John Sez: It seems that Tony Blair definitively knew that the whole WMD in Iraq story was based on bad intelligence, and yet he led his country into an alliance of war with the US against Iraq.

That being said, if Blair knew about this intelligence is there any doubt at all that Bush and company knew what Blair knew – and probably a whole lot more as well. The only question left is this: why are these people not being brought before a trail or tribunal for lying their respective countries into war against a sovereign nation and causing millions of deaths in the process? Wouldn’t that send a clear and simple message that the people of the world will no longer tolerate half-assed, greedy dictators to spill the blood of innocent lives (while raking in untold billions in profit)?

Or is that just the message that the powers that be are afraid will resonate with people around the world?

Story from the Daily Mail:

Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs
By Tim Shipman

The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.

The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.

And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.

On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y6jWqiTA
 
 
John Sez: Wow, just a few days after ‘Climategate” breaks and now we have even more pieces of the puzzle falling into place.

The next few weeks should be interesting for this story.

Story from the Telegraph:

Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: It seems that hackers have broke into the e-mail system of the University of East Anglia (the most prominent center for research into the supposed theory of ‘global warming’) and what they found and later released are thousands of correspondences that seem to indicate that the most prominent people in the movement have fudged scientific data, manipulated research to suit their agenda, concealed evidence that went against their theory, made a concerted effort to publicly demonize anyone who argued with their agenda, and even suppressed doubt from scientists in their own community about the theory of global warming itself.

One could say that the data recovered by the hackers is a fake perpetrated by those who oppose the theory…after all, the debate (where it is allowed to happen) is hot and heavy. But representatives of The University of East Anglia have admitted to the press that these are indeed their e-mails.

In other words, everything that we have been told by proponents of the global warming theory is a potential fraud.

Science, no matter the discipline, is always plagued by a certain amount of politics and internal pressure. But the outright lies which have built up the case for global warming have caused a great deal of global damage.

The entire ‘climate bill’ passed by Congress a few months ago (which basically sets up a frame work for  a new economic stock market of sorts centered around carbon emissions as well as an excuse for the government to spy on your home with carbon emission monitors) and similar laws passed in numerous countries around the world, the amount of money that has gone to organizations who are supposedly on the ‘right side’ of the debate and into the pockets of the already super-wealthy (like Al Gore), and the hundreds of billions  of tax dollars which have been sunk into projects to combat something which may not even exist, are now shown in a new light – a light that tears down the wall put up by the cronies of the corporations and politicians who have been fronting this special interest group, and replaces it with a large, open field of debate which will hopefully destroy this fraudulent movement once and for all.

Now don’t get me wrong – I know full well that the amount of pollution on our planet can only prove disastrous to everything that lives upon it. We can only rape the planet for so long, before ‘mother’ decides to scold her children.

But imagine if all the energy, money and political power were going towards stopping the real reasons our planet is falling apart (in my opinion the massive dumping of waste by corporations, the suppression of real alternative energy by the powers that be, the amount of junk floating around in our orbit, and the wanton destruction of the last remaining bits of untamed land are great places to focus these resources) instead of backing a fraudulent neo-religion, which does nothing more than allow for a destruction of civil liberties and moves massive amounts of wealth into the same pockets of those who have screwed up our planet in the first place.

What a wonderful world.

For the full story read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And here is video break down of the story and what it could mean from film maker and radio host, Alex Jones:

 
 
John Sez: Author Jeremy Scahill in a recent interview with Rachel Maddow on Obama and Blackwater poses an interesting proposition. With all the bad that Blackwater has done, ranging to bribery to outright mass murder, why are they still garnering contracts from the federal government worth billions of dollars? One would think that Nobel Peace Prize recipient Obama would put his foot down and cancel the contracts of these goons and psychopaths. One would think that, but one would be proven wrong as Blackwater is still on the job.

Scahill offers up the premise that the reason that these murderers for hire are still in business due to their knowing a whole lot of dirty little secrets about the wars we are fighting and, perhaps, knowing where all the bodies are buried so to speak. Basically his claim is that the government is being blackmailed by Blackwater in order to keep them on the payroll.

At first, such an accusation would seem ludicrous on its face. But considering what lengths Obama has gone through to protect the last administration from facing a huge variety of charges (including war crimes) and how hard he has fought to keep the torture photos from ever seeing the light of day, it makes all too perfect sense that he would do the same for the cream-of-the-scumbag crop known as Blackwater (or Xe, or whatever they are calling themselves these days), all in the name of saving the Federal government ‘embarrassment’.

I guess this may be more of that change we can believe in, eh?

Story from Raw Story:

Scahill: Obama may be afraid of Blackwater

Despite news reports that the security contractor formerly known as Blackwater has seen its contracts dry up and its influence wane, the company continues to do brisk business in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the Obama administration may be too afraid of the firm to do anything about it, says investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill.

"You know who's guarding Hillary Clinton in Afghanistan right now? Blackwater," Scahill told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Tuesday night. "You know who guards members of Congress? Blackwater. They have half a billion dollars in contracts in Afghanistan right now. CIA, State Department, Defense Department. Why is President Obama keeping these guys on the payroll? There has never been a company in recent history that made the case that corporations are corrupt, evil organizations [better] than Blackwater."

Scahill was on The Rachel Maddow Show discussing the New York Times' revelation that senior Blackwater executives allegedly arranged for bribes of up to $1 million for Iraqi politicians in a bid to retain its contracts and silence criticism of the company in the wake of the Nissour Square massacre in 2007, in which 17 Iraqi civilians died after Blackwater guards opened fire.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: As I mentioned recently, the whole health care reform debacle is a sham; nothing more than the government forcing all Americans to buy health insurance out of their own pocket (much in the same way as auto and homeowner’s insurance) from the same insurance companies who have been screwing us all along, then taxing us on top of that for the privilege of being forced to purchase health insurance out of our own pocket.

One of the more nefarious parts of the recently passed bill is that those who do not buy this government mandated insurance will face fines, tax penalties, and potential jail time.

But Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner himself, he would never allow jail time for those who can’t or won’t by this health insurance, right? Let’s see what the President said about that very subject in a recent interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News:

“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don't, you're subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it's affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there's a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are -- are burdened by because of the fact that people don't have health insurance, you know, there's nothing wrong with a penalty.”

Hmmmmm…so can we expect to see our prisons filling up with ‘insurance resistors” in the near future?

It seems to me that many people seem to still think that this is all a good idea, but my guess is that the majority of those people really have no idea what is actually in the bill. It seems that there is this assumption (both from the left and right) that this is some sort of pre-cursor to socialized medicine. In truth, when the corporations dictate a mandate to purchase their products and the government is in the business of enforcing such a mandate, it is nothing more that outright corporatist-fascism.
 
 
John Sez: A lot of information (and misinformation on both sides of the political aisle) is being bandied around about the so called health care reform bill passed (over the weekend after the sun went down no less) by Congress. It’s a HUGE stack of paper, and I’ll admit to only having read about a fifth of it so far, so I will reserve comments about specific parts of the bill. Having said that, I really do think that the whole thing is a political smoke screen which does very little of what is claimed by talking heads who get the greatest amount of television airtime.

I will admit upfront that I am a proponent of a full-coverage, tax dollar paid health care coverage system similar to what Europe has. Opponents of such an idea will point to some countries that have such a system and gripe that we’ll have long lines and many will not receive the proper care, but seem to forget that we are America and we need to find a way to do it better – to be the model for that kind of system, not just a follower of all that is wrong with such a project.

Others might say that it will cost too much in taxes and that Europeans are taxed more as a result, but think about how we are taxed already (let’s take an envelope as an example – the land the tree is on is taxed, the guy who cuts the tree down is taxed, the company which hires the guy is taxed, the fuel used to power the chain-saw is taxed, the chain saw is taxed, the people and machinery that turns the wood to paper are taxed, the person who ships the envelopes is taxed, the vehicle and fuel for the vehicle which ships the envelope are taxed, the person/machine/fuel/ink/adhesive which makes up the packaging for the box of envelopes are taxed, the store which sells the product is taxed, the people who work at the store are taxed, then the product is finally sold to a consumer who – of course – pays a tax on the item. And THEN we pay our income/property/business/state taxes. Hell, as a homeowner I even pay a frikkin STREETLIGHT tax for the one I never asked for which is sitting at the edge of my property hidden by a copse of trees which prevents it from shedding all that much taxable light– no joke) and it seems ludicrous that we cannot afford such a universal coverage plan. If we really are that short on cash in the treasury (and it seems we are) let’s stop meddling around in the Middle East/Africa/South America/Asia, bombing brown people, and stop funding anything in any other country – see, deficit solved and more for us.

It all comes down to this: regardless of what a great many people seem to believe, this is not a universal health care plan paid for by your taxes which will make sure that all Americans get proper medical treatment when they need to. Generally speaking, this is a program designed to ensure that you MUST purchase insurance, out of your own pocket in ADDITION to you tax contribution, from an insurance company (the same ones that have screwed us citizens all these years) for your coverage – failure to do so will result in monetary penalties (up to almost 3% of your income but no more than the total amount the package would cost you if you decided to purchase it) or even legal penalties (fines and imprisonment are mentioned) for those who ‘evade’ getting mandatory health care.

This is not reform or a universal (some call it ‘socialist’ health care package) health care, it is simply the legal mechanism the government is using to mandate that everyone must purchase insurance OR ELSE – then they can turn around and say, “ooooh, lookie, we got everyone health insurance”. All the other rhetoric about how the insurance companies hate it, and how it will cover so many people, or that there are death panels and so on are red herrings compared with the fact that this is nothing more than trying to build some sort of unwieldy contraption on a crumbling and shaky foundation and hoping the whole thing doesn’t collapse under its own weight until the politicos can figure out who to blame for the mess – pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, but look at all the pretty bells and whistles.


The whole thing is a farce
 
 
John Sez: A couple of months ago I posted about a French law that was up for vote which contained a similar measure. Now, it seems, that France isn’t the only place that is trying to institute such draconian measures…it’s now the world – or at least some cockamamie group of unelected officials who are trying to impose their ‘order’ on the rest of us.

According to the leaked report, it works like this: if you are accused (note: not convicted, not brought before the courts, not arrested, simply ACCUSED) of illegally downloading material from the internet three times, you will lose your access to the internet. Even on its face, such a law or treaty obligation is complete and utter rubbish, and rife with the possibility of massive abuse by whatever ‘council’ is in charge of filing and enforcing on these accusations.

What if a teenager is DL’ing in his home and hits the three strikes and you’re out rule? Will the rest of his family be forced to suffer the penalty of the loss of the internet?

What about erroneous accusations? I have personally heard of many stories of people being accused of illegal uploads of THEIR OWN music, which they owned all rights and copyrights on. Will people loose thier access due to a faulty charge?

How about people who leech bandwidth, or net cafes and libraries with WIFI access? Will they lose their internet service due to criminal activities beyond their control?

I would also think that it would be all too easy for governments to target political opponents or dissidents in their country and force a loss of internet access, thus promoting censorship and a loss if individual rights and liberties.

Also noted in the report is that ISP’s need to proactively police copyright violations. Considering the cost to carry out such a mandate in man hours and legal costs this will, in effect, mean the end of Youtube, playlist.com, online file storage companies, and millions of personal web sites.

The way that a great many governments have been clamping down on freedom of expression of their citizens (notable are  the US, France, China, Iran, and England) I wonder if this is not so much a play to protect copyright owners (of which I am one and I HEARTILY DISSAGREE with this proposal) and more of an outright attempt to wrest control of the internet from the hands of the people and have it regulated, seized and sterilized by the governments involved in the treaty.

Story from Raw Story:

Global treaty could throw file-sharers off Internet after ‘three strikes’

File-sharers could be jailed under proposed ACTA provisions

Leaked details of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated in secret by most of the world's largest economies suggest Internet file-sharers could be blocked from accessing the Internet if they are repeatedly accused of sharing copyrighted material, say media and digital-rights watchdogs.

And the worst-case scenario could see popular Web sites like YouTube and Flickr shut down because of a provision in the treaty that would force them to monitor everything uploaded to the site for copyright violations.

Internet law professor Michael Geist published details of "leaked" portions of the discussions on ACTA on his blog Tuesday, as a new round of ACTA negotiations began in Seoul, South Korea. The US, along with all the countries of the European Union as well as Japan, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries, are involved in the negotiations.

"The provisions would pave the way for a globalized three-strikes and you're out system," Geist blogged Wednesday, referring to a proposal from copyright holders to have Internet service providers cut off service to anyone accused at least three times of illegally sharing copyrighted material.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: This came in my e-mail box today from Congressman Kucinich, and I have to say I strongly support what he is saying and I applaud his efforts.

Kucinich Addresses UN Goldstone Gaza Resolution

November 3, 2009, Congressman Dennis Kucinich addresses H.RES. 867 on the House Floor. H.RES. 867 condemns the UN Goldstone Gaza Fact Finding Mission Report.

Congressman Kucinich stated:

"Today we journey from Operation Cast Lead to Operation Cast Doubt. Almost as serious as committing war crimes is covering up war crimes, pretending that war crimes were never committed and did not exist."

"Because behind every such deception is the nullification of humanity, the destruction of human dignity, the annihilation of the human spirit, the triumph of Orwellian thinking, the eternal prison of the dark heart of the totalitarian."

"The resolution before us today, which would reject all attempts of the Goldstone Report to fix responsibility of all parties to war crimes, including both Hamas and Israel, may as well be called the "Down is Up, Night is Day, Wrong is Right: resolution."

"Because if this Congress votes to condemn a report it has not read, concerning events it has totally ignored, about violations of law of which it is unaware, it will have brought shame to this great institution."

"How can we ever expect there to be peace in the Middle East if we tacitly approve of violations of international law and international human rights, if we look the other way, or if we close our eyes to the heartbreak of people on both sides by white-washing a legitimate investigation?"

"How can we protect the people of Israel from existential threats if we hold no concern for the protection of the Palestinians, for their physical security, their right to land, their right to their own homes, their right to water, their right to sustenance, their right to freedom of movement, their right to human security of jobs, education and health care?".

"We will have peace only when the plight of both Palestinians and Israelis is brought before this House and given equal consideration in recognition of that principle that all people on this planet have a right to survive and thrive, and it is our responsibility, our duty to see that no individual, no group, no people are barred from this humble human claim."


 
 
John Sez: Taking a page from the former AG’s playbook (or vice versa) DICK apparently used the ‘I don’t remember’ ploy 72 times as he was interviewed by former prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald over the Valerie Plame leak in 2004.

72 TIMES!

So either he was lying (gee, what a shock there) or he was totally unfit for the office he held. Maybe it was a bit of both.

Why these people from the last tyrannical administration are not in jail or executed for treason is beyond me. But, then again, considering how corrupt our  government is it really doesn’t surprise me at all.

Story from Raw Story (and video which follows dedicated to Dick and Alberto):

AP admits: Cheney equivocated to the FBI

Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald famously declared in the Valerie Plame affair that "there is a cloud over the vice president." Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation underscores why Fitzgerald felt that way. On 72 occasions, according to the 28-page FBI summary, Cheney equivocated to the FBI during his lengthy May 2004 interview, saying he could not be certain in his answers to questions about matters large and small in the Plame controversy.

The Cheney interview reflects a team of prosecutors and FBI agents trying to find out whether the leaks of Plame's CIA identity were orchestrated at the highest level of the White House and carried out by, among others, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

READ MORE

 
 
John Sez: I would say that it’s a given that when money enters the scene of any ‘cause’ – more so this one, considering how many billions of dollars are floating around  – one has to question the ethics of proponents who stand to make huge windfalls of power and monetary gain. Al gore is no exception. Let’s remember that he was a politician long before ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

Personally, I think that Gore (and many like him)  profiting as much as he has (and potentially will) from this highly disputed science should lead to speculation and doubt that he is in this for the best interest of the planet and the ‘little people’, and not just fronting this movement simply for the betterment of his pocket and global standing.

Story from PrisonPlanet:   

     Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire”
CO2 tax agenda front man lining his pockets on the back of global warming fearmongering     

 Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com

The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.

As is to be expected, the article is largely a whitewash and takes an apologist stance in defense of Gore.

However, the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.

“Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years,” states the report, highlighting the fact that Gore is “well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.”

READ MORE