Murder.gov

Becky Akers
LewRockwell.com
April 11, 2010

“The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen,” the New York Times reports. And yes, those are cheers you hear over the drums, erupting from the same neocons who applauded torture and Gitmo. That’s because the intended victim is “the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki…who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam” but who is now “hiding in Yemen.”



Even Obama shill Keith Olbermann has problems with the unconstitutional death sentence.

“Extraordinary,” indeed. Once upon a time we required a trial; in fact, the Constitution still does. The State must present and prove its charges to an “impartial jury” before it takes a man’s life. True, politicians and bureaucrats often rig those trials, while cops and prosecutors tamper with evidence, but what else would we expect from government? Yet Leviathan now dispenses with that pretense, too, as it has with search warrants, habeas corpus, presumption of innocence, motive, and other such quaint necessities.

Even the Times, which leads the pack of “mainstream” (sic for “considerably to the left of Pravda“) media in its animosity to liberty, is appalled enough to quote anonymous “officials” who admit that this is “extremely rare, if not unprecedented.”

What has our fellow-citizen done to merit such attention? The Feds allege a great many foul deeds, though I’m hard-pressed to find one that threatens us nearly as much as the average Congressional act. Our Rulers “[believe]” Anwar is now “participating directly” in attacks on Americans rather than simply “encouraging” them. They’ve “linked” him to bad guys like the Underwear Bomber and the Ft. Hood Shooter. “Counterterrorism officials” who, curiously enough, battle those inept bad guys instead of the horrifically successful ones in Congress, claim he’s a member of al Qaeda.

“‘Awlaki is a proven threat,’ a US official told Reuters news agency” – just not in court. Far be it from the Feds to convict their suspect at trial, however easy it would be given Anwar’s patronage of prostitutes and a system that punishes vice as crime. No, we’re simply supposed to trust Our Rulers. After all, paranoid nuts who add motherly doctoral students from Stanford University, famous singers, and 4-year-old boys to their silly blacklists couldn’t possibly make another mistake, could they?

For all his sleaze, Anwar eschews the secrecy our supposedly open government craves. He’s outspoken and honest about why he left his native country. “I lived in the U.S. for 21 years,” he says on a tape CNN “obtained” but could not “authenticate” last month. “America was my home. I was a preacher of Islam involved in non-violent Islamic activism. However with the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim.”

Anwar isn’t the only “terrorist” to sing this song. Indeed, it’s become the usual refrain. Over and over, Moslems that the Feds dismiss as terrorists blame American foreign policy for reactions the Feds dismiss as extremism. “Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security,” Osama himself advised us in 2004. “…We fought you because we are free … and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours…While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon [during the Israeli invasion American busybodies encouraged in 1982], it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women…God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind.”

You might think the sense of this so self-evident that even the Feds would listen. After all, lex talionis, tit-for-tat, what-goes-around-comes-around has reigned internationally for millennia; that’s one reason George Washington recommended “extending our commercial relations” with “foreign nations” while forming “as little political connection as possible.” Attack a country by outright invasion (even when euphemized as “liberation”) or by meddling in its affairs, and sooner or later, its residents will defend themselves. Nevertheless, Our Rulers play checkers with the Middle East, manipulating peoples, governments, and whole countries to satisfy American politicians, special interests, or corporations.

DC’s thugs will see us all die in more 9/11’s rather than admit their culpability and cease their anti-Constitutional forays overseas. That’s because ending the War on Terror would cancel all those lucrative, cozy contracts belligerent bureaucracies from the Pentagon to the Transportation Security Administration hand out; “targeting” Anwar instead funnels billions of our taxes into corporations’ coffers and from thence to politicians’ campaign chests. No wonder yet another nameless “official” sniffed to the New York Times, “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual – through his own actions – has become one. … None of this should surprise anyone.” Especially those who understand corporatism and the transformation of a republic into a fascist empire.

Meanwhile, there’s this from Rep[ulsive] Jane Harman (D-Israel – whoops, I mean CA), neoconservative chair of “a House subcommittee on homeland security”: Anwar is “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”

Don’t you hate false modesty?

Source: Lew Rockwell.com

Ron Paul: Obama is Not a Socialist, He is a Corporatist

Evan McMorris-Santoro
TPM
April 11, 2010

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Saturday, April 10, 2010.

Near the end of the third day of this year’s Southern Republican Leadership Conference, it was time for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) to take the stage. Paul, fresh off his victory in the CPAC straw poll, gave a characteristically fired-up speech that took on the views of the Republican party establishment.

“The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist,” Paul said. “I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he’s not a socialist.”

“He’s a corporatist,” Paul continued. “And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

Paul said examples of President Obama’s “corporatism” were evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. He said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn’t the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.

Source: TPM

CNN Article Equates Confederate Soldiers to Terrorists

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 11, 2010

In a remarkably addlepated story about the Confederacy, Roland Martin of CNN tells us Confederate soldiers defending their homes against invasion by the North were no different than Osama bin Laden and the supposed 9/11 hijackers.

According to CNN, Confederate soldiers were domestic terrorists and no different than Osama bin Laden.

“Even if you’re a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist,” writes Martin. “They are the same” as Muslim terrorists.

Martin also feeds into the ongoing corporate media effort to demonize a large number of Americans as “extremists.” He does not mention the Hutaree or other exaggerated scapegoats, but his historical revisionist argument hints that opposition to federal power over the states is domestic terrorism.

Martin made his comments after Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell decided to honor Confederates for their involvement in the so-called Civil War, actually a war against Northern aggression.

Since McDonnell issued his proclamation — and modified it to include a reference to slavery in response to intense pressure by the race-baiting crowd — the corporate media has gone into overdrive to characterize the North’s invasion as a heroic effort to end slavery.

As Infowars.com noted last week, the so-called Civil War was not about ending slavery. It was about the North imposing economic policies on the South. The South seceded from the Union because the North had imposed punitive tariffs upon it. In 1828 the North began imposing agricultural tariffs on the Southern states to subsidize its industrial policies and this ultimately led to secession.

In 1860, Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery, although he did pledge to “collect the duties and imposts” the government claimed.

Lincoln admitted to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase that his Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free the slaves but was a brazen piece of war propaganda.

McDonnell’s effort to honor Confederate soldiers arrives at precisely the right time for advocates of state power over the individual. Millions of Americans stand in opposition to Obama and the federal government in response to Obamacare, cap and tax, and additional authoritarian power vested in the Federal Reserve and the IRS at the expense of the states and in direct violation of the Constitution.

It is also a response to a number of states talking about secession and nullifiction.

“I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative,” writes Walter E. Williams. “Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.”

Mr. Martin’s article is yet another example of the the Mockingbird corporate media in league with the federal government pulling out the stops to characterize patriotic Americans as extremists, racists, and domestic terrorists.

Source: infowars.com

The Names often Change, but the Game Remains the Same

The Boston Tea Party and Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha correlated in action and idea.

Ethan Indi
OpEdNews
April 10, 2010

Correlating concepts is one literary tool which unifies stories and ignites sparks in readers. Recognition of correlations in written words and in real life instigates thoughts on metaphors in stories and truths in reality. I think the stunning power of correlations, whether in story or reality, comes from the innate human desire to find truth and such universality might arm one with knowledge to better find it.

It is impossible to say with certainty, but I believe that throughout recorded time the majority of people have been as passive as they are today. It is always the minority who question and speak out on circumstances and conditions often simply to instigate the majority to do so as well. In the United States, people often not only speak out, but act out to bring attention to potential wrongdoing. The individual standing up to the institutionalized authority is a universally practiced act perhaps perfected in the U.S.A.

An example of a correlation in the struggle of individual and institutions arrives from two of the most inspirational and powerful acts, resulting in dismantling of oppressive institutional monopolies. In 1773 The Boston Tea party was thrown. After protests and requests going unheard, boxes of dried plants from Asia were tossed into the harbor. People expressed their dissatisfaction by destroying property of The Company, (as British East India Company was commonly referred to) which had developed a monopoly backed up by and adjoined to state institutions.

People in Asia were slaves in a caste system and people in New England felt they’re rights were being abused in their corner of the pyramid system. The Boston Tea Party called attention to global institutions belittling individuals. It wasn’t the tea that mattered, but the rights of people. In the case of the Boston Tea Party, the monopolizing institutions did not yield, resulting in the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War.

The story of individual struggle against institutional monopolization continued afterward, always with a minority at first questioning conditions, but to the correlation. In 1930 South Asia Gandhi protested. The land of South Asia, formerly Company plantation property, was then controlled by the British. Gandhi and others walked over 200 miles to the seashore to harvest salt and protest British monopolization of the resource. Laws essentially made it illegal for individuals to obtain salt, all salt was British salt. Gandhi arrived to the shore and harvested salt illegally. When he met with the Viceroy to face charges he gave him salt and apparently said it was to remind them of the Boston Tea Party.

The Boston Tea Party and Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha correlated in action and idea. The idea was to call attention to and diffuse institutional monopolization over the individual. In the case of the Boston Tea Party, tea was tossed to diffuse the oligarchical institutions. Gandhi accomplished the same diffusion and gained the same attention by harvesting salt, the catalyst resource in question. The story of struggle continued of course, but the correlations between the two events are bold and subtle. Individual resistance of a few always instigates the many to question the established monopolization.

Today, where the numbers of the apathetic are basically the same only perhaps more adamantly so, where still only a small minority question the monopolization of the oligarchic institutions in control, the struggle continues. Today the monopolization is often more covert , but the oligarchical collectivization of institutions is constantly apparent. When states and corporations conjoin it is always a benefit to institutions and often a detriment to Individuals.

I appreciate the Boston Tea Party, but feel that people today are perhaps empathizing with the archetypal actions of the Boston Tea Party in a limited capacity. The Big Steep was not about tea. It was a disobedient reaction to institutions utilizing restrictions on resources to control individuals. Today the monopolization is rampant and one could pick and choose from a variety of institutional trespasses to protest and boycott. But where is the correlation? Where is the catalyst?

What resource is the center point of all the suggested and evident monopolization of the present? Oil, would be correct except there is no correlation to complete the story or graspable catalyst. The resource I am referring to is a plant, hence the correlation with the tea at the Big Steep or Boston Tea Party. Hemp and marijuana are the catalyst like the tea of 1773. The illegalization of hemp and marijuana promotes deforestation, as hemp can be used for paper, this alone should be reason enough to make it legal, but this plant is the center point of the oligarchic institutionalization of today, there is more.

Paper is the simplest fruit of this harvest, clothing can be made from its fibers too as well as building materials. The really wonderful thing about hemp is that it can be used as food. Hemp seed is one of the best sources of nutrients for people. The best thing about hemp is that its fibers and oils can be used to be processed into anything that carbon is made into today, except it would be non toxic unlike plastic. But really the best thing about hemp is that it could drastically reduce the need for imported petrol as it is a source of bio-fuel that requires little agricultural attention.

Actually the very best thing about hemp, is that its cousin marijuana has narcotic effects, verified empirically by yours truly. Of course this has enabled institutions to scorn both plants despite their uncontrollable, valuable properties. Marijuana and hemp provide alternative resources for everything from medicine to fuel, or that is they could if restrictions on this resource were lifted. Marijuana and hemp could enable individuals to be less dependent on institutions who seek to essentially monopolize resources.

So if there is a perceived monopolization occurring which one would like to protest, instead of thinking what to throw into the ocean, think of what to grow. Instead of thinking about a tea party think about refusing to obey based on civil disobedience and the inborn right to counter institutional wrong.

The Big Steep was about civil disobedience over institutional monopolization of resources. Today the same protest is required in essence to counter the same institutionalization wherever it occurs. The best way to correlate the story would be to grow hemp and marijuana. I don’t mean to sound crass or frivolous, but perhaps we need a weed party.

Source: OpEdNews

Redmond Cops Use Drugs as Excuse to Establish Warrantless Checkpoint

KTVZ
April 10, 2010

Redmond police, trying a new method to address drug trafficking through the city, set up a special enforcement operation on the North Highway 97 Reroute Thursday afternoon, stopping drivers for traffic violations and searching some vehicles if they had cause to believe drugs might be found.

The “focused traffic patrols” took place between 2:30 and 5:30 p.m., and warning signs were placed along the highway, advising motorists that drug detection dogs could be working in the area, said Lt. Nathan Garibay.

“If, when vehicles were stopped for traffic violations, police had any reason to believe there might have been drugs involved, they furthered their investigation and had the dog check the car,” said Capt. Brian McNaughton.

Two people were arrested on drug charges, including the driver of a semi truck that was pulled over and searched, turning up a small quantity of cocaine, McNaughton said.

Source: KTVZ

Bilderberg Found In Spain

James P. Tucker, Jr.
American Free Press
April 9, 2010

The Bilderberg group will conduct its annual meeting June 3-6 in Sitges, Spain (a small, exclusive resort town about 20 miles from Barcelona) behind a wall of armed guards who will seal off the resort in a futile attempt to keep the event secret.

Bilderberg’s meeting will follow that of its brother group, the Trilateral Commission, which will gather at the Four Seasons Resort in Dublin, Ireland May 6-10. Leaders of Bilderberg also attend the Trilateralists’ meeting to map their common agenda. About 300 attend Trilateral Commission meetings, which are conducted behind sealed-off, guarded floors of their hotel. About 100 will attend Bilderberg, which seals off the entire resort behind platoons of uniformed police and private security.

Bilderberg hopes to keep the global recession going for at least a year, according to an international financial consultant who deals personally with many of them. This is because, among several reasons, Bilderberg still hopes to create a global “treasury department” under the United Nations. Bilderberg first undertook this mission at its meeting last spring in Greece, but the effort was blocked by nationalists in Europe and the United States. “Nationalists” (a dirty word in Bilderberg) objected to surrendering sovereignty to the UN.

AFP’s source pointed to the words of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in a March 29 speech at notoriously left-wing Columbia University, where he said, “We should invent a new global monetary order.”

He was clearly referring to the recently proposed world “treasury department.”

Bilderberg’s ultimate goal remains unchanged: Turn the UN into a world government with “nation-states” becoming merely geographic references. The European Union is to become a single political entity, followed by the “American Union” and, finally, the “Asian-Pacific Union.” The “American Union” is to include the entire Western Hemisphere, including Cuba and other offshore islands.

Like the EU, the “AU” will have a legislature, executive commission and head of state which can impose laws on member nations. There is to be an EU-like common currency, removing each member state’s symbol of sovereignty. The “Asian-Pacific Union,” or “APU,” is to follow a similar path.

But growing public awareness of the evil agenda of Bilderberg and the Trilateralists has emerged as a significant barrier. For decades, until 1975 when The Spotlight emerged, the blackout was 100 percent complete worldwide. (The Spotlight is AFP’s lineal ancestor.)

Today, in Europe, major metropolitan newspapers and broadcast outlets give both groups heavy, front-page attention. In the United States, independent newspapers and broadcast stations give Bilderberg extensive coverage.

But the major newspapers and network broadcasters maintain a complete blackout in the United States. That’s because their executives have attended these meetings on lifetime promises of secrecy. The hypocritical owners of The Washington Post have attended since 1954. The Post’s chairman, Donald Graham, and associate editor, Jimmy Lee Hoagland, have attended each meeting for years.

But as public awareness grows, so does patriotic resistance. There is strong resistance throughout Europe to increasing the powers of the EU at the cost of national sovereignty. In the United States, there is growing resistance to the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement, which would eliminate borders between the United States, Mexico and Canada. NAFTA is to expand, under Bilderberg-Trilateral plans, to include the entire hemisphere and evolve into the “American Union.”

In the 1990s, Bilderberg was confident that the “American Union” would be established by the year 2000. A decade later, they are still fighting—and losing— the battle.

Source: AFP

Bilderberg To Prolong Global Financial Recession For Another Year

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, April 9, 2010

The Bilderberg Group will meet this year in Spain and continue to advance their agenda for world economic governance while agreeing to prolong the global financial recession for another year, according to Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker, who has discovered through his routinely accurate inside sources that the conference will take place from June 3-6.

Bilderberg sleuths were correct in predicting that this year’s meeting would take place in western Europe, but were wrong in pinpointing the UK as the likeliest location. The 2010 conference will take place in a coastal resort called Sitges, which is about 20 miles from Barcelona.

Bilderberg have now been absent from the UK for the longest time in their history. Even if Bilderberg chooses the UK as their 2011 destination, 13 years will have passed since their 1998 conference in Scotland, the longest gap between UK conferences since the group’s founding in 1954. As we highlighted yesterday, Bilderberg’s decision to avoid the UK is undoubtedly related to increased awareness of the group and the expectation that they would receive unwanted press attention as well as sizeable demonstrations if they held the meeting in the British Isles.

Bilderberg last met in Spain in 1989 when they held their annual conference on the Spanish island of La Toja.

This year’s confab will be similarly secluded, with Bilderberg’s increasing army of police and private security guards on hand to create a lock down of the entire resort.

Bilderberg will have a wide choice of hotels from which to host their secretive get-together, meaning the precise location of the conference will be harder than ever to pin down. The area is known for having a plethora of high standard hotels and is a popular tourist resort.

The most likely candidate however would appear to be the Hotel Dolce Sitges (pictured top), a 5 star luxury resort adjacent to a prestigious golf club. Forming the consensus which sets the agenda for global policy behind closed doors can be stressful, which is why Bilderbergers like to interrupt their scheming with the odd round of golf.

“Business facilities include 11 meeting rooms, 25 breakout rooms, 2 boardrooms, and a spacious amphitheatre accommodating up to 60 guests. All of the venues are equipped with the latest audiovisual technologies and ideal for holding congresses, cocktails, weddings and any other kind of event for up to 550 guests,” states the promotional text for the hotel, suggesting it would be ideal for the Bilderbergers.



The Hotel Dolce Sitges has no rooms available from June 2 to June 6, strongly indicating that this is when the resort will be locked down for the arrival of Bilderberg elitists.

The resort appears to be suitably secluded and away from the crowded tourist areas, making it perfect for Bilderberg’s needs. In addition, attempting to book a room from June 3-6 via the hotel’s website reveals that no rooms are available from June 2 to June 6, strongly indicating that this is when the resort will be locked down for Bilderberg.

However, Bilderberg has been known to leak false information about where the group is staying, so we cannot confirm the exact location until Jim Tucker or Daniel Estulin pinpoint the precise location via their inside sources, who have proven to be habitually accurate.



State of the art conference facilities and 5 star luxury suggest the Hotel Dolce Sitges may be the preferred location for this year’s Bilderberg meeting.

This year’s confab will focus around prolonging the global financial recession and creating more economic woe in order to provide the pretext for more regulation in pursuit of world economic governance, according to Jim Tucker’s sources.

“Bilderberg hopes to keep the global recession going for at least a year, according to an international financial consultant who deals personally with many of them. This is because, among several reasons, Bilderberg still hopes to create a global “treasury department” under the United Nations. Bilderberg first undertook this mission at its meeting last spring in Greece, but the effort was blocked by nationalists in Europe and the United States. “Nationalists” (a dirty word in Bilderberg) objected to surrendering sovereignty to the UN,” writes Tucker.

Tucker’s source highlighted a recent speech by French President Nicolas Sarkozy in which he called for a “new global monetary order.” As we have highlighted, such rhetoric has been abundant over the past year, with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and EU President Herman Van Rompuy repeatedly echoing similar ideas.

As Bilderberg investigator Daniel Estulin revealed during last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Greece, elitists were planning to paint a false picture of economic recovery in order to sucker investors into ploughing their money back into the stock market, which is exactly what has happened with the Dow soaring back to just below the 11,000 level.

Estulin correctly predicted the housing crash and the 2008 financial meltdown as a result of what his sources inside Bilderberg told him the elite were planning based on what was said at their 2006 meeting in Canada and the 2007 conference in Turkey.

“Bilderberg’s ultimate goal remains unchanged,” writes Tucker. “Turn the UN into a world government with “nation-states” becoming merely geographic references. The European Union is to become a single political entity, followed by the “American Union” and, finally, the “Asian-Pacific Union.” The “American Union” is to include the entire Western Hemisphere, including Cuba and other offshore islands.”



Source: Prison Planet.com