November 15, 2009

The USA claims to be a Christian country and to respect the Christian values - is it so?

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" - (Matthew 26:52).

In 1991Saddam Hussein's entered Kuwait to take over it's oil fields. We actually encouraged him through our ambassador by reportedly telling that we would not mind this move against Kuwait. Did we double cross our old friend Saddam? Had we already decided to get rid of him?

With Kuwait's oil Saddam could of course become the most powerful man in the Middle-East dwarfing our real frieds the Saudi Family. So as a pre-emptive move we trapped him to have a legal way to eliminate him. When we attacked him in 1991 he realized instantly our betrayal and retreated to Baghdad hoping that this would be enough. Our president at the time fell to this and we lost the immediate opportunity and the window closed.

Then 9/11 came as a gift from two Gods - was it a joint plot by Saudi's and the White House? Perhaps not but for whatever reason nobody can find Osama bin Laden regardless that the reward would make the recipients wealthy beyond their dreams and give them new identity and a far away place to live.

After 9/11 we had now a sellable reason to invade Iraq. This plan thouigh had to be doctored to the details for over a year so that it all looked legitimate both for the UN and the super majority of the least educated Americans. It did not matter what the rest of them though as the super majority could be called onto the streets. Like his father in 1991 stated: "Our Nation entered this conflict reluctantly", his son W Bush did not behave any differently when he ordered bombing of Bagdhad and destruction of most of Iraq's governmental buildings in 2003. This would take the country back in time for several decades and Saudi empire was safe.

We have never bees shy in starting any wars on foreign soil. Since the independence we have been involved in 102 wars and 293 military deployments both at home and around the globe. We have stayed in many countries to make sure that the locals know whom to listen. This has been very profitable as nothing beats favorable trade agreements. For the first 150 years or so we used to support governments that were run by our puppets or military whichever worked better for the locals. After the WW II the political lanscape around the globe had changed and we found ourselves in hot water with our old frieds. So we srtarted organizing spontanic "democratic" revolutions. Sometimes these worked for us but not every time and we got places like Cuba. We could no more however just assassin the leaders as they knew now how to make an equal service.

With knew this to come one day like the French revolution had shown and just in case we together with UK cultivated a replacement for all the dirty work from the emerging Zionist movement that hoped some day to gain back their ancestors lands in area that is called Palestine.

Who are these Zionists? They are hard working and well educated people. They had already tested theri powers with what Marx and Engels had told anmd during the second attempt they succeeded to overthrow the corrupted government of Russia but could not survive the Nationalistic power that rose aginst them. They saw another opportunity in Germany but still underestimated the Nationalistic power of the people. They learned plenty in this process and by moving much slower now they have taken over the US political system. They have been very careful not to insulting the Nationalistic feelings of the people and with that change they are still in power. It is amazing how just a little over 1% of the population can control 99% of it without the 99% even knowing that they are controlled.

Some people are apparently realizing this strange power structure and are forming armed militia groups mostly from police and military reservists that in this time swear allegiance to the US constitution word by word exactly like when they enter the US armed forces with one exception. The leave the US president out as the president is the commander of the US miltary machinery. Perhaps people at large are getting fed-up under the rule of this 1% that seem to take our sons and doughters to fight foreign wars. Nobody in government seem to be able to explain why we are fighteing these wars. Nobody on the street can see any benefits they get only the bodies of their friends that come back in gaskets.

In theory the Zionists are the most powerful people on earth as long as the majority in the USA is slubering in their chairs watching football and baseball as their only activity. With this the Zionists execute their ruthless plan to re-populate Israel and drive the indigenous population out to excile, powerty, sickness and death while keeping their young to support thgeir families as day laborers i.e. semi "free" slaves. Soon enough this all will come to an end.

The drive by Israelis to get back their ancestors' lands was already alive before it's official approval through Balfour Declaration.

Back in time the Israelis started abandoning their homeland already over 2,800 years ago for a better life elsewhere. It never materialized as the local people everywhere at the end always rejected them. No nation will ever accept a growing group of outsiders moving in, staying separate from the population, profiting from the locals by minimizing bilateral exchange of goods and services. When they additionally have their own exclusive religion and using that avoid all deeper ties to the population it is always just a question of time before they are thrown out. The samrt ones see it coming and move away while the dumber ones get executed one way or the other.

This has happened so many times that it was finally recognized as reality to be recognized by a man that they now call as father of the modern political Zionism with a name Theodore Herzl. We do not yet know enough of this issue but slowly all of it is surfacing in the internet regardless that disinfomation is propelled up by the supportes of the current Regime of the Zionists in Israel.

Here is what we know so far:

1. The first Jewish diaspora started aroud 8th-6th century BC.
2. Around 600 AD the Khazars of the Russian plains living between the Black Caspian sees and practicing a phallic religion adopted Judaism. They had one simple reason for this: they wanted to survive as a Nation. Their remaining option was to adopt Judaism as it was the only monoteistic religion outside Islam and Christianity.
3. During the next 1,000 years the descendants of the Jews being now in increasing numbers desecndats of Khazars gained experience in different parts around the Europe. The eye opener for them what they should do was the initial huge success of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer during 1730's in Germany.
4. The key for this success was the Kol Nidre Prayer that remains solidly as a part of their annual temple rituals and the cornerstone of the Judaism. This prayer is actually a vow that makes moccery of all the other vows on the planet. They deny this, as the Muslims deny Jihad as part of their their purpose on earth.
5. The next step was Karl Marx who together with Frederick Engels published the book, "Communis Manifesto". This book changed the world and the impact of it is still felt around the globe through China who is developing their concept of communism that ideally gives the "power to the people" - exactly as the elections in the USA are supposed to accoplish.
6. In 1875 the Jewsih banking empire of Rothschilds enter the picture after successfully financing the acquisition of Suez Canal to the British Empire.
7. A secret plan to re-populate Israel by taking the lands currently owned by the Palestinians by any means was put in motion in 1882.
8. In 1896 Theodore Herzl, and Austro-Hungarian journalist, became the father of the modern political Zionism with a dream of a Jewish homeland again.
9. In 1900 about 25,000 Jews and 650,000 Palestuinians lived in Palestine.
10. In 1913 the banking empires of Europe succeeded finally establishing their own central bank to the USA. THis bank was and remains solidly under their control through their subsidiaries in the USA filled the official requirements of corporate citizenship. It took these banking empires almost 100 years of relentless lobbying of the US Congress but the Central bank of the USA we know as Federal Reserve Bank or FED was finally theirs. The owners of this private bank included such Zionist players like the Rothschilds, and a modern banking power house we know as Goldman Sachs, with many others.
11. In the aftermath of World War I Germany was put to it's knees by the allied forces with total, support of the Jewish and Zionist communities around the Europe and USA. The Zionists had a plan behind this all that they would allow them to take over the soon to be bankrupt Germany and with that have the control of the German miltary and industrial machinery.
12. The Russian revolution of 1917 was originally initiated and run by Jews and Zionists as an experiment around the teachings of Marx and Engels with Lenin emerging as one of the most powerfull leaders amongst them.
13. In 1924 after death of Lenin (murder) Stalin took all power in Russia and started purging the Jews and Zionists from all Russian leasdership positions.
14. Planned or not the attempt to destroy Germany brought Adolf Hitler to power and that sealed the faith of Zionism in Germany.

To make it short in 1946 the world said, fine the people of Israel, we can arrange you access to your ancestor's lands but when you go there you must compensate fairly all those who's land you can get. It has not gone this way at all. There is only violence and no real compensation to those who have lost their lands by actual transactions or simply by violence.

How long will the world accept this the ongoing atrocities in all Palestinian lands? And more importantly can this injustice at the end take also the USA down. Her vital signs are telling that this is actually happening right now! The Congress and White House reamain unaware and fully asleep what is happening around them while relentless chutzpah continues in all Palestinian lands 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!

November 10, 2009

Is the newsmedia serving us or somenbody else...?

Here is the story about the tragic shooting of 13 young servicemen in a Texas military base by a lonely army psychiarist who did not want to go to Afghanistan to oppose his fellow Muslims. Judge yourself, if the news media is serving us or the causes of the Dark Lords behind Mr. Zuckerman. We here are simple people and suggest that you ask one question from yourself: "should I be honest with myself?"

Remember that when we were young media was disciplined enough not to report until they knew the facts - no more the case! Adolf Hitler was master in manipulating the public opinion and again that today is more important than the real facts! The following is an extract from what was reported to us in the order it was reported by the major news networks. They know perfectly well their job and responsibilities towards us as the "free" citizerns of the Nation:

"Fort Hood: A media orgy of rumors, speculation and falsehoods..."

"Much of the initial coverage turned out to be wrong. By Glenn Greenwald: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15948

Upon reading that, I went to Hot Air to read what he had written, and it's actually quite revealing -- not in terms of what it reveals about Hot Air (that topic wouldn't warrant a post) but, rather, what it reveals about major media coverage of these sorts of events.  Allahpundit's post consists of a very thorough, contemporaneous, and -- at times -- appropriately skeptical chronicling of what major media outlets were reporting about the Fort Hood attack, combined with his passing along of much unverified gossip and chatter from Twitter, most of which turned out to be false.

But shouldn't there be some standards governing what gets reported and what is held back?  Particularly in a case like this -- which, for obvious reasons, has the potential to be quite inflammatory on a number of levels -- having the major media "report" completely false assertions as fact can be quite harmful.  It's often the case that perceptions and judgments about stories like this solidify in the first few hours after one hears about it.  The impact of subsequent corrections and clarifications pale in comparison to the impressions that are first formed.  Despite that, one false and contradictory claim after the next was disseminated last night by the establishment media with regard to the core facts of the attack.  Here are excerpts from Allahpundit's compilation, virtually all of which -- except where indicated -- came from large news outlets:

Number of shooters

The fact that at least three gunmen are involved already has Shuster and Miklaszewski mentioning similarities to the Fort Dix Six plot on MSNBC . . . two of the gunmen are still at large and one has fired shots at the SWAT team on the scene . . . . New details from CNN: One gunman "neutralized," one "cornered," no word on the third. . . . Whether there are two shooters or three seems to be in dispute at the moment, but there's certainly more than one:  The second shooting on the base evidently occurred at a theater. . . . Fox News says there are reports that the men were dressed in fatigues. . . . MSNBC TV says two shooters are in custody now. . . . it sounds like both shooters are military . . .According to MSNBC, there were three shooters. . . In case you're wondering whether the other two soldiers in custody were actual accomplices or just being questioned because they knew Hasan, Rick Perry just said at the presser he's holding that all three were shooters. . . . Hearing rumblings on Twitter right now that Perry was wrong and that the two other "suspects" have now been released. Was Hasan, in fact, a lone gunman? . . . . According to the general conducting the briefing going on right now, he appears to be a lone gunman.

The fate of the shooter

One of the shooters is dead. . . One is dead, two more are in custody. Has there ever been a case of "battle stress" that involved a conspiracy by multiple people? . . . So poor and fragmented have the early media reports about this been that only now, after 9 p.m. ET, do we learn that ... Hasan's still alive. He's in stable condition.

The weapons used

M-16s involved: . . . From the local Fox affiliate, how it all went down. Evidently McClatchy's report of M-16s was wrong:

The shooter's background

According to Brian Ross at ABC, Hasan was a convert to Islam. . . . Contra Brian Ross, the AP says it's unclear what Hasan's religion was or whether he was a convert. . . . Apparently, one of Hasan's cousins just told Shep that he's always been Muslim, not a recent convert. . . .

I'm hearing on Twitter that Fox interviewed one of his neighbors within the last half-hour or so and that the neighbor claims Hasan was handing out Korans just this morning. Does anyone have video? . . . . "Brenda Price of KUSJ reported to Greta at 10:33: 'also, the latest I am hearing, this morning, apparently according to his neighbors, he was walking around kind of giving out his possessions, giving away his furniture, handing out the Koran...'" . . .: Evidently CNN is airing surveillance footage from a convenience store camera taken this just morning showing Hasan in a traditional Muslim cap and robe. . . "A former neighbor of Hasan's in Silver Spring, Md. told Fox News he lived there for two years with his brother and had the word ‘Allah' on the door."

Miscellaneous claims

Good lord — there's a report from BNO News on Twitter that new shooting is being heard on the base. . . . For what it's worth, an eyewitness report of Arabic being shouted during the attack: . . .Federal law enforcement officials say the suspected Fort Hood, Texas, shooter had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats. . . . The $64,000 questions: What was he doing at Fort Hood among the population if he thought suicide bombers were heroes?

Isn't it clear that anyone following all of that as it unfolded would have been more misinformed than informed?

The New York Times' Robert Mackey did an equally comprehensive job of live-blogging the media reports, and his contemporaneous compilation reflects many of these same glaring errors in the coverage:  "CNN reports that two military sources say that the second gunman at Fort Hood is 'cornered' . . . Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison told Fox 4 News in Texas that one shooter was in custody and 'another is still at large' . . . CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reports that 12 people have been killed and up to 30 wounded. One of the dead is said to have been one of the gunmen. . . . Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, just revealed that earlier reports that the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Hasan, had been killed were incorrect. Major Hasan was wounded but remains alive."

Perhaps most irresponsible of all is the unverified claim that Hasan had written on the Internet in defense of suicide attacks by Muslims, even though the origins of those writings are entirely unverified.  Similarly, certain news organizations -- like NPR -- used anonymous sources to disseminate inflammatory claims about Hasan's prior troubles allegedly grounded in activism on behalf of Islam.  Much of this may turn out to be true once verified, or it may not be, but all of the conflicting, unverified claims flying around last night enabled many people to exploit the "facts" they selected in order to create whatever storyline that suited them and their political preconceptions -- and many, of course, took vigorous advantage of that opportunity.

I'm obviously ambivalent about the issues of media responsibility raised by all of this.  It's difficult to know exactly how the competing interests should be balanced -- between disclosing what one has heard in an evolving news story and ensuring some minimal level of reliability and accuracy.  But whatever else is true, news outlets -- driven by competitive pressures in the age of instant "reporting" -- don't really seem to recognize the need for this balance at all.  They're willing to pass on anything they hear without regard to reliability -- to the point where I automatically and studiously ignore the first day or so of news coverage on these events because, given how these things are "reported," it's simply impossible to know what is true and what isn't.  In fact, following initial media coverage on these stories is more likely to leave one misled and confused than informed.  Conversely, the best way to stay informed is to ignore it all -- or at least treat it all with extreme skepticism -- for at least a day.

The problem, though, is that huge numbers of people aren't ignoring it.  They're paying close attention -- and they're paying the closest attention, and forming their long-term views, in the initial stages of the reporting.  Many people will lose their interest once the drama dissolves -- i.e., once the actual facts emerge.  Put another way, a large segment of conventional wisdom solidifies based on misleading and patently false claims coming from major media outlets.  I don't know exactly how to define what the balance should be, but particularly for politically explosive stories like this one, it seems clear that media outlets ought to exercise far more restraint and fact-checking rigor than they do.  As it is, it's an orgy of rumor-mongering, speculation and falsehoods that play a very significant role in shaping public perceptions and enabling all sorts of ill-intentioned exploitation."

There is nothing to add. Garbage in Garbage out!