Outing the GOPpers (They Never Stop Lying), War on Terra A Fraud & Al-Qaeda - A Useful Creation of USA?

Let's see now - One World Government, RF ID chips in consumer items that we buy (and use) which identify us to any government persona who is in our vicinity and, oh yes, RF ID chips in money, which tracks all our purchases and where our wallets are. Ain't technology grand? Not to mention the control of the MSM organs lately attested to by this story from Dean Baker on The Washington Post (Hard times at the Washington Post).

There is so much lying going on today that you need a scorecard to keep up with the players. As a public service I would like to reintroduce you to the real liars who've placed us under the dome of financial iniquity from which we will not emerge anytime soon. Granted, there are some new liars in today's mix, but they can't hold a candle (as they used to say) to the ones in the recent past. Remember the good times?

I know you won't believe your lying eyes when you view the video below.

And having heard all the misinformation about "The Illuminati" series, I know it will be even harder for you to take a few minutes out of your busy day to do so. But don't miss this. It puts all the events of the last decade in perfect perspective (actually since the mythical days of Raygun the Great). (Yes, Sean Penn has a compelling cameo within as do many unidentified American protesters. We even get to see the famous handshake between Donald Rumsfeld and Sadaam Hussein as they make plans to use chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians (and Karl Rove surrounded by angry citizens).)

None but the brave.

And one more point. To say that the Bush administration was incompetent misses the point. Competence was the least of its worries. As you may remember, lots of supposedly smart people apologized for him constantly as they looted the country and our future. And no one was ever prosecuted successfully except Scooter Libby who had somehow pissed Dubya off personally. Now that's a personal aside for you, isn't it?

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Condi, Feith, Wolfowitz, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas - can you find anyone in this group not a well-known and continual liar?

Think it over as you watch the following short video. From a continuing thorn in their side at the Existentialist Cowboy:

The BBC had revealed that Al Qaeda is a creation of US propaganda, in fact, a term never used by Bin Laden until after 911. The implications of the BBC documentary are enormous. It means that the US government of George W. Bush is guilty of the crimes of mass murder, high treason with respect to 911 and war crimes with respect to the mass murder of Iraqi civilians who had nothing whatsoever to do with 911. The specific crimes are violations of U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 which prescribes the penalty of death for violations thereof!

Bush - you and your administration are in deep shit! An every angrier American population will - one day - bring you and your CIA co-conspirators to justice. In the meantime, I suggest that all members of the Bush administration look up the relevent federal laws, some of which prescribe death. Start with US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. Al Qaeda NEVER Existed!

(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death. U.S.C. § 2441 : US Code - Section 2441: War crimes posted by Len Hart at on Jan 3, 2010 Also see: A Spiritual Mind MovieHow the US Became a Vassal State of China

Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes

The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World's Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism

Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP

Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization

Why the CIA is the World's Number One Terrorist Organization [PDF]

How the GOP Pays Off its 'Base' of Elites

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Dissecting the Scrambled Brains of the GOP

Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy It was not so long ago that GOP Senators Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar described the Bush administration as "incompetent"! And they were being polite. CONSERVATIVE commentator George Will referred to the Bush administration as "...the gang that couldn't shoot straight!" In Iraq, Bush's "puppet" Allawi said of WMD: "...they must be somewhere!" WMD are where you find them! But that's not to say that WMD were ever in Iraq! It does not follow that because something is not 'here', it must be 'there'! It does not follow that because something is 'not' then something else 'is'. The Bush regime was as utterly incompetent as it was evil. Otherwise, Dick Cheney, who supervised 911, would have just ordered his minions to 'plant' WMD in the areas his 'task force' had already targeted for theft! In retrospect, the Bush regime turns out to have been half-assed crooks, half-assed murderers, half-assed liars, a ludicrous gang that couldn't shoot straight. It might have been Kant who said that there is a moral imperative to be intelligent. By that standard, the GOP grows more evil as it grows more stupid! The cure that kills! The GOP under Bush was determined to stay the course if it killed us. It killed many of us - those 'left behind' by Texas' 'dead last' educational system and millions more for whom murdering Iraqis and stealing oil was, perhaps, their career path of last resort! It was Ronald Reagan who put a smiley face on "psychosis", i.e. the indulgence of delusion as long as it makes you feel good or, at least, better about yourself. Reagan did this for millions who returned his utterly failed administration to office. Thus, the GOP perfected the 'big lie' with research and focus groups. There was simply no way to get a GOPPER elected on fact or reason. Insanity became and remains the campaign strategy of choice for a party that could not, cannot think straight, a party that is either delusional or is dishonest and just pretends to be insane as a cover! Wealth would trickle down, Dr Feelgood (Ronald Reagan) assured us, if we would but help him make the privileged elite even richer. Wealth didn't trickle down and never has . . . but millions swooned as the aging actor made them feel better about themselves [GOP Convention, 1992, Houston]. The effect was as short-lived as are many 'feel good' remedies and sex toys. Come to think of it - every GOP administration is a circle jerk of old cronies, limited intelligences and the morally bankrupt. 'Let them eat cake and live in houses' Ronald Reagan told us that those made homeless and forced to live in tent cities were "mentally ill". It was the middle class that had been made homeless during those Reagan nightmare years and while Carter occupied the White House, they had lived in houses. I suppose that as long as they were in a house, they were considered by the GOP to be sane. If you don't have a house, the GOP thinks you are nuts! Official government statistics [Bureau of Labor Statistics, BEA, Census Bureau] prove that job creation and GDP were higher during the Carter years than in any GOP regime since WWII. As they would say in Texas: the GOP 'cain't carry Carter's shit!' Carter is - therefore - a GOP whipping boy not because he failed but because he succeeded.

Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents

Johnson 3.8%
Carter 3.1
Clinton 2.4
Kennedy 2.3
Nixon 2.3
Reagan 2.1
Bush 0.6
 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey

It must be pointed out that under Clinton, the recently insane went sane again and moved back into houses! The GOP never figured it out! I was surprised when the GOP failed to lambast the Democrats for the dramatic drop in tent sales during the Clinton years. GOP thought processes are scrambled. GOP logic works backward from conclusions to premises. The late Barbara Olson said that Gary Condit was guilty of murder not because there was evidence against him but because there was none.

Similarly, it was during the 2000 election debacle that Robert Novak said Democrats were 'trying to steal this election by counting votes!' Antonin Scalia would not be outdone. He said that continuing the recount would be harmful to Bush! Indeed! Bush would have lost! Scalia did not know when to shut the flock up, adding:

Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires. - Antonin Scalia, U. S. Supreme Court Justice

'Scuse me! Anyone getting the fewer number of votes is supposed to lose. Scalia was just puking up something that sounded 'scholarly' but, in fact, meant: stop the count while Bush is still ahead!! Bush v Gore majority opinions are pure bunkum, lousy law, worse legal scholarship. The BEST critique of Bush v Gore is found in the dissenting opinions, primarily Ruth Bader Ginsberg who laid bare Scalia's idiocy and hypocrisy.

I might join THE CHIEF JUSTICE were it my commission to interpret Florida law. But disagreement with the Florida court's interpretation of its own State' s law does not warrant the conclusion that the justices of that court have legislated. There is no cause here to believe that the dissenting members of Florida' s high court have done less than ''their mortal best to discharge their oath of office,'' Sumner v. Mata, 449 U. S. 539, 549 (1981), and no cause to upset their reasoned interpretation of Florida law. JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS joins, and with whom JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE BREYER join as to Part I, dissenting. [emphasis mine, EC]

GOP brains should be dissected, studied, diagnosed and then quarantined! Scalia's condition should be written up by someone like Carl Jung who estimated that as much as thirty percent of any population is certifiably psychopathic and/or delusional. The GOP, meanwhile, consulted swamis or anyone who could justify ex post facto the conclusions already drawn, the results desired but not really ever achieved. Scalia displays psychopathic symptoms which Dr. Gustav Gilbert identified among the Nazi war criminals he studied at Nuremberg.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently claimed that the Constitution does not prohibit the execution of an innocent man provided that he has had a fair trial. While this is astonishing enough coming from a man who holds himself out as a Catholic - even more astonishing is how Justice Scalia substitutes his personal religious beliefs for the law and the Constitution. This extraordinary tale of what we might call substitutionalism, begins with the case of Troy Davis who was sentenced to death by the State of Georgia in 1991 for the murder of a police officer. Davis has always maintained his innocence and sought a new new trial. "Seven key witnesses have since recanted," according to an editorial in The New York Times, "and several people have charged that the main prosecution witness was the shooter. Rather than arguing that there were procedural flaws in his trial, Mr. Davis is making the more basic claim that he is innocent and that new evidence proves it."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens declared "thesubstantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification." The majority of his colleagues agreed and ordered a federal judge in Georgia to review the new evidence and rule whether it "clearly establishes" Davis' innocence.

But Scalia and fellow traditionalist Catholic, Clarence Thomas, didn't see it that way. "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial," Scalia opined, "but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Scalia?

Again - Scalia, typical of his ilk, thinks 'backward'. Certainly, a 'fair trial', however desirable, is not an ideal but, like 'justice' itself, a means by which the taking of an innocent life by the state is made less likely. The state murder of a provable innocent because all the 't's' are crossed and all the 'i's' dotted is not just Kafakaesque, it typifies the endemic evil of the state itself. A paper will be written about the many lies that the GOP has told about Social Security. Unless they are stopped, the GOP will one day raid Social Security not because it's broke but because it's not! If SS were broke, the GOP would have nothing to covet, no booty to be divided up among their base of Wall St insiders! When they have seized SS, the GOP will argue that they had to kill it to save it! Social Security 'reform' will consist of transferring more wealth to the wealthy, putting those monies into the hands of the Wall St geniuses who brought you every recession/depression since the Great Depression of 1929 and its more recent reprise under Bushco.

. . . Are we safe yet?

Millions believed Bush when he said that we were certain to get hit by terrorists again and, seemingly in the same paragraph, we were safer! It never occurred to the media to ask: which is it? Are we safer or not? Obviously - the GOP strategists never figured this one out: did the GOP get more votes by saying we were safer or were more votes gained by saying we were less safe? The GOP consultants and focus group gurus let them down. They never resolved the issue! With any luck, the GOP's central processor will overheat and melt down before the party destroys the US as we knew it!

Dean Baker comes through for us again as he describes the rampant corruption emanating from the Washington Post in the guise of neutral billionaire scoundrel Pete Peterson - noted destroyer of the Social Security safety net. I personally wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post back in the 90's when I thought I detected a turn to the dark side: the prosecution and persecution of Bill Clinton for a sexual escapade in which no minors were involved and no one died (notice the difference from his replacement). I think they turned away from being any type of decent morals judge over 15 years ago (reference the election of 1994 and the most moral Newt Gingrich columns that were always gladly accepted then).

The Guardian, UK - Monday - 4 January 2010 Hard times at the Washington Post

The once proud Washington Post gets into bed with a right-wing billionaire and fills its news pages with his agenda

The Washington Post is a newspaper with a proud legacy. It has done much important reporting over the years, most famously its coverage of the Watergate scandal that resulted in the resignation of Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, it seems to have abandoned its journalistic standards. In its last issue of the decade, it published as a news piece an article by the Peter Peterson Foundation-funded Fiscal Times. This compromised the Post's journalistic integrity to the extent that readers can no longer take it seriously.

Peter Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire and former Nixon administration cabinet member who has been trying to gut social security payments and Medicare for at least the last quarter of a century. He has written several books that warn of a demographic disaster when the baby boomers retire. These books often include nonsense arguments to make his case. For example, in one of the books making his pitch for cutting social security as matter of generational equity, Peterson proposes reducing the annual cost of living adjustment. Peterson justified this cut by arguing that the price index overstated the true rate of inflation, therefore the annual cost of living adjustment was overcompensating retirees.

The problem with Peterson's logic is that if the price index really overstated inflation, then the country has been getting wealthier much faster than the standard data show. This means that the young people who he was so worried about would be far richer than anyone could have imagined. It would also mean that the most of the retirees whose benefits he wanted to cut grew up in poverty.

These conclusions logically followed from Peterson's claim that the price index overstated inflation. But Peterson didn't care about the logic, he wanted to cut social security and he was prepared to say anything to advance this agenda.

Of course, what Peterson says matters because he uses his billions to make sure that his voice gets heard. In the case of his books, he would take out full-page ads in major newspapers to ensure that these otherwise very forgettable tracts got taken seriously.

And he started organisations. First, he had the Concord Coalition ("a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organisation advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy") and, more recently, the Peter G Peterson Foundation, and now its offspring, the Fiscal Times. Interestingly, the Fiscal Times' debut piece in the Post managed to reference both of Peterson's earlier creations.

The piece also included the standard and inaccurate Peterson refrain about "skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and social security." Spending on social security is not "skyrocketing" in the normal usage of the term. Measured as a share of national income it will increase by less than 40% over the next two decades, an increase that is fully funded by the designated Social Security tax.

While spending on Medicare and Medicaid is increasing rapidly, this is primarily the result of exploding private sector healthcare costs. As every serious budget analysts knows, private sector healthcare costs have been growing at a rate that threatens to devastate the economy. If the private healthcare sector is not fixed, we face an economic disaster regardless of what happens with Medicare and Medicaid. If it is fixed, then the problems facing the public sector programmes will be manageable. This is not the first time that the Washington Post has been prepared to compromise its integrity to rescue its finances. Last year the Post's top management planned a series of dinners, billed as "salons", where they had intended to sell lobbyists the opportunity to meet with the Washington Post's reporters in an informal setting. This plan was nixed after it was leaked and the idea developed into a scandal.

While selling access to reporters is a certainly a high crime for a serious newspaper, handing over a portion of the news section to an advocacy group is arguably a worse sin. The Fiscal Times piece was indistinguishable in its appearance from any other news story in the Washington Post. Only those careful to read the byline or the note at the bottom of the page would realize that the article was not a regular news story. Nowhere is the Fiscal Times identified as being affiliated with, and funded by, the Peter Peterson Foundation.

If the Fiscal Times becomes a regular source of news articles at the Post, we can probably soon expect to see pieces from National Rifle Association's Shooting Illustrated. It is unfortunate that technological change may have made the traditional newspaper economically unviable – but it would have been better if the Washington Post could have had a dignified death.

See Rummy and Dubya lie even more dim-wittedly! You can't make this stuff up. Or can you? Suzan ________________________