JFK: Final President to Fight the Federal Reserve : Only Bankster Puppets Since

Recent Posts

Over the weekend, I attended a conference on alternative media at Goddard College in Vermont. The first one was held in 1970, and this one was attended by aging former hippies as well as people from the Millennial Generation.

What we now consider “old” ways of disseminating of our message was quite new back in 1970. FM radio was considered a new technology, and fax machines were not on the horizon. There were computers, but they took up lots of space, needed punch cards and stored things on tape. We had to rely on community organizing to get our message across.

Now with computers and social media such as Facebook and Twitter, there is instant media and a 24-hour news cycle. There is so much free media that we don’t have to pay for most of what we consume. We used to have to wait for the top-of-the-hour news or even plan our evenings around the watching end-of-the-day news. Now, we do not have to wait. If we really enjoy a special anchor or program, we can just watch it online later.

With the division and rancor that we saw this week about political Washington, I thought about those ideas for communication that we used way back when. That is when the left won the communications battle. Most of our organizing tools did not require a whole lot of money back then; they just needed a whole lot of creativity and organizing. Here is what they did.

It began with the arts. Two groups used their own ingenuity to make their point. The Bread and Puppet Theater made puppets that could parade down streets. They were huge and towered above the puppeteer. People would turn out to enjoy them and watch the message they were conveying. At the same time this was happening in the East, the San Francisco Mime Troupe was developing in the West. With paper mache hands, they portrayed the famous court scene of the Chicago 8.

It made the point and people paid attention.

Back then, there was no Starbucks. People congregated at night in coffee houses and participated in events at locations such as clubs and libraries. They were great places to organize and get messages across.

Around the same time, people decided to run for office. Former presidential candidate and now Secretary of State John Kerry ran for office and raised money from a Peter, Paul and Mary concert. People came to groups and discussed matters, often weekly, and the women’s movement in Boston began with discussion groups under the heading of “Bread and Roses,” the title of a well-known union organizing song.

Then there was the “teach-in,” a way of making citizens aware of the issues.

Howard Zinn a famous anti-war spokesperson and college professor, not only spent his time teaching college students in the 1960s, he taught high-school students and freely gave up his weekend time.

Boomers interested in changing the world spent a lot of time on basic communications. They got to know state representatives, members of Congress and other elected officials. Students sought out faculty members who could not only guide them but serve as their spokespeople. Fun events were organized to make a point and to gather like-minded people. One of my favorites took place on the Charles River in 1997. It was called a “be-in,” and it was there to support Harvard Dean John Monro, who was going to teach at a black Southern College at the height of the race crises. Balloons were blown up and flown with his name on it.

Before today’s marketing and branding, the anti-war efforts were in full swing, making the history books in marketing campaigns that today’s political types only wish for. Black arm bands, peace symbols and slogans were everywhere, and later even sidewalk art such as the work of Keith Haring made the AIDS crises come home to the sidewalk near you. His work later sold for thousands of dollars but began as simple protest art.

Now, in the year 2013, we are too busy bending our heads to read our handheld devices to participate in good, old fashion organizing. It doesn’t matter if you are a tea-party activist or a left-winger interested in ending drone warfare, Internet organizing is not the only way to go. The lessons on how to get people behind you and your cause from the 1960s and 1970s are still valuable. They are still the best way to get a cause organized so that it is effective, perhaps even better than the Internet.

<!– FORM CONTENT START –>

So who’s the enemy? by admin

I know, I know. We’re not supposed to think – much less say – anything that might cast terrorist aspersions on Muslims.

Islam is, we are consistently told, “a religion of peace.”

Perhaps so, but there’s no doubt events across the world have shown that virtually all terrorist attacks against the West and Christians have been perpetrated by militant Islamists.

Their hate of the infidel – us – and their intentions to eliminate us or convert us into a Shariah world are clearly stated. They train their children in the mantra.

But in our multi-culti-PC haze, we ignore what is before us and pretend history doesn’t count.

Consider last Wednesday. Police on routine midnight patrol at the Quabbin Reservoir in Belchertown, Mass, discovered seven adults in a no-trespassing area.

This reservoir supplies drinking water for Boston and 40 other communities.

Police questioned the five men and two women.

They said they were chemical engineers recently graduated from college and were there because of “their education and career interests.”

There is no report if the police kept a straight face, but after a cursory background check, the seven were released pending a court summons for trespassing.

But there are other details. All are from the Middle East – Pakistan, Singapore and Saudi Arabia. Their names haven’t been released, but we’re told they live in Amherst, Cambridge, Sunderland, Northampton and New York City.

I guess it was just an accident they all turned up together that night to do midnight “chemical engineering research.”

The FBI has tested the water, and there’s no sign of contamination.

But – are these people being followed? What is their immigration status? Do they have jobs? What schools did they attend? Are any of them related? Why don’t we have their names?

And does anyone believe they’ll voluntarily show up for their court date?

But we can’t be suspicious of Muslims, can we – even though the week before it was reported that the FBI arrested a Muslim man in New York in a plot to contaminate the water or air of a U.S. city, hoping to kill 100,000 people?

Canada’s CBC news said he’s Ahmed Abassi, a 26-year-old chemical engineering student at Laval University. In addition, he was linked to a suspected plot to derail a Canadian passenger train.

Am I the only one to see a pattern?

Given our experience with Islamic extremists across the world and in our own country, you’d think it would be tops on our list of issues to inform government officials, law enforcement, the military and, yes, even average Americans, that there are dangers and we need to know of them.

The Boy Scouts’ slogan, “Be Prepared,” says it all.

If you know the enemy and the dangers, you can protect yourself and perhaps even prevent an attack.

But no. The reality is that Muslims in this country get a pass from our government. The reality is that our military and law enforcement are being brainwashed into ignoring history and information, which might make it easier to spot dangers and prevent catastrophes.

Remember Sept. ll? Remember that those terrorists were taking flight lessons on how to fly a plane but not how to land it?

To any thinking person, that might seem strange – especially since the people involved were from the Middle East, most from Saudi Arabia and most on expired visas.

But no, we did nothing, and they accomplished the worst attack on our country in history, killing 3,000 innocent people.

For what? The religion of peace.

In the years since, we’ve prevented a number of terrorists attacks in our country – the Times Square bomber, the underwear bomber, the Fort Dix bombers, the millennial bomber, among them.

But we still act stupid.

The Department of Homeland Security has issued specific warnings about what it considers the dangers of “right-wing religious extremism,” including people who are pro-life and support the Constitution.

According Secretary Janet Napolitano, that’s the core of the dangers to our national security.

But as for pro-Shariah Muslim supremacists – well, back off.

The Daily Caller obtained a government checklist entitled “Countering Violent Extremism Dos and Don’ts,” which says it is the Obama administration policy to consider it legitimate for Islam to criticize our system of government.

It instructs readers to avoid criticism of Islam and Shariah goals and says that anyone who equates the desire for Shariah law in this country with criminal activity is violating our own First Amendment.

Readers are warned not to think Muslims use our laws to subvert democracy, despite the fact that there have been court decisions confirming that very fact.

We’ve just experienced the second worst terrorist attack in this country – bombings in Boston, carried out by two young Muslim brothers. The elder was killed in his escape attempts. He’d gone to Russia for six months and met with radical Muslims.

That he was allowed back into this country on his visa raises questions – but then, we must be nice to Muslims.

The younger is in custody.

Last Sept. 11, he became an American citizen, but he carried out the bombing. In his attempt to escape capture, he hid in a boat in a yard.

The police got him and have now revealed that that he wrote “F### America” and other insults against “the infidels” on the boat panels as well as “Praise Allah.”

Aren’t you glad he’s an American citizen?

How did that happen – after he lived on welfare, flunked out of school, had a scholarship and frequented local radical mosques?

Do you think someone cast a blind eye on these Muslims? Is the sky blue?

As I write this, there was a catastrophic train wreck in Connecticut.

I hope it was an accident.

I hope, I hope, I hope.

Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.

<!– FORM CONTENT START –>

America Honors Its Worst by admin

Stephen Lendman
Activist Post

Presidential Medals of Freedom are awarded annually. They mock what they claim to represent. Many go to deplorable recipients…

Hey! I got audited, too! by admin

I have some experience with politically motivated tax audits.

I also have some experience with the tea party movement.

I wrote the “Tea Party Manifesto,”which I am making available for a limited time for 99 cents because it is more relevant than ever. I was a headline speaker, along with Sarah Palin, at the first national tea-party convention, and you can see what I said there that I knew – and predicted – would lead to politically motivated audits of my tax returns.

I predicted this would happen in a column in March 2010.

I wrote about it when it came to pass in November 2011.

I don’t claim the gift of prophecy.

I just know the nature of people like Barack Obama and those he places in positions of authority. I know this because I was just like him. I even had some of the same friends and acquaintances as a misguided youth – people like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

But my experience with politically motivated tax audits goes back long before the Obama administration.

I was a prominent target of Bill Clinton’s reign of Internal Revenue Service hell on individuals and tax-exempt organizations. And I was the guy who broke the story about it – long before there was a WND. Back then, I had to get the help of the Wall Street Journal, which, to its credit, gave me commentary space to lay out the whole story and turned the sordid tale into an 11-part series of editorials.

But in this day of historical forgetfulness, no one in the media seems to remember how Bill Clinton used the IRS to terrorize Paula Jones and many other women who had the misfortune of crossing his path along with a virtual who’s who of those who made his “enemies list” like me.

In my case, we finally got the evidence from the Treasury Department years later that showed it wasn’t some “rogue agent” who instigated the audit. It was Bill Clinton personally who dispatched a letter to the head of the IRS tax-exempt division.

Bill Clinton was allowed to skate for that kind of abuse.

And that’s why I knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that it would happen again under the watch of Barack Obama.

It’s been three years now that Obama has gotten away with targeting his enemies using the IRS. I’ve heard the horror stories from many friends – most of whom don’t want the limelight. Tax-exempt organizations hate to admit they are being audited because it tends to dry up donations. That was the problem telling the story in the 1990s, and it’s a problem now.

You will hear many horror stories about politically motivated audits now because people and organizations are starting to see it as a badge of honor to be audited by Obama – now that the story has legs.

Some will be tempted to discount these stories. Don’t make that mistake. They’re true. The abuse is far more than anyone can imagine. That’s why Obama publicly dispatched a sacrificial lamb, his IRS commissioner, so quickly. He thinks he may be able to cut his losses by finding a scapegoat.

Whether he’s right remains an open question.

Sadly, it depends primarily on two institutions that don’t have a less-than-stellar track record in holding him accountable – the Republican Party and the media establishment.

I’m not holding my breath.

But I can say this without any equivocation: If Obama serves out his second term by merely blaming others beneath him, this will not be the last administration that uses the IRS to target its enemies. It will become a matter of course for leaders without scruples and integrity to continue the harassment and abuse Obama ensured would happen.

I’m not suggesting we will find any written authorization from Obama to do this – as we did with Clinton. As Rush Limbaugh so aptly pointed out, Obama didn’t need to do that. In politics and government, personnel is policy.

He hired people who would do his bidding. They didn’t need to be told by Obama to do it. All they needed to do was listen to what he said publicly about his enemies in the tea-party movement, the patriot movement and all those who crossed him.

Lastly, let me say this: Not only does Obama have to be chased from the Oval Office to ensure the IRS doesn’t victimize others in the future. The IRS also has to go. It has proven once again to be the U.S. version of the Gestapo – there for future would-be fuehrers to abuse.

<!– FORM CONTENT START –>

Islamic anti-Semitism: 20th… by admin

Sugar-coating harsh realities and pretending that unpleasant facts don’t exist opens doors and gets you accolades – but is it worth it at the price of the truth?

According to an article about a speech he gave last week in Toronto, scholar Daniel Pipes “suggested it is Islamism, a political ideology, that inspires hatred of ‘the other,’ rather than Islam. … He emphasized that while Islam has existed since the age of the prophet Muhammad, Islamism is a recent phenomenon and need not be considered an authentic expression of Islam.”

Need not be considered an authentic expression of Islam by whom? By Muslims? Yet so many do, all around the world. By non-Muslims? What would that accomplish, since so many Muslims think it is an authentic expression of Islam, except to render us complacent in the face of the jihad threat?

And anyway, is “Islamism” really not an authentic expression of Islam? In fact, political Islam and violent Islam go back to Muhammad, who massacred the Qurayzah tribe and the Jews of Khybar and left oceans of blood in his wake. In Medina, he started waging war against non-Muslims, and he explained to his followers that they should offer those non-Muslims three choices. As Robert Spencer explains, “the choices for unbelievers ar … to convert to Islam; or submit as inferiors to Islamic rule, paying the tax and accepting the discrimination that Islamic law mandates for non-Muslims in the Islamic state; or die.”

Spencer also rejects the Islam/Islamism distinction: “[T]he distinction is artificial and imposed from without. There are not, in other words, Islamist mosques and non-Islamist mosques, distinguishable from one another by the sign outside each, like Baptist and Methodist churches. On the contrary, ‘Islamists’ move among non-political, non-supremacist Muslims with no difficulty; no Islamic authorities are putting them out of mosques, or setting up separate institutions to distinguish themselves from the ‘Islamists.’”

And Andrew Bostom adds: “One must ask, ‘What Went Wrong’ with Daniel Pipes who now sprays (Edward) Saidian charges of ‘essentialism’ at brave Muslim freethinkers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, as well as the stalwart Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for simply rejecting his self-contradictory mantras on ‘Islamism.’”

Even worse, Pipes “said the religion of Islam itself is not inherently hostile to Jews, and Muslim anti-Semitism scarcely existed before the establishment of the state of Israel.”

Amazing. Is he unaware of the Quran’s terming the Jews the “worst enemies” of the Muslims (5:82), or saying that Allah cursed them and turned them into apes and pigs (2:62-66; 5:59-60; 7:166)? Where is Pipes on that and so much more Quranic anti-Semitism? Has he never heard of the genocidal hadith in which Muhammad said that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 6985)?

Has Pipes never read Bat Ye’or or Andrew Bostom on Islamic anti-Semitism, or Sir Martin Gilbert’s history of the Jews in Muslim lands, “In Ishmael’s House”? All of them show that Jew hatred is a constant of Islamic history. Pipes thinks it started with Israel? What about the pogroms conducted by Palestinian Muslims against Palestinian Jews in the early 20th century – the wholesale slaughter of Jews as prescribed and preached by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who lived in Berlin during the war, made broadcasts in Arabic for the Nazis and raised up an SS division of Bosnian Muslims?

Historian Phillip Hitti states: “The caliph al-Mutawakkil in 850 and 854 decreed that Christians and Jews should affix wooden images of devils to their houses, level their graves even with the ground, wear outer garments of honey color, i.e. yellow, put two honey-colored patches on the clothes of their slaves … and ride only on mules and asses with wooden saddles marked by two pomegranate-like balls on the cantle.” Andrew Bostom’s work shows much more. One-thousand years later, in 1888 a Tunisian Jew lamented a similar situation:

“The Jew is prohibited in this country to wear the same clothes as a Muslim and may not wear a red tarbush. He can be seen to bow down with his whole body to a Muslim child and permit him the traditional privilege of striking him in the face, a gesture that can prove to be of the gravest consequence. Indeed, the present writer has received such blows. In such matters the offenders act with complete impunity, for this has been the custom from time immemorial.”

In 1291, Isaac ben Samuel, a Palestinian Jew, said: “In the eyes of the Muslims, the children of Israel are as open to abuse as an unprotected field.” The philosopher Maimonides said: “You know, my brethren, that on account of our sins G-d has cast us into the midst of this people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and to debase us. … No nation has ever done more harm to Israel. None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have. … We have borne their imposed degradation, their lies, and absurdities, which are beyond human power to bear.”

On Dec. 30, 1066, 4,000 Jews in Granada were killed in a pogrom by Muslim mobs. The Muslim chronicler Abd Allah said that the mobs “put every Jew in the city to the sword and took vast quantities of their property.”

Were they enraged because Israel was going to be founded nearly 900 years later?

Ten years of pursuing the Pipes Dream, and where has it gotten us? More confused than ever, and chasing our own tail. I don’t worry so much about the fanaticism of the enemy. I worry about the confusion on our side created by the intellectual dishonesty of fantasists like Pipes.

<!– FORM CONTENT START –>

Fascist follies in an Obama era by admin

Editor’s note: Michael Ackley’s columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell the difference.

Don’t be surprised if President Obama announces this week that he “had no idea” his press secretary, Jay Carney, was telling whoppers in media briefings.

This would be in keeping with his ignorance about the Fast & Furious gun running, which enabled him to go to Mexico and say how terrible it was that drug cartel guns came from the U.S.

Remember, he also was in the dark about the failure to protect our ambassador and his staff in Libya; he didn’t know the IRS was targeting conservative political organizations or that his Justice Department was checking reporters’ telephone records.

If you believe any of this – as Justice Department and IRS personnel are donning Mussolini’s black shirts for a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue – you probably believe that in the Watergate scandal Richard Nixon was simply ill served by his underlings.

The fascist impulse always exists among true believers, and Obama only hires true believers. For such fascists, the end always justifies the means. Therefore, an inconvenient truth justifies a lie, a distortion, a cover-up.

The past year’s crop of administration lies is undergoing a familiar evolution.

First you have the initial lie, like the attribution of the Benghazi murders to an anti-Islam video. This is followed by “we were doing the best we could,” as in, “the situation was fluid and data were hard to come by.” (This is a real stinker in the Benghazi cover-up, as the nature of the Benghazi attack was known from the get-go.)

Next comes a desperate defense, which we may call “what you heard me say is not what I meant.” See Carney’s revision of his statements regarding the notorious Benghazi “talking points.”

As the net of truth draws tighter, agents are dispatched to declare that only low-level employees were involved. When that fails, they declare that so many persons and interests were involved that culpability is too diffused to pin down.

These ploys generally work pretty well, given the partisan, lazy and craven Washington, D.C., press corps. These are the “journalists” who were comfortable giving the Justice Department a pass on Fast & Furious and happy with the original Benghazi lie.

The media finally began to stir a bit when the IRS criminality came to light, and they actually awakened when their own ox was gored with the Justice Department’s Associated Press subpoenas.

There are variations in the evolution of lies and their defenses. We saw the “it’s not important” defense when Hillary Clinton asked of the talking points lie, “What difference … does it make?” And Carney even tried, “It was a long time ago.” (Please don’t tell me everybody in politics does this sort of thing. That places abuse of power on the same plane as minor venality or the denial of marital infidelity.)

Now that we have inescapable evidence of true abuse of power, we arrive at the liar’s last refuge: “I take responsibility, but I didn’t know.” (Add sotto voce, “And I won’t take the consequences.”)

It’s difficult to swallow the idea that Obama didn’t know about his administration’s abuses, or that he is determined to “get to the bottom” of them. However, let us exercise some mental discipline and assume for the sake of discussion that he really didn’t know.

It then must be asked: If the president was truly ignorant of these abuses, how did his administrators, who worship him, come to think they could get away with them?

The answer is simple, and if you examine your own experience you will see it is true. A chief executive’s staff – in business or government – reflects the attitudes of the chief. If the chief executive is open and honest, those who execute his program will be, too. If he’s covert and dishonest, his staff will assume that should go for them as well.

If the chief executive demonstrates contempt for the law and the Constitution, why should we expect anything different from the people he hires?

Obama’s fascists reflect his own fascist tendencies, which we have pointed out from the beginning of his administration. Lately, you could hear his statist proclivities in his commencement speech at Ohio State, when he said the loyal opposition was just trying to “gum up the works.”

To him, opposing views not only are wrong; they are intolerable. To suppress them, his staff has gotten the message: “Do anything you think you can get away with.”

<!– FORM CONTENT START –>

The false choice between se… by admin

The fallacy of state provided security – who exactly is protected?

It is safe to say – governments cannot provide any more than token safety and protection no matter what steps are taken to the contrary.

So skewed has the “protection” model become, it seems state provided protection is exclusively for the states benefit and and not the citizens. In fact, judging from their behavior the state is more inclined to regard the citizen as the standing threat to the state.

Just the act of stepping outside exposes the common citizen to the potential of public humiliation or worse at the hand of its employee–the civil servant, or worse–the arbitrary forced entry of the “peace-keepers” into an individuals home and sanctuary.

Read more at link…

Document The Truth

JFK: Final President to Fight the Federal Reserve : Only Bankster Puppets Since

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Receive Ellen Ratner’s commentaries in your email

Receive Barbara Simpson’s commentaries in your email

Receive Joseph Farah’s daily commentaries in your email

Receive Pamela Geller commentaries in your email

Receive Michael Ackley’s commentaries in your email