Christopher Jon Bjerknes in a powerhouse interview with Henry Makow

From the psychopathy of Pres. elect Barak Obama to the Jewish agenda to destroy the entire human race, Bjerknes tells it like it is.  He pulls no punches and provides the American people a way out of this dire mess.  This is a must-listen interview and something I can truly be thankful for today.

Christopher’s website: Jewish Racism

After you’ve listened to this historic interview pass it along to anyone open-minded enough to understand the message.

WW~

A Reluctant Thanksgiving

turkeyI’ve never been the kind of person that thought the glass was half full instead I saw it half empty.  What can I say?  I’m more negative than positive.  It’s how I came into this world and no doubt will be the way I leave it.  I’ve always admired people who could see the positive in every situation.  It must be a gift, a rare insight granted to certain individuals for a specific reason, maybe to counter-balance people like me.  Not to venture too far into the psychological realm for the differences in our emotional natures, as humans we are capable of experiencing a variety of feelings from year to year based on where we are in the life cycle, which brings me to today Thanksgiving 2008.

It’s been a tumultuous year to say the very least.  It was an election year for America now with another “illegal” administration ready to take over in a few months.  The American People proved that they are even more ‘dumbed down’ and brainwashed than I had previously believed.  It was a year in which we learned that scientists could open stargates if only for a few brief seconds with a monstrous contraption called a large hadron collider, which could possibly destroy the planet with the creation of a black hole.  Newer revelations about world-wide political corruption came to light, not that we didn’t already have enough.  The Georgian-Russian conflict, which some believe is the pretext to World War III.  Then we had the U.S. government’s farcical bail-out circus for a few privileged corporations, which has now exploded into more than 8 Trillion for these criminals.  Man’s inhumanity towards man continues unabated in various regions around the world as it has been for millennia.  Some things never change.

Is it any wonder that some, like myself, tend to be more negative than positive?  What in the hell is there to be thankful for?  Oh, and lets not forget that the very idea of the Thanksgiving holiday was built on a pack of lies from our recent history.  Allow me to enlighten those that may not know the real truth…

The big problem with the American Thanksgiving holiday is its false
association with American Indian people.  The infamous ‘Indians and
pilgrims’ myth.  It is good to celebrate Thanksgiving, to be thankful
for your blessings.  It is not good to distort history, to falsely portray
the origin of this holiday and lie about the truth of its actual inception.
Here are some accurate historical facts about the true origin of this
American holiday that may interest you…………………………………..

‘Thanksgiving’ did not begin as a great loving relationship between the

pilgrims and the Wampanoag, Pequot and Narragansett people.  In fact,
in October of 1621 when the ‘pilgrim’ survivors of their first winter in
Turtle Island sat down to share the first unofficial ‘Thanksgiving’ meal,
the Indians who were there were not even invited!  There was no turkey,
squash, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie.  A few days before this alleged
feast took place, a company of ‘pilgrims’ led by Miles Standish actively
sought the head of a local Indian leader, and an 11 foot high wall was
erected around the entire Plymouth settlement for the very purpose of
keeping Indians out!  Officially, the holiday we know as ‘Thanksgiving’

actually came into existence in the year 1637. Governor Winthrop of the

Massachusetts Bay Colony proclaimed this first official day of Thanksgiving
and feasting to celebrate the return of the colony’s men who had arrived
safely from what is now Mystic, Connecticut.  They had gone there to
participate in the massacre of over 700 Pequot men, women and children,
and Mr. Winthrop decided to dedicate an official day of thanksgiving
complete with a feast to ‘give thanks’ for their great ‘victory’….

As hard as it may be to conceive, this is the actual origin of our current
Thanksgiving Day holiday.  Many American Indian people these days do
not observe this holiday, for obvious reasons.  I see nothing wrong with
gathering with family to give thanks to our Creator for our blessings and
sharing a meal.  I do, however, hope that Americans as a whole will one
day acknowledge the true origin of this holiday, and remember the pain,
loss, and agony of the Indigenous people who suffered at the hands of
the so-called ‘pilgrims’.  It is my hope that childrens plays about ‘the
first Thanksgiving’, complete with Indians and pilgrims chumming at
the dinner table, will someday be a thing of the past.  Why perpetuate
a lie?  Let us face the truths of the past, and give thanks that we are
learning to love one another for the rich human diversity we share.

(Written by John Two-Hawks)  http://www.nativecircle.com/mlmThanksgivingmyth.html

Actually, I want to be thankful, but I prefer to be thankful for the truth instead of lies.  Our whole society is built on a matrix of lies and subterfuge and it’s about time we shed this thinly veiled skin that only reluctantly holds us together as a people and a nation.  It is one of the reasons why our society is crumbling today.  The truth is bearing down and eventually it will be out in the open and we will be forced to deal with it.

But, I must admit, throughout all my personal trials and tribulations this year has been a joyous one.  My daughter presented me with a beautiful, healthy grandson in July.  He is now the light of my life.  Gliding, somewhat uncomfortably, through the stages of human life, I now understand the grandparent philosophy and the way it changes a life bringing to it a new dimension and meaning.

As I mentioned in last years Thanksgiving message, we should all be thankful that the nation is still somewhat in tact.  Even with the reality of living in a police state and imminent martial law those plans have not been fully realized throughout the nation.  Thank God!  Troops haven’t forced us out of our homes, yet, and blazing tanks aren’t inhabiting every American street.  If you’re wondering, of course I am minimalizing the threat in an effort to find thanks just for the opportunity to speak my mind.  It’s that half full, half empty glass syndrome, again, and my most ardent attempt to project a positive message.  My apology if my best effort fails to deliver.  It’s the result of being a realistic pragmatist.

Whatever your feelings on this 2008 Thanksgiving, give thanks for being alive and healthy, thanks for a loving family and devoted friends, and hopefully, a glorious spread of food on the table.

To you and yours, Happy Thanksgiving!

Whitewraithe~

The Worst Is Not Behind Us

by Nouriel Roubini

nouriel-roubiniBeware of those who say we’ve hit the bottom.   

It is useful, at this juncture, to stand back and survey the economic landscape–both as it is now, and as it has been in recent months. So here is a summary of many of the points that I have made for the last few months on the outlook for the U.S. and global economy, as well as for financial markets:

The U.S. will experience its most severe recession since World War II, much worse and longer and deeper than even the 1974-1975 and 1980-1982 recessions. The recession will continue until at least the end of 2009 for a cumulative gross domestic product drop of over 4%; the unemployment rate will likely reach 9%. The U.S. consumer is shopped-out, saving less and debt-burdened: This will be the worst consumer recession in decades.

–The prospect of a short and shallow six- to eight-month V-shaped recession is out of the window; a U-shaped 18- to 24-month recession is now a certainty, and the probability of a worse, multi-year L-shaped recession (as in Japan in the 1990s) is still small but rising. Even if the economy were to exit a recession by the end of 2009, the recovery could be so weak because of the impairment of the financial system and the credit mechanism that it may feel like a recession even if the economy is technically out of the recession.

Obama will inherit an economic and financial mess worse than anything the U.S. has faced in decades: the most severe recession in 50 years; the worst financial and banking crisis since the Great Depression; a ballooning fiscal deficit that may be as high as a trillion dollars in 2009 and 2010; a huge current account deficit; a financial system that is in a severe crisis and where deleveraging is still occurring at a very rapid pace, thus causing a worsening of the credit crunch; a household sector where millions of households are insolvent, into negative equity territory and on the verge of losing their homes; a serious risk of deflation as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets becomes deeper; the risk that we will end in a deflationary liquidity trap as the Fed is fast approaching the zero-bound constraint for the Fed funds rate; the risk of a severe debt deflation as the real value of nominal liabilities will rise, given price deflation, while the value of financial assets is still plunging.

The world economy will experience a severe recession: Output will sharply contract in the Eurozone, the U.K. and the rest of Europe, as well as in Canada, Japan and Australia/New Zealand. There is also a risk of a hard landing in emerging market economies. Expect global growth–at market prices–to be close to zero in Q3 and negative by Q4. Leaving aside the effects of the fiscal stimulus, China could face a hard landing growth rate of 6% in 2009. The global recession will continue through most of 2009.

–The advanced economies will face stag-deflation (stagnation/recession and deflation) rather than stagflation, as the slack in goods, labor and commodity markets will lead advanced economies’ inflation rates to become below 1% by 2009.

–Expect a few advanced economies (certainly the U.S. and Japan and possibly others) to reach the zero-bound constraint for policy rates by early 2009. With deflation on the horizon, zero-bound on interest rates implies the risk of a liquidity trap where money and bonds become perfectly substitutable, where real interest rates become high and rising, thus further pushing down aggregate demand, and where money market fund returns cannot even cover their management costs.

Deflation also implies a debt deflation where the real value of nominal debts is rising, thus increasing the real burden of such debts. Monetary policy easing will become more aggressive in other advanced economies even if the European Central Bank cuts too little too late. But monetary policy easing will be scarcely effective, as it will be pushing on a string, given the glut of global aggregate supply relative to demand–and given a very severe credit crunch.

–For 2009, the consensus estimates for earnings are delusional: Current consensus estimates are that S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS) will be $90 in 2009, up 15% from 2008. Such estimates are outright silly. If EPS falls–as is most likely–to a level of $60, then with a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 12, the S&P 500 index could fall to 720 (i.e. about 20% below current levels).

If the P/E falls to 10–as is possible in a severe recession–the S&P could be down to 600, or 35% below current levels.

And in a very severe recession, one cannot exclude that EPS could fall as low as $50 in 2009, dragging the S&P 500 index to as low as 500. So, even based on fundamentals and valuations, there are significant downside risks to U.S. equities (20% to 40%).

Similar arguments can be made for global equities: A severe global recession implies further downside risks to global equities in the order of 20% to 30%.Thus, the recent rally in U.S. and global equities was only a bear-market sucker’s rally that is already fizzling out–buried under a mountain of worse-than-expected macro, earnings and financial news.

–Credit losses will be well above $1 trillion and closer to $2 trillion, as such losses will spread from subprime to near-prime and prime mortgages and home equity loans (and the related securitized products); to commercial real estate, to credit cards, auto loans and student loans; to leveraged loans and LBOs, to muni bonds, corporate bonds, industrial and commercial loans and credit default swaps. These credit losses will lead to a severe credit crunch, absent a rapid and aggressive recapitalization of financial institutions.

–Almost all of the $700 billion in the TARP program will be used to recapitalize U.S. financial institutions (banks, broker dealers, insurance companies, finance companies) as rising credit losses (close to $2 trillion) will imply that the initial $250 billion allocated to recap these institutions will not be enough. Sooner rather than later, a TARP-2 will become necessary, as the recapitalization needs of U.S. financial institutions will likely be well above $1 trillion.

–Current spreads on speculative-grade bonds may widen further as a tsunami of defaults will hit the corporate sector; investment-grade bond spreads have widened excessively relative to financial fundamentals, but further spread-widening is possible, driven by market dynamics, deleveraging and the fact that many AAA-rated firms (say, GE) are not really AAA, and should be downgraded by the rating agencies.

–Expect a U.S. fiscal deficit of almost $1 trillion in 2009 and 2010. The outlook for the U.S. current account deficit is mixed: The recession, a rise in private savings and a fall in investment, and a further fall in commodity prices will tend to shrink it, but a stronger dollar, global demand weakness and a larger U.S. fiscal deficit will tend to worsen it. On net, we will observe still-large U.S. twin fiscal and current account deficits–and less willingness and ability in the rest of the world to finance it unless the interest rate on such debt rises.

–In this economic and financial environment, it is wise to stay away from most risky assets for the next 12 months: There are downside risks to U.S. and global equities; credit spreads–especially for the speculative grade–may widen further; commodity prices will fall another 20% from current levels; gold will also fall as deflation sets in; the U.S. dollar may weaken further in the next six to 12 months as the factors behind the recent rally weather off, while medium-term bearish fundamentals for the dollar set in again; government bond yields in the U.S. and advanced economies may fall further as recession and deflation emerge but, over time, the surge in fiscal deficits in the U.S. and globally will reduce the supply of global savings and lead to higher long-term interest rates unless the fall in global real investment outpaces the fall in global savings.

Expect further downside risks to emerging-markets assets (in particular, equities and local and foreign currency debt), especially in economies with significant macro, policy and financial vulnerabilities. Cash and cash-like instruments (short-term dated government bonds and inflation-indexed bonds that do well both in inflation and deflation times) will dominate most risky assets.

So, serious risks and vulnerabilities remain, and the downside risks to financial markets (worse than expected macro news, earnings news and developments in systemically important parts of the global financial system) will, over the next few months, overshadow the positive news (G-7 policies to avoid a systemic meltdown, and other policies that–in due time–may reduce interbank spreads and credit spreads).

Beware, therefore, of those who tell you that we have reached a bottom for risky financial assets. The same optimists told you that we reached a bottom and the worst was behind us after the rescue of the creditors of Bear Stearns in March; after the announcement of the possible bailout of Fannie and Freddie in July; after the actual bailout of Fannie and Freddie in September; after the bailout of AIG (nyse: AIGnews - people ) in mid-September; after the TARP legislation was presented; and after the latest G-7 and E.U. action.

In each case, the optimists argued that the latest crisis and rescue policy response was the cathartic event that signaled the bottom of the crisis and the recovery of markets. They were wrong literally at least six times in a row as the crisis–as I have consistently predicted over the last year–became worse and worse. So enough of the excessive optimism that has been proved wrong at least six times in the last eight months alone.

A reality check is needed to assess risks–and to take appropriate action. And reality tells us that we barely avoided, only a week ago, a total systemic financial meltdown; that the policy actions are now finally more aggressive and systematic, and more appropriate; that it will take a long while for interbank and credit markets to mend; that further important policy actions are needed to avoid the meltdown and an even more severe recession; that central banks, instead of being the lenders of last resort, will be, for now, the lenders of first and only resort; that even if we avoid a meltdown, we will experience a severe U.S., advanced economy and, most likely, global recession, the worst in decades; that we are in the middle of a severe global financial and banking crisis, the worst since the Great Depression; and that the flow of macro, earnings and financial news will significantly surprise (as during the last few weeks) on the downside with significant further risks to financial markets.

I’ll stop now.

Nouriel Roubini, a professor at the Stern Business School at New York University and chairman of Roubini Global Economics, is a weekly columnist for Forbes.com.
Source

 

EURO Conference a success despite overwhelming odds

 

Dr. David Duke and James Edwards

Dr. David Duke and James Edwards

I just experienced one of the most remarkable weeks of my life, of that there is no doubt. It was a week in which I went through the entire spectrum of emotions; a week that ultimately left me exhausted and full of hope. What you’ll read below will both shock and inspire you. I hope you’ll take the time to digest the entire article. With that being said, let me start at the very beginning.

Back in June I made the decision to work with David Duke and organize the 2008 European American Unity and Rights Conference (EURO) here in Memphis. After I was able to negotiate a very good contract with the Whispering Woods Hotel and Conference Center in Olive Branch, Mississippi, we were ready to begin promotion of the highly anticipated event, the first of its kind in over three years.

When Representative Duke announced on his website that the gathering would be held in the Memphis area on November 7-9, the local media went into an overzealous frenzy to try and uncover exactly which hotel would dare let European Americans exercise their freedom of speech. Being inept, they failed in their task to find the meeting location until about a week before it was to begin.

Wednesday, October 29

It was on this day that a local “civil rights” group called the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center finally discovered where Duke and Company were coming. Local leftist Jacob Flowers immediately posted the contact information for Travis Murray, General Manager of Whispering Woods, on their website and encouraged the radical left to contact him and voice their displeasure over the fact he would afford us a place to meet.

Contact Mr. Murray they did. By Wednesday night Mr. Murray’s wife and children had received several calls at home and been threatened by these Marxists with death if our contract was not canceled. The very next day, Travis Murray resigned from his position. “Peace and Justice,” indeed.

As a result of these terrorist threats, the government of DeSoto County, Mississippi, issued a week long “State of Emergency” declaration, which gave them authority to deputize police officers from neighboring counties in order to protect the hotel’s property and those who would be coming to the EURO Conference. Even though the local police was said to have been working with the FBI, we have still received no word as to what their so-called investigations have uncovered, even though the threats were made specifically to stop our People from coming together.

By this time the local media’s interest was beginning to reach a fever pitch. What did they report? The truth about the threats of violence against our members and the family of a honest hotel manager? Of course not. It was reported that a local “civil rights group” had tried to warn the manager’s family that hosting our conference might be “bad for business,” and that the real reason for all the unpleasantness was because the “Klan” was coming to the Mid-South, led by “White Supremacist” David Duke.

Friday, October 31 (Halloween)

On my way to Atlanta I stopped by the Whispering Woods Hotel to speak with the new acting General Manager. I made mention of the fact that the gross mis-characterizations our group was being subjected to in saturation coverage on television news was complete fantasy. I apologized for any inconvenience that these biased reports may have caused her staff, but reiterated to her that our members would be among the finest patrons she’d ever find and that I felt it incumbent upon me to meet with her in person to clear the air.

She seemed relieved to have this calming reassurance and promised that our conference would go ahead as scheduled; that our contract was ironclad and that we could expect the same professionalism and courtesy that any other group would expect to receive. Seemed fair enough to me.

The only thing she really seemed concerned with at the time was finding out how many banquet meals we’d be needing. I told her I’d get that number to her after the weekend. We shook hands, and that was that.

Tuesday, November 4

I was in downtown Memphis, walking along the banks of the Mississippi River with a fellow conference speaker from Denmark, when I received a series of calls from people who had registered for EURO and booked rooms at Whispering Woods. They were calling to inform me that they had just been told by the hotel that our conference had been arbitrarily canceled.

Yes, the hotel actually called all of those who were registered to attend the conference before they called the conference organizers themselves. Frantically trying to find out what went wrong, I began working with David Duke to get to the bottom of this.

In the end, the hotel management determined that the declaration of a “State of Emergency” gave them the authority to breach our contract. They even invited Duke to sue them, being smug in their opinion that no judge or jury would ever rule in favor of the politically incorrect.

What was equally damnable was that the hotel then reported to the media that they did not know with whom they were dealing with when the contract was originally agreed upon. Having the original contract here on my desk, I find that a little hard to believe when the contract lists “Dr. David E. Duke” as the event organizer, and “European American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO)” as the name of the event.

Nevertheless, they went on to tell us that not only would we not be allowed to use their facilities to hold our meeting, but we wouldn’t even be allowed to keep our rooms there for the purposes of sleeping. We had filled up their hotel with over one hundred booked rooms, and now these people were being thrown out as well.

After five months of meticulous planning, we were now two days away from the start date of our conference without a place to meet, and without a place for our those registered to stay. So distressed was I that my body literally went into a convulsive state. I can remember gagging while I was on the phone with David as we tried to determine what our options were. The stress was nearly more than I could bear, but we dug deep and made the decision to press onward. Duke said he’d be in Memphis the next day to set up a command center and arrange a press conference.

Wednesday, November 5

I met David at a local restaurant and we began to prepare the contingency plan, which was not an enviable task. We had to locate and secure and alternate meeting venue, call over three hundred registered conference attendees and determine who was still coming to Memphis and who wasn’t, and try to find hotel rooms for everyone, all in less than 48 hours.

I recruited a few local supporters to help us with the phone list and they locked themselves in Dr. Duke’s hotel room and began calling each person, one by one. In the meantime, I was narrowing down a short list of prospective venues while calling the local media to alert them that Duke would like to set the record straight.

This would be the second of six consecutive nights that we would get less than three hours of sleep.

Thursday, November 6

A silver lining was beginning to manifest itself this morning when we settled on a new location to hold the conference. Additionally, it looked like well over half of those who originally planned on coming to be with us were, in fact, still planning on coming to be with us. We told them to try and book a room in a certain area of town that houses a cluster of hotels that are all relative inexpensive. We told them that we would call them on Saturday morning, one hour before the conference was to begin, to give them directions to the meeting location. It’s sad when honest people have to keep such information confidential, but for security concerns, in was absolutely necessary.

To my astonishment, not a single person we called complained, not in the least. Even though the event had to be shortened from a three day meeting to a one day meeting, they were just thrilled that we had decided to not be bullied into submission by threats of violence and dishonest media coverage. The leadership we were showing in the middle of such adversity seemed to inspire them to rally.

Later this afternoon, David Duke held his press conference. Affiliates for all the major networks and several newspaper reporters showed up to ask questions of the man that they had been so relentlessly attacking for the past week. So incredible had this story become by now that the entire Mid-South was talking about us. It had been the lead story for days, with each report becoming increasingly hostile.

I stood just behind the collection of cameras as Duke issued his statement and took questions. I refused to comment to the press, as is my policy when local media inquiries are made to me, but remained shocked to see just how rabidly biased they were against the message of equal rights for White Americans. With the man they love to hate in their cross hairs, they were particularly vicious and condescending, but Duke handled them with mastery, as he usually does.

After the press conference was over, I was standing with David in his hotel room when we heard a knock on the door. It was the manager of the Drury Inn, along with two uniformed police officers. The manager informed Rep. Duke that he had been determined to be a “security risk” to hotel patrons at the hotel and that he would have to vacate his room immediately. Apparently, there had been another bomb threat made due to the fact that the news reported that this was the hotel that Duke was staying at. Keep in mind that Duke was not holding the conference on hotel grounds, he was merely using the room for his private accommodations.

Feeling as though he was being discriminated against, he asked to speak with the corporate management of Drury Inn. The end result was the same, and we were forced to relocate to another hotel across the street. Drury Inn later released a statement to the press informing them that Duke was no longer welcomed on their property. Do you think the same scenario would have unfolded had Jesse Jackson been in that room instead of David Duke? The double standards being employed were egregious.

When you have your legally binding contracts broken without cause, as we did at Whispering Woods, when you are not afforded the freedom to assemble peaceably and exercise your God-given freedom of speech, and when you are not even allowed to sleep in a hotel room because of your beliefs, then what rights do you have? Is this what European Americans can come to expect in the coming Obama Administration?

Undaunted still, we kept charging forward.

Friday, November 7

By now the media had been successful in whipping the local communities into an absolute hysteria. So fearful was the Board of Aldermen of Olive Branch, Mississippi, that they approved an “anti-gathering” ordinance that Mayor Sam Rikard said was prompted by our group.

The ordinance prohibits demonstrations (or meetings) on public property including streets, highways, right of ways, sidewalks, and businesses “in order to properly secure the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the citizens of the City of Olive Branch.” Is this America or Soviet Russia? What freedoms can we depend on if we can’t even discuss the issues vital to our survival?

And this, as Sam Dickson so eloquently says, is the point. The campaign of harassment and persecution conducted against this meeting is vivid confirmation of the fact that contrary to what they claim, our enemies do not represent – and have never represented – freedom, civil liberties, the market place of ideas and all the other virtues they constantly claim for themselves. This is now standard operating procedure for the minority-racist and White liberal coalition and the Establishment it controls.

But, little did the cowards of Olive Branch government know that we had now confirmed a place in Memphis, and would no longer be needing them.

Saturday, November 8

This was it, our day of reckoning. Faced with exhausting nights of endless work, constant badgering from the media, threats against our lives, and an outright logistical nightmare, we prepared ourselves for the day of the conference.

At 6:00 a.m. we began providing our coalition of the willing with the directions to the meeting hall, which was a hotel ballroom within walking distance from where Duke had held his press conference just two days before.

In an expression of the indomitable spirit that makes our race so wonderful, I was overwhelmed to count over two hundred conference attendees on hand after such extraordinary hardships. For the next twelve hours, men and women from France to California cheered and roared as the collection of speakers delivered their presentations from the podium. I was pleased to have been one of them.

I have been a political activist for eight years now, having spent the last four as host of The Political Cesspool Radio Program, and never before have I been so proud of our People. We overcame and endured against all odds. How glorious it was to have the sense of satisfaction that comes in knowing that David Duke, myself, a handful of others who volunteered to see this through to completion, and all of those in attendance, would not surrender. We got the job done and had our conference after all. My heartfelt thanks and appreciation goes out to all of those who were there. Our voices were heard and those who had tried to silence us were routed.

By the time the press (and police, who were there for our security) showed up at the hotel it was too late to stop us. Their very best efforts to run us out of town were not nearly good enough. Never before had I felt so satisfied and so overjoyed. The camaraderie was something to behold, and my heart goes out to those who were not able to be with us. Even learning midway through the day that Duke had been kicked out of another hotel, the nearby Baymont (again for merely being a registered guest there), was not enough to dampen our spirits – or his.

I could write an equally long recap of what took place inside the meeting itself, but I’ll leave that to David Duke. Speaking of Duke, let me say for the record, for the SPLC and ADL, what a tremendous honor it was for me to have worked with him on this conference. We went to war together and scored a victory for the basic civil rights of European Americans, a victory that I hope will be duplicated by others many times over.

After the conference, David appeared as the featured guest on my live broadcast of Political Cesspool and fielded supportive phone calls from across the country. The show was downloaded so many times that it contributed to an RBN server crash. Republic Broadcasting is now working to retrieve the archive. People seem to be waking up.

There is so much more that happened behind the scenes this week, enough stories to fill a book. The meals, the brainstorming, the fellowship, and the ultimate sigh of relief…what a thrill to share such a great experience and to have played a role in the salvaging of this historic gathering.

Let this triumph increase our fierce determination to never retreat, surrender, or apologize when our backs are pushed up against the wall. We owe it to our ancestors, and to our future progeny, to hold the line and be eternally vigilant. The future is what we make it and I choose to fight.

Please feel free to copy this post to your mailing lists or post it to your website(s). This story needs to be told.

Source

The 2008 EURO ConferenceSpeakers!
Group Photo of Speakers at the Nov. 8, 2008 EURO Conference in Memphis, TennesseeDespite repeated attempts to deny White people their rights of Freedom of Speech and peaceful assembly, the 2008 European-American Unity and Rights Conference was a resounding success! We’ll have more photos and audio up shortly, in the meantime you can tune in to Stormfront Radio to hear the conference rebroadcasts and see more photos by browsing the Stormfront conference thread here, at this time portions of the conference audio can also be downloaded here courtesy of humandinosaurs.com. See you all at EURO 2009! — admin

Related article: The biased, dirty, lying Memphis Commercial Appeal Newspaper

Banned video – The Use of Christianity for Political Purposes

From BrasscheckTV –

The current US President sees the war in Iraq as
a Christian crusade…

Is this kind of bizarre thinking a rare and strange
anomaly?

Unfortunately not.

The fact is “Christianity”is frequently co-opted
and its missionaries are often used as a weapons.

Excepts from a often-banned film on this taboo subject:

“In the name of the the Lord…”

Are there good Christians?

Of course, but they need to wake up and confront what’s being done in their name.

This topic – the use of “Christianity” for political purposes – is banned from the news media in the US. In fact, this video has had a lot of trouble staying up on YouTube.

To go deeper into these nefarious practices and who is behind them, try to find a copy of the the book “Thy Will Be Done” by Gerard Colby.

As in Iraq now, and in the New World during its colonization, “missionary” crooks are sent in, sometime with military help and sometimes without, to soften up the hearts and minds of indigenous people and make them easier to conquer.

Separating children from their families, creating social divisions, psychological and sometimes even biological warfare are the tools used.

updated 11/10/2008

Related article:

Hindu Threat to Christians: Convert or Flee

Iraq Veterans Against The War, and peaceful civilians, subjected to brutal police violence during final Presidential Debate

10/29/08: Naomi Wolf interview of Vet Sgt. Matthis Chiroux

Naomi Wolf discusses with Veteran Sergeant Matthis Chiroux the events that took place on October 15th, 2008 at the final Presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.

Debate footage provided by:

PimpinTurtle.Com
Glass Bead Collective
I-Witness Video

http://www.pimpinturtle.com/
http://www.myamericaproject.org/
http://www.glassbeadcollective.org/
http://naomiwolf.org/

Part 1

Obama picks another “super” Zionist – Dennis Ross

WARNING: this video contains offensive language

Photo of the Day – Obama’s disrespect to the Stars and Stripes

Obama's disrespect to the American flag

Obama

There is a picture that has been widely

There is a picture that has been widely circulated on the internet that shows Obama and some other notables, including Hillary Clinton, standing facing the flag while the National Anthem was being played. They all had their hand over their heart except Sen. Obama. who just stood there with his hands at his side. When asked about this he replied, “As I said about the flag pin, I don*t want to be perceived as taking sides. There are  a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.”


He doesn’t want to take sides??? Here is a man who aspires to be the next president of the United States, and he doesn’t want to take sides??? My God, how are we Americans supposed to feel about that kind of remark?

Source: Everything you ever wanted to know about Barak Obama, but were afraid to ask

ALERT: Pentagon Preparing for “Major International Crisis” Within A Month of Inaugural Day

The D.C. boys may be planning the next “false-flag” operation!  WW~


DOD Panel: Next President to ‘Likely’ to Face Crisis in First 270 Days

October 24, 2008 — The next president is likely to face a major international crisis within his first nine months in office, according to a senior group of business advisers to the defense secretary.

Accordingly, the Defense Business Board says the new administration should set a goal to win Senate confirmation of key Pentagon posts in the first 30 days of the inauguration, in order to have a full team in place to deal with such a contingency.

Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board and veteran Pentagon consultant, this week called for the next administration to move quickly to avoid encountering civilian leadership vacuums that often accompany political transitions.

Prepare for a likely first 270 days crisis, Bayer warns in an Oct. 23 briefing. Too many presidents were ill prepared for this.

Joe Biden, the Democratic ticket’s vice presidential nominee, drew criticism earlier this week for suggesting that should he and Barack Obama prevail in the Nov. 4 election, U.S. adversaries will mount an attack of some kind to test the new president.

Bayer’s briefing, presented yesterday to a public meeting of the Defense Business Board, recommends the future president elect and his advisers set aside time in transition to identify the planning, gravitas and interagency process necessary to respond to a likely first-270-day crisis.

For months, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the service chiefs and the Joint Staff have been preparing for the first wartime transfer of Pentagon political authority in four decades. In addition to identifying defense policy issues for an incoming to understand, the military is also on high operational alert, according to a Joint Staff official.

A key goal for the next administration, according to Bayer, must be to fill civilian posts requiring Senate confirmation as soon as possible.

The incoming administration must not wait until June to get assistant secretaries confirmed and October for deputy assistant secretaries to be Senate confirmed, his briefing states.

Need a very concerted, well-defined process to have top 3 tiers ready to go to Senate confirmation in first 30 days, Bayer recommends.

His briefing also notes challenges that nearly every president since Dwight Eisenhower has faced in the early days. In 1953, Eisenhower agreed to work with the British to depose Iran’s prime minister and install the Shah; John Kennedy ordered the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961; Lyndon Johnson in Aug. 1964 had to deal with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which became a pretext for escalating U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

Richard Nixon, in the third month of this presidency in 1969, escalated U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia by ordering aerial attacks against Cambodia and Laos. Jimmy Carter, during his first month in office in 1977, directed unilateral removed of nuclear weapons from South Korea and announced plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops from the peninsula, a step that drew public criticism from then Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, a senior U.S. commander in South Korea, whom Carter relieved of duty. In his fifth month as president, George H.W. Bush, in the summer of 1989, sent the first wave of U.S. military personnel to Panama to set the stage for the launch of Operation Just Cause that December.

Finally, Bayers briefing notes, Bill Clinton, in Feb. 1993, his second month in office, had to manage the World Trade Center bombing; while George W. Bush, in April of his first year in office, dealt with the downing of a Navy spy plane near China. Months later, Bush was faced with the terrorist attacks in September in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. — Jason Sherman

Source

Americans will get what they deserve because they can’t wake-up!

For the past 27 years America suffered under the worst administrations in its entire history.  Now, with the election of Barak Obama, an elitist racist, socialist and another Jewish-Israeli puppet extraordinaire, this country will finally descend into a bottomless hellhole replete with a further loss of civil liberties, overall economic depression and endless wars for “God’s chosen” that might very possibly wipe out the next generation, not to mention countless more Arab civilians.  WW~

Why Obama Will Be Worse Than Bush


To my substantial delight, a movement is already coalescing to impeach President-Elect Obama.

My reaction doesn’t simply reflect my opinion that Obama is uniquely unsuitable to the office he will acquire next January.

I’m of the view that all presidents should be simultaneously inaugurated and impeached, and that there should be a streamlined procedure to expedite their conviction and removal from office upon each president’s first documented violation of his constitutional oath.

This would be more than merely a convenient time-saving measure; it is entirely justified in light of the alacrity with which presidents become enemies of the Constitution. Nearly all newly installed presidents reveal themselves to be perjurers before the echo of their insipid inaugural addresses dies down.

Indeed, in our degenerate socialist democracy it’s impossible for a politician to become a “serious” presidential contender without promising, in extravagant detail, the crime wave he intends to preside over once enthroned.

But since there’s no acceptable procedure for impeaching a candidate before he obtains public office, we would have to settle for a system in which presidents entered the office under the burden of impeachment and haunted by the prospect of immediate removal.

Granted, this would result in an executive turnover akin to that experienced by Argentina following its financial collapse earlier this decade, when that country went through five presidents in less than a year. Governmental paralysis would ensue, with legislation lingering unsigned, executive appointments left unmade, and “rogue” nations left un-bombed.

Some would describe the resulting state of affairs as a crisis. I’d describe it as a miraculous improvement on the status quo.

In an interview with the redoubtable Lew Rockwell, former Federal Judge Andrew Napolitano — one of the few jurists in our history to display actual respect for the Constitution — yielded to what he called the human virtue of hope by opining that it’s possible Barack Obama (we pause to observe a moment of chastened reverence) will prove to be a friend to constitutionally protected individual liberties once he assumes office.

Judge Napolitano correctly points out that Obama, whose absence during critical votes has been a consistent trait of his legislative career, made a point of being present to vote in favor of renewing the PATRIOT [sic] Act and the revised FISA law that supposedly authorized unconstitutional electronic surveillance. (Not mentioned in that interview, but relevant to this discussion, is Obama’s explicit disavowal of any intention to pursue investigations or criminal prosecutions of Bush administration figures implicated in torture and other abuses once he is in office.)

However, Napolitano suggested that those votes reflected a cynical, election-year design on Obama’s part to neutralize criticism that he was in some sense “soft on terrorism.”

So the best case to be made here is that Obama was willing to abet the assault on individual liberties in order to win election so as to be able to undo the damage he helped inflict on the Constitution. This would mean, in principle, that he is willing to impose tangible injury on innocent people in exchange for power while piously insisting on the purity of his intentions.

So we’d be seeing a familiar routine: A politician compromises his professed principles, insisting this is necessary in order to obtain the power he needs to act on those discarded principles.

Judge Napolitano did make a substantive point when he observed that the Democratic Party, unlike the GOP, has a civil liberties constituency, even if its influence is negligible. But whether or not Obama sympathizes with that element of his coalition and harbors a desire to rectify atrocities committed by the Bu’ushists in the realm of civil liberties, the hyper-activist role he prescribes for the State will inevitably mean that his reign will be even worse for individual liberty than that of his predecessor.

During the era of Bush the Lesser, conservatives who claimed to oppose big, intrusive government at home embraced unlimited government for the purpose of conducting imperial warfare abroad. As the history of previous empires demonstrates, pretending that such an arrangement is possible is an exercise in purile self-deception: War is the definitive big government program, and — to quote

James Madison yet again — “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

The same principle applies with even greater acuity to the enhancement of government power for domestic purposes. It is impossible to mobilize government power on behalf of wealth redistribution without commissioning widespread and wholesale violation of individual rights — beginning, obviously, with the fundamental right to own and dispose of one’s wealth and property.

Governments that get really serious about this sort of thing tend to kill all productive activity outright; often the only significant industry that remains is the manufacture of corpses out of once-living, breathing, productive human beings.

Barrack Obama, a one-time professor of constitutional law, has famously criticized the Constitution for defining liberty in terms of “negative” liberties — meaning protections against various forms of state action. This is a hoary truism often invoked in theories of Constitutional law that were rooted in Marxism and nurtured by the federal government’s post-New Deal demand for legal apologists and executors.

Obama, speaking as a state legislator in a recently discovered and inadequately publicized 2001 radio interview, observed that the civil rights revolution of the 1960s sought to overcome this “negative” concept of liberties, but was too wedded to the idea of pursuing its social revolution through the courts.

As he pointed out, “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society…. [O]ne of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.” (Emphasis added.)

Here in one paragraph Obama at once reveals his core ideological commitments and answers the much-asked question, “What does a `community organizer’ actually do?” From Obama’s own words (soon to be printed in double-column, red-letter text on gild-edged, leather-bound paper, according to his more devoted followers) we learn that a community organizer is someone who assembles “coalitions of power” in the interest of “redistributive change.”

This is an elaborate way of saying that a “community organizer” is what less sophisticated people would call a Communist agitator.

Obama, who reads a teleprompter with panache and knows how to pose for a photo, often finds himself foundering when asked to extemporize.

He does have a certain facile glibness of the kind often mistaken for wit, as we saw when he dismissed charges that he is a socialist by “confessing” to sharing his brownies in kindergarten.

This was actually a moment of self-aggrandizing compound dishonesty worthy of Bill Clinton: In one stroke — a carefully rehearsed “spontaneous” one-liner — Obama offered a non-denial of his intentions while at once lying about the nature of socialism and adding another line to his auto-hagiography (a work constantly in progress):

1) And the Child Obama, seeing that the multitudes in his kindergarten were an hungered, did say:
2) Behold, my bosom abounds in compassion for you.

3) Therewith He did take of his brownies and — offering thanks unto the Almighty State for its wisdom in erecting tax-subsidized child care through the great bounty of its divinely plundered wealth — did break them and offer them to the others,

4) saying: Take, and eat; And the other children did eat, and gave thanks to Obama the Blessed for his divine generosity,
5) foreshadowing the day when He, the Embodiment of Change and Hope, would have the power to compel those heedless of the requirements of social justice to surrender their brownies for redistribution to those more worthy.

6) And the Child Obama did wax mighty in the Spirit of Ailinsky, and great wonders were wrought by his hand.

At the risk of committing heresy, I have to point out something His Holiness sought to conceal: Socialism isn’t about sharing one’s own brownies, but rather about the forcible collectivization of brownies by seizing them from others at gunpoint — and then the ever-escalating use of lethal violence to regiment society once the inevitable shortage of brownies (or bread, or any other good subject to distribution through political rather than economic means) develops.

All State efforts to redistribute wealth and regiment the economy are, in principle and generally in practice, warfare against the rights of the governed. Obama’s most impassioned supporters, some of whom have sung arias lamenting the criminal foreign aggression carried out by the Bush Regime, are already chanting hymns of praise in anticipation of the Holy One’s war against the American bourgeois.

Prominent among those psalmists is Norman Solomon, who wrote a splendid book indicting the corrupt entente between the Establishment media and the presidential war making apparatus (War Made Easy:How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death). Solomon insists that Obama’s victory is nothing less than a mandate for war on Americans who stubbornly insist on the sanctity of their personal wealth.

“Two days before he lost the election, John McCain summarized what had become the central message of his campaign: `Redistribute the wealth, spread the wealth around — we can’t do that,’” recalls Solomon. “Oh, yes we can. The 2008 presidential campaign became something of a referendum on `spreading the wealth.’”

Solomon complained — inaccurately, alas — that the Republican presidential campaign “recycled attacks on the principles of the New Deal. Like Franklin Roosevelt when he first ran for president in 1932, Barack Obama put forward economic prescriptions that were hardly radical. Yet, in the next few years, Obama’s administration could accomplish great things — reminiscent of the New Deal….”

Assuming that he’s familiar with the relevant history, Solomon is actually assuming that Obama’s campaign was a work of deliberate deception, as FDR’s initial presidential bid certainly was. As I’ve noted before, the 1932 Democratic platform actually criticized Herbert Hoover from the right, condemning his profligacy, demanding a balanced budget, endorsing a sound currency backed by precious metals and the expansion of free trade. FDR’s first running mate actually accused Hoover of shepherding the United States into socialism.

Once in power, of course, FDR pivoted sharply to the left, filling the executive branch with squalid Bolsheviks and building a corporate socialist state along the lines prescribed by Italian technocrat Giovanni Gentile, a key adviser to a disavowed disciple of Lenin named Benito Mussolini. FDR ran as a conservative, and governed as an aspiring totalitarian.


Obama campaigned as an unabashed European-style socialist and, if he is given the means, will rule like a post-colonial African dictator.


I say the latter not because of Obama’s attenuated African ancestry, but rather because of his preferred style of mobilizing public support — the grotesque Leni Riefenstahl-meets-Tony Robbins public spectacles that portend the advent of an Americanized version of
Africa’s “Big Man” theory of government.

Given Obama’s youth, the bottomless devotion of his followers, the depth of our impending economic disaster, the eagerness of the mass media to help the Holy One “make history,” the well-earned political disintegration of the Republican Party, and the totalitarian powers of the office Obama inherits, he may very well become America’s second president-for-life, following the course set by FDR before he died and went to hell.


Can Obama rule by decree? Thanks to Bush’s example, his answer would be: Yes, I can!

Can he and his followers overturn the 22nd Amendment? Yes, they can!

Can they succeed in creating an egalitarian paradise through forcible redistribution of wealth from the productive to the parasitical?

No — they can’t.

But that won’t stop them from trying, even if they have to destroy what remains of our liberties in the process.
Source

Israeli Settlers “Unrestrained Rampages” in West Bank

Israeli Settler Youth

Israeli Settler Youth

Defeat settler terror

The unrestrained rampages by the settlers, and the insults they heaped on soldiers and policemen who participated in yesterday’s evacuation of the “Federman Farm” near Kiryat Arba, reveal the lawless and dangerous nature of the settlers’ rejectionist front.

The violent behavior of the evacuation’s opponents and the content of their curses cannot be called anything but terrorism, in the literal sense of the word: sowing fear and intimidation. It is hard to think of any other population group in Israel – Jewish or, especially, Arab – that could dare to attack the law enforcement agencies and the Israel Defense Forces in this fashion without being severely punished. Admittedly, Israeli society has become accustomed to giving lawbreaking settlers special treatment. But during this evacuation, they crossed even their own previous bounds of lawlessness.

Inter alia, opponents of the evacuation called for “revenge attacks” against the security forces; told IDF soldiers that “you should all be defeated by your enemies, you should all become [kidnapped soldier] Gilad Shalit, you should all be killed, you should all be slaughtered, because that’s what you deserve”; and set a “price tag” for the evacuation in the form of assaults on IDF and Palestinian property. They damaged the electronic fence that surrounds Kiryat Arba, threw stones at soldiers and Palestinians who live in the area, wounded two border policemen and vandalized their cars, and even destroyed graves in the nearby Muslim cemetery.

As expected, the leaders of the Yesha Council of settlements responded with feigned and hypocritical shock. Granted, they termed the settlers’ statements “extremely grave slander that should be utterly condemned.” But then, of course, they added that these statements “were made by hooligans” (as if Itamar Ben Gvir and Noam Federman were not the darlings of the settler ideology), and even whined and threatened that “this does nothing to lessen the severity of the government’s actions in Hebron, including evacuating a farm where Jews have lived for two years and bringing Palestinian policemen into the city.”

In essence, this is an expression of open support for the scandalous statements made by the “hooligans” – that the IDF has become an army “that protects Hamas, the Ishmael Defense Forces.” There is no doubt that now, all the cards are on the table. It is clear to everyone that the Yesha Council, which in any case is considered too moderate and wishy-washy by the hilltop youth and their fans, has also long since turned its back on national responsibility, and that in its eyes, the law enforcement agencies are legitimate only as long as they serve the council’s goals.

Nevertheless, it seems as if this time, the government has finally understood the magnitude of the threat embodied by these crude statements and equally crude acts of violence. Now, when it is completely clear that the mainstream settlers have been dragged in the wake of this wave of lawlessness, the government must continue evacuating the illegal outposts resolutely and forcefully. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who promised to evacuate 57 outposts like the “Federman Farm,” must defeat this settler terror. Any attempt at compromise, and any negotiations with representatives of the settler “moderates,” would constitute a capitulation to terror and the abandonment of the state to a dangerous group of lunatics who are liable to bring about its destruction.

Source

Related articles: Settlers preparing for war, says Shin Bet chief

In his own words….

Obama’s shocking personal thoughts on the Caucasion (white) race and his promise to bankrupt the U.S. coal industry, which is still nearly 50% of the country’s energy resources.  My suggestion – view the videos immediately before YT censors them.

Unbelievable!!! What does Obama REALLY think of White People?

Obama Hates White People. Race Baiting His Own Words! HE Stated some well meaning white people must be hurt for the good of black people. What is going on?

This is really crazy!

Obama is a dangerous FAR LEFT LIBERAL who will take our country in a way different direction than we have ever seen. Along with Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they will plow through anything they want to impose on the American people. They will also be able to elect Liberal judges who will interpret the constitution in a different way than how it was meant. We need judges who interpret the constitution, and not try to ammend it, as Barack Obama proposed in a 2001 Audio on NPR Radio. Where he stated he wanted the Supreme court to change the constitution to be able to redistribute wealth which was not done for the civil rights struggle.

What the heck??!!!

November SURPRISE Obama to Bankrupt Coal Industry Energy to SKYROCKET!!!

November SURPRISE Obama to Bankrupt Coal Industry

Welcome Bankruptcy! Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana – Vote OBAMA for NO MORE COAL!

Obama’s Words:
Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What Ive said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; its just that it will bankrupt them because theyre going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing Ive said with respect to coal, I havent been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

Its just that it will bankrupt them.

Obama sat with The Chronicle editorial board Jan. 17 for the interview. In his wide-ranging session with the paper, the Democratic senator from Illinois spoke about his energy plan and an “aggressive” cap-and-trade policy, and spoke about coal technology.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” he said. In the same interview, the senator said that “if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.”

Obama is a dangerous FAR LEFT LIBERAL who will take our country in a way different direction than we have ever seen. Along with Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, they will plow through anything they want to impose on the American people. They will also be able to elect Liberal judges who will interpret the constitution in a different way than how it was meant. We need judges who interpret the constitution, and not try to amend it, as Barack Obama proposed in a 2001 Audio on NPR Radio. Where he stated he wanted the Supreme court to change the constitution to be able to redistribute wealth which was not done for the civil rights struggle. What the heck??!!!

Extra: This guy makes a lot of sense.  He also mentions Obama’s support of special interest groups, such as The Sierra Club, which is affiliated with the government’s Agenda 21 plan to confiscate our public lands and box the American people into tightly controlled communities.  Scroll down sidebar for further information.



Obamanation: “Unconstitutional” Mandatory Servitude

Obama’s American Dream: Servitude

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 7, 2008

“When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream,” declares Obama on the newly fashioned Office of the President-Elect website.

Rangel
Charlie Rangle has authored a bill that may be dusted off after Obama enters the Oval Office. It’s called the National Service Act and calls for a universal draft with two years of “service” for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no deferment for college.

Obama’s vision of the American dream, however, will not consist of Americans freely choosing to volunteer to work in their communities and neighborhoods. It will be a requirement. “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” (Emphasis added.)

And it will not simply be the young who will be “called” by government mandate to serve. It will be everybody, including senior citizens. “Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.” The words “call” and “require” appear to be interchangeable in this context.

As the Albuquerque Examiner mentioned yesterday, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, wants compulsory service imposed on eighteen and twenty-five year old Americans. “They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community,” writes Emanuel in his book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America. “These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs.”

It now appears Emanuel’s version of mandatory servitude, masquerading as patriotism, will not be limited to the young but will be imposed on all Americans, including retirees.

In July, Obama revealed his plan for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military. In the speech, Obama said “People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.” He also said this mass movement requiring servitude “will be a central cause of my presidency.”

Charlie Rangle has authored a bill that may be dusted off after Obama enters the Oval Office. It’s called the National Service Act and calls for a universal draft with two years of “service” for virtually all persons aged 18-42, with no deferment for college. The language of Rangel’s bill states that “all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42″ be required to “perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security.”

In the months ahead, we can expect “public service,” i.e., compulsory servitude, to be a mantelpiece of the Obama regime. It will be necessary because Obama will undoubtedly soon have no shortage of enemies — that is to say, people opposed to his policies — and a national Stasi framework, under the rubric of a “civilian national security force,” will be required to ferret out enemies of the state. In addition, “carbon criminals” will need to be identified and rounded up and shipped off to re-education and forced labor camps.

Carbon Criminals

Carbon Criminals

Considering the emotional zeal of Obama’s kool aid drinkers — frighteningly on display as Obama swept the election — there will likely to be no shortage of recruits to enthusiastically enforce his decrees, actually decrees passed down by the globalist New World Order.

In a historical sense, this is fascism on steroids.

Related article: Presumably Obama would ignore the text of the Thirteenth Amendment in order to accomplish this goal, as the Constitution strictly forbids ‘involuntary servitude’, which includes “threatened or actual state-imposed legal coercion” as defined by the Supreme Court.

Blacks Against the Jewish Mafia – Part 1

Update: John pulled this video to update the content and the message.  When he redistributes the video the blog will be updated.  Please excuse the inconvenience.

From Malcolm X, Cynthia McKinney, Professor Tony Martin, 2 Pac (Tupac), and many others, Blacks have stood up against the Jewish Mafia. There is a long history of Jewish crimes against Blacks, as outlined in The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. Along with Walter White, Jr.’s essay entitled “Who Brought the Slaves to America,” that book shows that Jews were responsible for the slave trade of Africans. In Jewish run Hollywood, Blacks are consistently portrayed in the negative and that’s just scratching the surface. Jews also use witting or unwitting White European pawns to inflame racial tensions. Here we will examine brave Black men and women who have spoken out against the Jewish Crime Network.

Source

WARNING: possibly offensive music lyrics

**Related – “Who Brought the Slaves to America” video posted in my VodPod, Blatant Truth.  Scroll down to view.

Three New Jewish Representatives in Congress

capital-bldg

Jewish public’s representatives in Washington strengthen their hold on both chambers of American lawmaking body, with 13 senators and 33 House of Representative delegates

WASHINGTON – Three new Jewish public representatives were elected to the US House of Representatives in Tuesday’s elections, bringing the total number of Jewish senators and House of Representatives members in the United States to 46.

One of the new representatives is Jared Polis, 33, of Colorado, who made history as the first openly homosexual man to run and be elected to the House.

Jewish House of Representatives member Barney Frank was elected to Congress in the past, but came out of the closet only years later and was reelected without any difficulties. Three Jewish senators ran for reelection, and two Democrats managed to keep their seats: Veteran Senator Carl Levin of Michigan and 84-year-old Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

Two Jewish senators from Minnesota, Republican Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken, who starred in the past in late-night series “Saturday Night Live”, were separated by a by a hair’s breadth, automatically leading to a recount.

Some 2.9 million people voted in the election between the two, with Coleman winning by 571 votes.

All the six Jewish Democratic representatives, who have only been serving in the House of Representatives one term, managed to keep their seats: Steve Kagan of Wisconsin, Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, Ron Klein of Florida, John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.

The only Jewish Republican House representative, Eric Cantor of Virginia, was also reelected and is now nominated for a leadership role in the Congress’ Republican faction.

However, not all Jews were successful: A blind rabbi named Dennis Schulman lost in the battle for an election district in New Jersey, and JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People reported that Hank Eng, a Chinese man who married a Jewish woman and converted, fell short in the battle in Colorado.

Democrat Annette Taddeo, a Jew of Colombian descent, lost to Cuban-born Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leader of the Republic minority in the House of Representatives’ Committee on Foreign Affairs and a strong advocate for Israel.

Source

Related: 5 Jewish candidates strive for Senate seats

Israel Intensifying Preparations to Launch Third War Against Lebanon

‘Israel thirsty for new Mideast war’
Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:13:07 GMT

Lebanon’s former president Emile Lahoud

Israel strives to spark military conflict in the Middle East, according to a stark warning from former Lebanese president Emile Lahoud.

“Israel is trying to create war and conflict in the region with fresh schemes, but the Lebanese nation is alert to the new threat and is able to counter it,” said Lahoud in a meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran on Sunday.

“We have to stand united as the future belongs to those nations who fight against oppression and aim for justice,” he told the Iranian president.

His remarks come after the release of reports that Tel Aviv has intensified preparations to launch a third war against Lebanon.

Ahmadinejad responded by praising the Lebanese people for their resistance during the 33-day war Israel waged against the country in the summer of 2006.

“Lebanon’s enemies are weaker than before, and its people are capable of countering Israeli plots,” said Ahmadinejad.

Emile Lahoud (L) and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (R), Tehran, Oct 2

Emil Lahoud and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met amid growing speculation about a possible Israeli military attack against both countries.

On Saturday, 12 Israeli warplanes again violated Lebanese airspace, flying over northern and southern areas of the country.

Israeli warplanes have repeatedly violated Lebanon’s airspace since UN Security Council Resolution 1701 put an end to the July 2006 war.

The Israeli air force has also been preparing for a possible military attack against Iranian nuclear sites.

Pentagon officials revealed in mid June that Israeli warplanes had taken to the skies in the first week of June in what was later cited to be a ‘dress rehearsal’ for an attack on Iran.

The Israeli Air Force employed over a hundred F-15 and F-16 fighter jets, tactical bombers in the maneuver held 900 miles west of Israel off the southern Mediterranean island of Crete, roughly covering the distance from Israeli airfields to an Iranian uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.

Western countries allege that Iran, a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) poses an existential threat to Israel, despite an unprecedented number of UN nuclear watchdog inspections having found no evidence to support claims that Tehran seeks nuclear weaponry.

MJ/CW/AA/DT

US Afghan air strike hits wedding party killing Bride

US airstrike in Afghanistan

US air strikes have been blamed for many civilian deaths

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said about 40 people were killed in a US air strike in southern Kandahar province.

Many more were wounded when a wedding party was hit. US officials confirmed civilian deaths and are investigating.

“We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes,” Mr Karzai said in comments directed at US President-elect Barack Obama.

Mr Karzai has repeatedly criticised the high level of civilian casualties in such bombings.

The latest civilian deaths underline the challenges facing the US president-elect and future commander-in-chief.

Demand

The incident happened late on Monday evening in Shah Wali Kot district, a remote part of Kandahar province.

Map

International forces had been involved in an operation against the Taliban – an air strike was called in but the missile struck a wedding party by mistake, killing as many as 40 people, women and children among them.

“My wounded son was in my arms, right here, bleeding,” the father of the bride, Roozbeen Khan, told AFP news agency. “He died last night.

“I lost two sons, two grandsons, a nephew, my mother and a cousin.”

Villagers said a wedding lunch had just ended when someone, perhaps a Taliban fighter, fired at international troops on a nearby hill, AFP reported. The soldiers returned fire and called in air support.

A spokesman for US forces confirmed there had been civilian casualties and expressed sorrow for what had happened.

An investigation is under way into what went wrong.

In a statement, Mr Karzai demanded an end to civilian casualties.

“My first demand from the US president, when he takes office, would be to end civilian casualties in Afghanistan and take the war to places where there are terrorist nests and training centres,” he told reporters.

The BBC’s Ian Pannell in Kabul says there may be little sympathy for the Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan, but there is even less sympathy for coalition forces when incidents like this leave innocent Afghans dead.

It is likely to loom large in the new relationship between Presidents Karzai and Obama when the new US administration is sworn in, our correspondent says.

Deaths

Correspondents say that civilian casualties are hugely damaging to foreign forces trying to wage a “hearts and minds” campaign in Afghanistan.

Afghan civilian holds a picture of family members allegedly killed by the US

The issue of civilian casualties is hugely controversial

Last month the US military said that air strikes on 22 August killed 33 Afghan civilians, many more than previously acknowledged.

And in another notorious incident, an Afghan parliamentary investigation in July found that a US air strike in the same month killed 47 civilians in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

Regional officials said those casualties were also attending a wedding party and that the bride had been killed.

Figures released in September by the United Nations said there had been a sharp increase in the number of civilian casualties – some caused by the coalition but most by the Taliban – in Afghanistan in 2008.

It said that from January to August 2008, 1,445 civilians were killed – a rise of 39% on the same period last year.

Source

Israeli Will Run Obama White House

Written by Christopher Bollyn


Rahm Emanuel is named after a Zionist fighter who belonged to the Stern Gang, which was a terrorist organization linked with the Nazis. Before moving to Chicago, his father was an active member of this terrorist group of assassins and bombers, which was also known as LEHI. Don’t expect to hear these facts discussed on CNN.

Obama’s first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff” is the headline of a November 6 article in Ha’aretz, the Israeli newspaper. The Israeli editors at Ha’aretz proudly proclaim that Obama’s first pick was “Israeli Rahm Emanuel” to run the next administration. Americans should be aware that Obama’s chief of staff will be an Israeli, with terrorist roots and a clear loyalty to the state of Israel.

Although the Israeli Emanuel has been named as Obama’s chief of staff, none of the Zionist-controlled media outlets in the United States seem as open as Ha’aretz to discuss Emanuel’s family roots with the Nazi-linked Zionist terror gangs in Palestine in the 1930s and 40s. Naftali Bendavid of the Zionist-owned Chicago Tribune, for example, has written a book about Emanuel and spent a great deal of time with him but completely avoids his Israeli roots in the Tribune article he wrote on November 6.

Bendavid wrote that Emanuel “is best known as something of a Democratic political assassin” who “might not appear to be the obvious choice for White House chief of staff for a president-elect who speaks eloquently of setting aside partisan differences and bringing the country together.”

Don’t expect the controlled media to tell you the whole truth about Emanuel’s family ties to real assassins. To get an idea of who Emanuel really is, I recommend my 2006 article, “Son of a Zionist Terrorist — Rahm Emanuel’s Dirty Secret.”

Emanuel even left the United States to serve in the Israeli army in 1991. A person from any other nation would automatically lose his U.S. citizenship for serving in a foreign military. Why do we let Israelis run our government? What will it take to remove people like Emanuel and Michael Chertoff to prevent them from damaging our American republic even more? The Zionist agents in our government are clearly in the process of accumulating power and not at all afraid of showing it. This is a very dangerous development.


Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli soldier and the son of a real Zionist terrorist,
will be the next White House chief of staff.

Americans should note that this means a foreigner, an Israeli, i.e. a person with loyalties to Israel, will be running the White House under Barack Obama. The chief of staff effectively controls the people around the president — he decides who sees him, what he hears, and what he knows. The people surrounding the president report to the chief of staff. Emanuel will be the intellectual handler of President Obama (a continuation of the role he has played for years) and the controller of the White House. How do you think having an Israeli with terrorist roots will affect U.S. relations with Iran, Russia, the Palestinians — and the rest of the world?

NAMED AFTER LEHI TERRORIST

Emanuel’s father said Rahm is “the namesake of Rahamim, a Lehi combatant.” Lehi, a.k.a. the Stern Gang, was the most radical Zionist terrorist group in the 1940s. The Stern Gang killed scores of British soldiers and assassinated Lord Moyne and Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations envoy from Sweden, as well as hundreds of innocent Palestinians such as the civilian population of Deir Yassin. This Zionist terror group was allied with the Nazis in their war against the British. Both of Emanuel’s parents, Benjamin Emanuel (formerly Auerbach) and Marsha Smulevitz, lived in Israel and both are related to Lehi fighters. This is to say that Emanuel’s father, a Jew, fought with the Nazis.

Rahm Emanuel is the same Israeli who ran the White House under Bill Clinton, although he did not have the chief of staff position. He is the person who pushed through the disastrous NAFTA legislation. It should be remembered that it was during the Clinton administration, while the president dallied with his chunky Jewish girlfriend, that the foundation of the Zionist terror network that pulled off 9-11 was laid. Now, Emanuel, the son of a terrorist and assassin, will be back in the Oval Office.

Important Note: The article continues below.

If you appreciate my articles, please send a donation by PayPal to

Donations can also be sent to:
Christopher Bollyn, 3 Golf Center, Suite 365, Hoffman Estates, IL 60169

Thank you. Your support is needed to continue my work.


Emanuel has controlled Obama for years.
His brother is the agent for Michael Moore, who joked about
Emanuel’s appointment on the Larry King Show. Moore is a Zionist shill.

Emanuel, the son of an Israeli terrorist (Irgun and Lehi) is part of the Chicago-based Zionist political team with David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist. Obama thanked David Axelrod by name during his victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. Axelrod’s father, Joseph, a Jewish immigrant from someplace near the Black Sea, hanged himself in 1974 when David was a 19-year-old student at the University of Chicago. His mother was a communist journalist in New York.


David Axelrod ran the Obama campaign.

Rahm Emanuel, who is named after a Lehi (Stern Gang) terrorist named Rahamim Cohen, and David Axelrod have been working together since 1984 when they teamed up to help Paul Simon (Mr. Bowtie) defeat Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.)

These two Zionist extremists were not working for reform in Illinois; their only agenda was to defeat the incumbent Sen. Percy because of his senior position on the Foreign Relations Committee and his outspoken criticism of Israel. These Zionist gangsters went on to support the Chicago mayoral campaign of Richard M. Daley, the son of Richard J. Daley. These are the two Zionist punks who put Barack Obama into the White House.

CHANGE?

In October I warned readers that the Obama ticket was really a hard-core Israeli ticket in disguise. In my article “Colin Powell: Liar & War Criminal Endorses Obama” I advised my readers of the Israeli gangsters behind Obama:

Powell’s endorsement of Obama, a puppet of the Israeli Rahm Emanuel, has less to do with Obama’s African roots than it does with getting Emanuel and his Zionist gangsters back into control of the Oval Office. Emanuel, the real boss of the Democratic party is the son of a real Israeli terrorist (Irgun and Lehi) and thug-in-chief of the party.


The Israeli Emanuel will manage the Obama White House.

AN ISRAELI CHIEF OF STAFF?

What can we expect from the Obama presidency? Elected on a platform of “Change” after 8 years of an unpopular and dictatorial regime, we would expect to see changes of the disastrous policies of the Bush administration.

What changes will we see? Will we see an end to the costly and illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Will the senior officials of the Bush administration who willfully lied to start these wars of aggression be held accountable for their war crimes? Will we finally have a proper and independent investigation of 9-11? Will the ghoulish Israeli Michael Chertoff be fired and his oppressive Department of Homeland Security dismantled?

If the war criminals are not held accountable and the most egregious criminal policies of the Bush administration are not changed and reversed – what exactly does the Obama “Change” slogan mean? Changing the curtains? Changing the Israelis in the White House?

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel, Clinton’s senior adviser, to run the Obama White House does not look like a positive change. I was hoping for someone like Michael Jordan to be the next secretary of state. Rather than Israelis like Emanuel, we need people like Jordan in power to turn our national game around.


Michael Jordan would be an ideal U.S. Secretary of State.

Jordan is impressive, has a strong strategic mind, and knows how to win against incredible odds. We’ve seen him do it many times. He is articulate, greatly admired around the globe — and he can fly. Under Barack Obama and old foreign policy hand Sen. Joe Biden, who could possibly be a better representative for the new administration than Michael Jordan? (Of course, Jordan would probably refuse to work with a nasty fellow like Emanuel, but he could stuff the Israeli.)


Michael Jordan with the Chicago Bulls

But the announcement that Obama has chosen an Israeli to run the White House staff has dashed any hopes we might have of a American “Dream Team,” with Michael Jordan or not, in the next administration. Rather than having a team of strong, smart, and patriotic Americans who can restore the American dream and soar, we will probably wind up with a bunch of nasty Zionist Jews who can’t even jump and couldn’t care less about America. Emanuel’s staff will probably be more of an Israeli dream team of radical Zionists — but what consequences will that have for America — and the Middle East?

Here is the complete text of the Ha’aretz article:

Obama’s first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff

By Anshel Pfeffer and Shlomo Shamir
Haaretz Correspondents and AP

A day after his historic election to become the first black American president, Barack Obama stepped into the role of president-elect yesterday, inviting Rahm Emanuel to join his administration as White House chief of staff, Democratic officials said.

Emanuel, a former Bill Clinton adviser, is the son of a Jerusalem-born pediatrician who was a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

Obama intends to announce key cabinet and staff staff members in the next few days to ensure a swift transition to the White House in January, which would allow him to deal with the global economic crisis as quickly as possible.

If Emanuel accepts, he will return to the White House, where he served as a political and policy adviser to Clinton . Emanuel is the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives as the Democratic Caucus chairman.

Emanuel knows Obama from his hometown Chicago and headed the special team that planned the midterm elections in 2006, in which the Democrats recaptured a Congressional majority.

Emanuel also served as inspiration for the fictional character Joshua “Josh” Lyman, the deputy White House chief of staff, played by Bradley Whitford on the television drama “The West Wing.”

Obama is expected to appoint loyal advisers and aides to central cabinet and staff positions, as well as experienced officials from the Clinton administration and a few prominent Republicans to enhance his intention to bridge political gaps.

Several Democrats said Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the party’s 2004 presidential nominee, was actively seeking appointment as secretary of state in the new administration.

They said Obama would issue a written statement announcing that his transition team would be headed by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff under Clinton; Pete Rouse, who has been Obama’s chief of staff in the Senate; and Valerie Jarrett, a friend of the president-elect and campaign adviser.

One of the most talked-about appointments is the Treasury Department secretary. The names most mentioned for this post are former Clinton administration Treasury bosses Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin. Or Obama might keep Secretary Henry Paulson.

Other candidates include a former Summers deputy, Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York , and billionaires Warren Buffett and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The president-elect had breakfast yesterday with his wife and daughters, then left his house for a workout at a nearby gym. Aides said he intended to visit his campaign headquarters later in the day to thank his staff.

Obama has 10 weeks to build a new administration. But his status as an incumbent member of Congress presents issues unseen since 1960, when Democrat John F. Kennedy moved from the Senate to the White House.

Rahm Emanuel’s father, Benjamin, yesterday refused to comment on the report that his son was appointed White House chief of staff. He told Haaretz that he would only comment after speaking to his son.

“Obama is a pro-Israeli leader and will be a friend to Israel ,” he said, adding that he was pleased with Obama’s election. He also said his son is the namesake of Rahamim, a Lehi combatant who was killed.


Sources and Recommended Reading

Bollyn, Christopher, “Son of a Zionist Terrorist: Rahm Emanuel’s Dirty Secret,” 2006

Bollyn, Christopher, “Colin Powell: Liar & War Criminal Endorses Obama,” October 16, 2008
http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/euhispol/senior-war-criminal-endorses-obama/

Bendavid, Naftali, “Rahm Emanuel mulls chief of staff role in Barack Obama’s administration,” Chicago Tribune, November 6, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-rahm6nov06,0,2553769.story

“Obama’s first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff,” November 6, 2008, Ha’aretz
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1034855.html

http://www.bollyn.info/home/articles/polphil/rahm-emanuel-and-barack-obama

Source

Related article:

Rahm ‘Israel’ Emanuel & the North American Mossad

Obama Advisors Discuss Preparations for War on Iran

On the eve of the US elections, the New York Times cautiously pointed on Monday to the emergence of a bipartisan consensus in Washington for an aggressive new strategy towards Iran. While virtually nothing was said in the course of the election campaign, behind-the-scenes top advisers from the Obama and McCain camps have been discussing the rapid escalation of diplomatic pressure and punitive sanctions against Iran, backed by preparations for military strikes.

The article entitled “New Beltway Debate: What to do about Iran” noted with a degree of alarm: “It is a frightening notion, but it not just the trigger-happy Bush administration discussing—if only theoretically—the possibility of military action to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program… Reasonable people from both parties are examining the so-called military option, along with new diplomatic initiatives.”

Behind the backs of American voters, top advisers for President-elect Barack Obama have been setting the stage for a dramatic escalation of confrontation with Iran as soon as the new administration takes office. A report released in September from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington-based think tank, argued that a nuclear weapons capable Iran was “strategically untenable” and detailed a robust approach, “incorporating new diplomatic, economic and military tools in an integrated fashion”.

A key member of the Center’s task force was Obama’s top Middle East adviser, Dennis Ross, who is well known for his hawkish views. He backed the US invasion of Iraq and is closely associated with neo-cons such as Paul Wolfowitz. Ross worked under Wolfowitz in the Carter and Reagan administrations before becoming the chief Middle East envoy under presidents Bush senior and Clinton. After leaving the State Department in 2000, he joined the right-wing, pro-Israel think tank—the Washington Institute for Near East Policy—and signed up as a foreign policy analyst for Fox News.

The Bipartisan Policy Center report insisted that time was short, declaring: “Tehran’s progress means that the next administration might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat.” It rejected out-of-hand both Tehran’s claims that its nuclear programs were for peaceful purposes, and the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by US intelligence agencies which found that Iran had ended any nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The report was critical of the Bush administration’s failure to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, but its strategy is essentially the same—limited inducements backed by harsher economic sanctions and the threat of war. Its plan for consolidating international support is likewise premised on preemptive military action against Iran. Russia, China and the European powers are all to be warned that their failure to accede to tough sanctions, including a provocative blockade on Iranian oil exports, will only increase the likelihood of war.

To underscore these warnings, the report proposed that the US would need to immediately boost its military presence in the Persian Gulf. “This should commence the first day the new president enters office, especially as the Islamic Republic and its proxies might seek to test the new administration. It would involve pre-positioning US and allied forces, deploying additional aircraft carrier battle groups and minesweepers, and emplacing other war materiel in the region,” it stated.

In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.

Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.

Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.

As the New York Times noted on Monday, Obama defense adviser Richard Danzig, former navy secretary under Clinton, attended a conference on the Middle East convened in September by the same pro-Israel think tank. He told the audience that his candidate believed that a military attack on Iran was a “terrible” choice, but “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice”. Richard Clarke, who was also present, declared that Obama was of the view that “Tehran’s growing influence must be curbed and that Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.” While “his first inclination is not to pull the trigger,” Clarke stated, “if circumstances required the use of military force, Obama would not hesitate.”

While the New York Times article was muted and did not examine the reports too deeply, writer Carol Giacomo was clearly concerned at the parallels with the US invasion of Iraq. After pointing out that “the American public is largely unaware of this discussion,” she declared: “What makes me nervous is that’s what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.”

Giacomo continued: “Bush administration officials drove the discussion, but the cognoscenti were complicit. The question was asked and answered in policy circles before most Americans know what was happening… As a diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in those days, I feel some responsibility for not doing more to ensure that the calamitous decision to invade Iraq was more skeptically vetted.”

The emerging consensus on Iran in US foreign policy circles again underscores the fact that the differences between Obama and McCain were purely tactical. While millions of Americans voted for the Democratic candidate believing he would end the war in Iraq and address their pressing economic needs, powerful sections of the American elite swung behind him as a better vehicle to prosecute US (/Israeli) economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and Central Asia—including the use of military force against Iran.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/nov2008/iran-n06.shtml

Source