think hard about what was happening and how law had become an instrument of plunder, rather than a protector of property.
He writes:
...... "It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person." .......
This is from Bastiat's The Law, one of the great political essays to emerge from the whole Continental world of the 19th century. It vanished into obscurity in France, was resurrected in late 19th century English, and then disappeared again, only to reappear in the United States in the 1950s, thanks to the efforts of the Foundation of Economic Education.
This essay asks fundamental questions that most people go through life never having thought about.
The problem is that most people accept the law as a given, a fundamental fact. As a member of society, you obey or face the consequences. It is not safe to question why. This is because the enforcement arm of the law is the state, that peculiar agency with a unique power in society to