Ron Paul's grave warning about war with Iran
I hear the war drums being pounded....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ
Read full text of House Concurrent Resolution 362:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc110-362
Friday, June 27, 2008
I can't wait to see this on the 4th! It's the new Alex Jones documentary and basically it's just video clips of We Are Change from across the country of them asking our leaders questions. I admire these people that have the balls to go up to some of these evil people and ask them a real question. It's what our founders intended of us, to be the watch dogs of the government, and we're not anymore. The way it is now with our controlled media you're not allowed to ask our politicians certain questions anymore. It's not like people are going up to Bill Clinton and asking him about his affair with Monica like the mainstream media did, no these people go up to someone like Bill Clinton and ask him about why he attendented Bilderberg or what was his relation to the drug smuggling in Arkansas when he was governor during Iran Contra?
Good shit, can't wait to see it...
Good shit, can't wait to see it...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
"Well on the way,
Head in a cloud,
The man of a 1000 voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
Or the sound he appears to make,
And he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round."- The Beatles
Well here i am, my night off and i can't sleep of coarse. And what's keeping me awake? Well, work of coarse! No, really shit at work is changing and almost rapidly it's crazy.
The last 4 or 5 months i've really been struggling within my own mind on whether i want to keep the job i currently am doing right now or if it might be a good idea to move on within Safeway while i have the opportunity and pursue something else.
Last week while my boss was on vacation and i was covering for her, i heard through the grape vine that a lot of the people that normally have been helping us, don't want to help us anymore.
Which i thought was totally funny cuz i've been going back and forth in my mind whether i want to do my job anymore. I feel completely stuck in it, Eileen totally and completely depends on me. She's been talking about retiring in the next year or so and that completely freaks me out, cuz so help me, i do not want her job. Shit i'm starting to have issues with it just working part time!
So hearing from the girl who helps me while my boss is on vacation, hearing her tell me that she's pissed that she pretty much has to work 2 jobs now cuz Eileen depends on her so much now when either I go on vacation or my boss.
Which i totally don't blame her, when i was a cashier and i was just helping Eileen 2 nights a week, whenever her backup went on vacation i had to help Eileen. The only difference between me and this other chick who's helping us now, is that back then i was trying so hard to get to be Eileen's backup. The girl who's helping us now is kind of being forced into it, and she totally doesn't want to do it.
In fact I go on vacation in 2 weeks and this girl went behind Eileens back and talked to our store manager (who retired now, his last day was last friday) about going on vacation the same week i'm going, cuz she already knew if she talked to Eileen about it there would be no way in hell she'd be able to get that week off. So our store manager at the time approved it and said he'd get Tina, Eileen's old back up, the girl who used to have my job before me, to help Eileen.
Which was funny shit to begin with cuz Tina and Eileen the last couple years have grown to completely hate each other.
Anyhow, so Tina was supposed to help Eileen the week me and this other girl are on vacation (Eileen still has no idea this girl is leaving the same week i am) but now we found out this week that Tina is transferring to another store closer to her home cuz she lives all the way out in Thornton, and her last day is Sunday!!!
So yesterday me and this girl were talking about that at work and kind of freaking out about it cuz Eileen is pretty much screwed and she doesn't even know it yet, cuz the week i'm taking off it's gonna be a busy week and she will need all the help she can get. And from what i can gather she's only gonna have one person to help her for one night that whole week!! She's gonna need at least 5 people helping out that week, which is what we normally get on a busy week.
Oh well, it's pretty fucked up what this chick is doing to Eileen, taking off without letting her know, but like i said she's real pissed about having to work 2 jobs now and she's having to schedule her vacations around mine and Eileen's.
And anymore every single time i work with my boss she bitches and moans about the same fucking shit every fucking time and it's getting very, very old. She has a very negative attitude lately you can tell she just wants to retire soon.
But anyhow, i've been looking more and more into the bakery at work and i'm really contemplating after Eileen gets her 2 weeks vacation in coming here in July, i really think after those 2 weeks, maybe even during those 2 weeks i'm gonna call around to different stores and see if i can't get a job in the bakery.
Who knows what will happen. That's really what's keeping me from sleeping tonight. I totally want to do it, i really think i'd like it. I watch those people work back there and they are constantly busy, when they take breaks it's real quick, maybe 10 minutes at the most.
That's what i'm talking about! I love work where it just keeps you busy and you're not standing around twiddling your thumbs for hours on end like with what i'm doing now.
I mean seriously, i have nights where for 4 hours out of my 8 i have sat around playing Tetris all night!!
And on slow weeks i don't even get all my hours i'm scheduled for, i either go home early or i get sent home early for the simple fact that there isn't anything to do.
Now when i'm busy, i'm fucking busy as shit! On the weeks that Eileen is on vacation it can get very stressful, i mean her job is filled with tons of responsibility. I mean all the prices in the entire store are your job basically and if some shit rings up wrong, automatically its blamed on you. Really that's what's motivating more than anything to leave what i'm doing now while i still can. I just don't want to get stuck with my boss's job when i absolutely just stress out completely when she's on vacation and i have to be in the driver's seat. I've been really lucky this year so far cuz she's taken weeks off that have been very slow and i've needed very little help.
But the weeks she takes off when it's a lot of price changes and it's crazy busy i get very stressed out. And when i get stressed out i get bad migraines and then i'm stuck at work with a migraine that makes me feel like i have to vomit.
I mean it's bad, does that sound like fun to you? No it's not!
Now i've been weighing out the pros and cons of all this. On one hand if i go to the bakery i get the opportunity to get one foot in the door of getting some professional experience of working with pastry.
On the other hand i've grown to become really fond of working alone and not having anyone bug me, now if i go to the bakery there's no guarantee i'll get the "donut fryer" position, which is pretty much the night job. There is a chance i'll have to go back to working days, which means i have to deal with customers again, which sucks, i fucking hate having to deal with people, that's the whole reason why i didn't want to be a checker anymore was cuz off all the asshole customers i had to deal with on a daily basis.
Then on the other hand i'm not sure if my hours i'm getting now will shrink or if they will stay the same. This other girl i work with who is a front end head clerk has been talking about transferring to another store cuz in August our store is getting another remodel. She said she talked to the our old 1st assistant who got her own store over on Kipling and Jewel, and she said she talked to her about possably transferring to her store but her hours would be cut.
That might very well happen with me. I am only part time, and there is a good chance that if i go to the bakery i'll only be getting 20 to 24 hours a week. Anymore i need at least $300 plus a week just to make it through the week. My job now i average a good 32 hours a week on a busy week. I do have my weeks where i only work 24 hours, but usually by the time those weeks come i've been working so much i actually welcome the reduced hours just to get a break.
That's another reason why i want to get out of price changes, i found out in August when we get our remodel that they are planning on making it like the store on Mineral and Broadway, minus the liquor store! I remember when i walked into that store, my first thought was,"Jesus i'd hate to be their file maintenance!" So they're planning on turning our store into a fucking nightmare for file maintenance, and i stress out now when our store is pretty little. No fucking way am i doing my job in a giant store where even on a slow week it'd be crazy busy. No fucking way!
All i know is, the last few months i've really been almost to the point of depression when it comes to my job. Like i was telling this chick at work, it's just not fun anymore. I did love it for a good 2 years, but this last year i've gotten really sick of it. there are aspects of it i still really like, like the fact i can come and go whenever i want and management doesn't give a shit, just as long as i get my shit done they really don't care when or how long i work. And like i said before working alone i really do like, the only way i could see that happening in the bakery is working the "donut fryer" position which would mean i'd still have to work nights. From what i can gather from looking at our stores bakery the least experience you have, the more likely you'll get to work nights. For some odd reason it looks like the bakery manager works until the bakery closes at 6.
there has been a part of me that is getting sick of working nights too, but it's really the only time i can work until Adara starts going to school all day but she's just barely going into kindergarten in the fall, and that will only be half days, or 3 full days then the rest of the week she'll be home.
I just hate the nights i have off and i can't sleep, like today for example. Plus sleeping during the day really sucks, it's never restful sleep.
Oh well, we'll see what happens in the next month....
Head in a cloud,
The man of a 1000 voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
Or the sound he appears to make,
And he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning 'round."- The Beatles
Well here i am, my night off and i can't sleep of coarse. And what's keeping me awake? Well, work of coarse! No, really shit at work is changing and almost rapidly it's crazy.
The last 4 or 5 months i've really been struggling within my own mind on whether i want to keep the job i currently am doing right now or if it might be a good idea to move on within Safeway while i have the opportunity and pursue something else.
Last week while my boss was on vacation and i was covering for her, i heard through the grape vine that a lot of the people that normally have been helping us, don't want to help us anymore.
Which i thought was totally funny cuz i've been going back and forth in my mind whether i want to do my job anymore. I feel completely stuck in it, Eileen totally and completely depends on me. She's been talking about retiring in the next year or so and that completely freaks me out, cuz so help me, i do not want her job. Shit i'm starting to have issues with it just working part time!
So hearing from the girl who helps me while my boss is on vacation, hearing her tell me that she's pissed that she pretty much has to work 2 jobs now cuz Eileen depends on her so much now when either I go on vacation or my boss.
Which i totally don't blame her, when i was a cashier and i was just helping Eileen 2 nights a week, whenever her backup went on vacation i had to help Eileen. The only difference between me and this other chick who's helping us now, is that back then i was trying so hard to get to be Eileen's backup. The girl who's helping us now is kind of being forced into it, and she totally doesn't want to do it.
In fact I go on vacation in 2 weeks and this girl went behind Eileens back and talked to our store manager (who retired now, his last day was last friday) about going on vacation the same week i'm going, cuz she already knew if she talked to Eileen about it there would be no way in hell she'd be able to get that week off. So our store manager at the time approved it and said he'd get Tina, Eileen's old back up, the girl who used to have my job before me, to help Eileen.
Which was funny shit to begin with cuz Tina and Eileen the last couple years have grown to completely hate each other.
Anyhow, so Tina was supposed to help Eileen the week me and this other girl are on vacation (Eileen still has no idea this girl is leaving the same week i am) but now we found out this week that Tina is transferring to another store closer to her home cuz she lives all the way out in Thornton, and her last day is Sunday!!!
So yesterday me and this girl were talking about that at work and kind of freaking out about it cuz Eileen is pretty much screwed and she doesn't even know it yet, cuz the week i'm taking off it's gonna be a busy week and she will need all the help she can get. And from what i can gather she's only gonna have one person to help her for one night that whole week!! She's gonna need at least 5 people helping out that week, which is what we normally get on a busy week.
Oh well, it's pretty fucked up what this chick is doing to Eileen, taking off without letting her know, but like i said she's real pissed about having to work 2 jobs now and she's having to schedule her vacations around mine and Eileen's.
And anymore every single time i work with my boss she bitches and moans about the same fucking shit every fucking time and it's getting very, very old. She has a very negative attitude lately you can tell she just wants to retire soon.
But anyhow, i've been looking more and more into the bakery at work and i'm really contemplating after Eileen gets her 2 weeks vacation in coming here in July, i really think after those 2 weeks, maybe even during those 2 weeks i'm gonna call around to different stores and see if i can't get a job in the bakery.
Who knows what will happen. That's really what's keeping me from sleeping tonight. I totally want to do it, i really think i'd like it. I watch those people work back there and they are constantly busy, when they take breaks it's real quick, maybe 10 minutes at the most.
That's what i'm talking about! I love work where it just keeps you busy and you're not standing around twiddling your thumbs for hours on end like with what i'm doing now.
I mean seriously, i have nights where for 4 hours out of my 8 i have sat around playing Tetris all night!!
And on slow weeks i don't even get all my hours i'm scheduled for, i either go home early or i get sent home early for the simple fact that there isn't anything to do.
Now when i'm busy, i'm fucking busy as shit! On the weeks that Eileen is on vacation it can get very stressful, i mean her job is filled with tons of responsibility. I mean all the prices in the entire store are your job basically and if some shit rings up wrong, automatically its blamed on you. Really that's what's motivating more than anything to leave what i'm doing now while i still can. I just don't want to get stuck with my boss's job when i absolutely just stress out completely when she's on vacation and i have to be in the driver's seat. I've been really lucky this year so far cuz she's taken weeks off that have been very slow and i've needed very little help.
But the weeks she takes off when it's a lot of price changes and it's crazy busy i get very stressed out. And when i get stressed out i get bad migraines and then i'm stuck at work with a migraine that makes me feel like i have to vomit.
I mean it's bad, does that sound like fun to you? No it's not!
Now i've been weighing out the pros and cons of all this. On one hand if i go to the bakery i get the opportunity to get one foot in the door of getting some professional experience of working with pastry.
On the other hand i've grown to become really fond of working alone and not having anyone bug me, now if i go to the bakery there's no guarantee i'll get the "donut fryer" position, which is pretty much the night job. There is a chance i'll have to go back to working days, which means i have to deal with customers again, which sucks, i fucking hate having to deal with people, that's the whole reason why i didn't want to be a checker anymore was cuz off all the asshole customers i had to deal with on a daily basis.
Then on the other hand i'm not sure if my hours i'm getting now will shrink or if they will stay the same. This other girl i work with who is a front end head clerk has been talking about transferring to another store cuz in August our store is getting another remodel. She said she talked to the our old 1st assistant who got her own store over on Kipling and Jewel, and she said she talked to her about possably transferring to her store but her hours would be cut.
That might very well happen with me. I am only part time, and there is a good chance that if i go to the bakery i'll only be getting 20 to 24 hours a week. Anymore i need at least $300 plus a week just to make it through the week. My job now i average a good 32 hours a week on a busy week. I do have my weeks where i only work 24 hours, but usually by the time those weeks come i've been working so much i actually welcome the reduced hours just to get a break.
That's another reason why i want to get out of price changes, i found out in August when we get our remodel that they are planning on making it like the store on Mineral and Broadway, minus the liquor store! I remember when i walked into that store, my first thought was,"Jesus i'd hate to be their file maintenance!" So they're planning on turning our store into a fucking nightmare for file maintenance, and i stress out now when our store is pretty little. No fucking way am i doing my job in a giant store where even on a slow week it'd be crazy busy. No fucking way!
All i know is, the last few months i've really been almost to the point of depression when it comes to my job. Like i was telling this chick at work, it's just not fun anymore. I did love it for a good 2 years, but this last year i've gotten really sick of it. there are aspects of it i still really like, like the fact i can come and go whenever i want and management doesn't give a shit, just as long as i get my shit done they really don't care when or how long i work. And like i said before working alone i really do like, the only way i could see that happening in the bakery is working the "donut fryer" position which would mean i'd still have to work nights. From what i can gather from looking at our stores bakery the least experience you have, the more likely you'll get to work nights. For some odd reason it looks like the bakery manager works until the bakery closes at 6.
there has been a part of me that is getting sick of working nights too, but it's really the only time i can work until Adara starts going to school all day but she's just barely going into kindergarten in the fall, and that will only be half days, or 3 full days then the rest of the week she'll be home.
I just hate the nights i have off and i can't sleep, like today for example. Plus sleeping during the day really sucks, it's never restful sleep.
Oh well, we'll see what happens in the next month....
Friday, June 20, 2008
Nancy Pelosi Is A Traitor!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
Paul: Pelosi spiked Iran bill
Congressman Ron Paul charges that Pelosi "deliberately removed" part of a bill, which would have blocked the U.S. from attacking Iran without approval from Congress, at the behest of AIPAC.
by George Dance(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A one-minute audio clip of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is currently sweeping the blogosphere (with 35 separate stories in less than a week), but so far receiving no notice in the mainstream media. In it, Paul charges that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) removed a section from a bill, which would have barred the U.S. government from going to war without a congressional vote, at the behest of the "leadership of Israel" and "AIPAC" (the American Israel Public Affairs committee). Paul made the allegation at the Future of Freedom (FFF) conference, 'Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties', earlier this month in Reston Virginia. Paul, who was awarded the FFF's Lifetime Achievement Award on June 6, addressed the conference that day on "A Foreign Policy of Freedom." (His speech, which was recorded by C-SPAN, can be ordered using the link at the end of this article.) The audio excerpt has Paul declaring:
The Democrats finally win the election in 2006, and it was a mandate, the Republicans get thrown out; what's the first act that Pelosi does? There was a supplemental bill that had a bill of ours we had gotten put in, and the bill said -- you shouldn't need a bill like this! -- it said, you can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress. And she removed it, she removed it deliberately. And then, the astounding thing is, they asked her why, and she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in the Washington Post, that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."
(1)A quick search of newspaper accounts of the bill -- which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush -- from that time reveals only one, in the strongly pro-Israel Washington Times, that mentions AIPAC at all:
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appopriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran.
(2)However, Paul's allegation is corroborated by a contemporary account (from the Asia Times), which cites a different congressional source:
In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] said this was due to AIPAC.
(3)John Nichols of The Nation also covered the story at the time, as did Patrick Buchanan of The Conservative Voice. Here's Buchanan's take:
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran....According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."...Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war....Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
(4)Salon reporter Ben Kamiya also mentioned the incident, in his 2007 report on that year's AIPAC conference:
AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.
The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line. (5)
---------
Sources (1) "ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel," You Tube, Jun. 8, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
(2) "Foreign policy adrift?", Washington Times, Mar. 18, 2007. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/18/20070318-094754-3807r/
(3) Pepe Escobar, "And the winner is ... the Israeli lobby," Asia Times, Jun. 3, 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html
(4) Patrick J. Buchanan, "The AIPAC Girl," The Conservative Voice, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23622.html
(5) Gary Kamiya, "Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?", Salon.com, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
Paul: Pelosi spiked Iran bill
Congressman Ron Paul charges that Pelosi "deliberately removed" part of a bill, which would have blocked the U.S. from attacking Iran without approval from Congress, at the behest of AIPAC.
by George Dance(Libertarian)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
A one-minute audio clip of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) is currently sweeping the blogosphere (with 35 separate stories in less than a week), but so far receiving no notice in the mainstream media. In it, Paul charges that House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) removed a section from a bill, which would have barred the U.S. government from going to war without a congressional vote, at the behest of the "leadership of Israel" and "AIPAC" (the American Israel Public Affairs committee). Paul made the allegation at the Future of Freedom (FFF) conference, 'Restoring the Republic 2008: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties', earlier this month in Reston Virginia. Paul, who was awarded the FFF's Lifetime Achievement Award on June 6, addressed the conference that day on "A Foreign Policy of Freedom." (His speech, which was recorded by C-SPAN, can be ordered using the link at the end of this article.) The audio excerpt has Paul declaring:
The Democrats finally win the election in 2006, and it was a mandate, the Republicans get thrown out; what's the first act that Pelosi does? There was a supplemental bill that had a bill of ours we had gotten put in, and the bill said -- you shouldn't need a bill like this! -- it said, you can't go to war with Iran without getting approval from Congress. And she removed it, she removed it deliberately. And then, the astounding thing is, they asked her why, and she said the leadership in Israel asked her to. That was in the newspaper, that was in the Washington Post, that she was asked by AIPAC and others not to do that."
(1)A quick search of newspaper accounts of the bill -- which was ultimately vetoed by President Bush -- from that time reveals only one, in the strongly pro-Israel Washington Times, that mentions AIPAC at all:
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a smattering of boos when she bad-mouthed the war effort during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the Democratic leadership, responding to concerns from pro-Israel lawmakers, was forced to strip from a military appopriations measure a provision meant to weaken President Bush's ability to respond to threats from Iran.
(2)However, Paul's allegation is corroborated by a contemporary account (from the Asia Times), which cites a different congressional source:
In March 2007, the US Congress was trying to attach a provision to a Pentagon spending bill that would have required President George W Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. AIPAC was strongly against it - because it viewed the legislation as taking the military option "off the table". The provision was killed. Congressman Dennis Kucinich [D-OH] said this was due to AIPAC.
(3)John Nichols of The Nation also covered the story at the time, as did Patrick Buchanan of The Conservative Voice. Here's Buchanan's take:
If George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive war on Iran, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bear full moral responsibility for that war.
For it was Pelosi who quietly agreed to strip out of the $100 billion funding bill for Iraq a provision that would have required President Bush to seek congressional approval before launching any new war on Iran....According to John Nichols of The Nation, Pelosi's decision to strip the provision barring Bush from attacking Iran without Congress' approval "sends the worst possible signal to the White House."
"The speaker has erred dangerously and dramatically," writes Nichols. Her "disastrous misstep could haunt her and the Congress for years to come."...Nothing in the provision would have prevented Bush, as commander in chief, from responding to an Iranian attack or engaging in hot pursuit of an enemy found in Iraq. Nor would the provision have prevented Bush from threatening Iran. It would simply have required him to come to Congress -- before launching all-out war....Why did Pelosi capitulate? Answer: She was "under pressure from some conservative members of her caucus, and from lobbyists associated with neoconservative groups that want war with Iran, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)," writes Nichols.
(4)Salon reporter Ben Kamiya also mentioned the incident, in his 2007 report on that year's AIPAC conference:
AIPAC showed its true power -- and its continuing ability to steer American Mideast policy in a disastrous direction -- when a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats succeeded in removing language from a military appropriations bill that would have required Bush to get congressional approval before using military force against Iran.
The pro-Israel lobby's victory on the Iran bill is almost unbelievable. Even after the nation repudiated the Iraq war decisively in the 2006 midterms, even after it has become clear that the Bush administration's Middle East policy is severely unbalanced toward Israel and has damaged America's standing in the world, Congress still cannot bring itself to stand up to the AIPAC line. (5)
---------
Sources (1) "ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel," You Tube, Jun. 8, 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWLBhgTQ46o
(2) "Foreign policy adrift?", Washington Times, Mar. 18, 2007. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/18/20070318-094754-3807r/
(3) Pepe Escobar, "And the winner is ... the Israeli lobby," Asia Times, Jun. 3, 2008. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF03Ak01.html
(4) Patrick J. Buchanan, "The AIPAC Girl," The Conservative Voice, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23622.html
(5) Gary Kamiya, "Can American Jews unplug the Israel lobby?", Salon.com, Mar. 20, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Military choppers fly over Denver during top secret drill
David Edwards
Raw Story
June 17, 2008
A half-dozen military helicopters flew low over parts of Denver Monday night as part of a security drill organized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Denver police said they were aware of the operation, but could provide no details.
The secret drills coincided with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Denver in late August. The Denver Post reported that the military aircraft “buzzed above the Pepsi Center,” the site of the convention.
A military spokesman, though insisted to the Rocky Mountain News that the military drills were unrelated to planning for the convention, which is expected to draw thousands of protesters as did the 2004 party conventions in Boston and New York.
“It’s nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities,” said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military.
Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver.
The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said.
“It’s routine preparation for the global war on terrorism,” he said.
The Rocky Mountain News also reports on further efforts by police to stock up on equipment to suppress potentially unruly protesters, including pepper-spray guns that fire plastic pellets filled with “power that’s ‘like a combination of cayenne pepper and baby powder,’” according to the manufacturer. The city itself is refusing to disclose details of its security preparations.
The city received a $50 million federal grant for security. A senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper has said the city plans to spend up to half that amount on equipment, with the rest going to pay officers.
But the city has refused to disclose how it is spending the money, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union last month to file a civil lawsuit. …
Some organizers of protest groups believe police are buying extended-range Tasers and weapons that incapacitate people with high-intensity sound.
David Edwards
Raw Story
June 17, 2008
A half-dozen military helicopters flew low over parts of Denver Monday night as part of a security drill organized by the U.S. Department of Justice. Denver police said they were aware of the operation, but could provide no details.
The secret drills coincided with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in Denver in late August. The Denver Post reported that the military aircraft “buzzed above the Pepsi Center,” the site of the convention.
A military spokesman, though insisted to the Rocky Mountain News that the military drills were unrelated to planning for the convention, which is expected to draw thousands of protesters as did the 2004 party conventions in Boston and New York.
“It’s nothing more than Special Operations Command training with local authorities,” said Lt. Nathan Potter, with Special Operations Command, which has authority over special forces from all branches of the military.
Potter would not say which branch of the military was flying the choppers over Denver.
The training has nothing to do with preparations for the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in Denver in August, Potter said.
“It’s routine preparation for the global war on terrorism,” he said.
The Rocky Mountain News also reports on further efforts by police to stock up on equipment to suppress potentially unruly protesters, including pepper-spray guns that fire plastic pellets filled with “power that’s ‘like a combination of cayenne pepper and baby powder,’” according to the manufacturer. The city itself is refusing to disclose details of its security preparations.
The city received a $50 million federal grant for security. A senior adviser to Mayor John Hickenlooper has said the city plans to spend up to half that amount on equipment, with the rest going to pay officers.
But the city has refused to disclose how it is spending the money, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union last month to file a civil lawsuit. …
Some organizers of protest groups believe police are buying extended-range Tasers and weapons that incapacitate people with high-intensity sound.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Monday, June 09, 2008
Friday, June 06, 2008
FOR GOD SAKES GOOGLE BILDERBERG!!! AMERICAN SOVERNTY DEPENDS ON IT!!
In case you didn't know, starting yesterday 125 of the world's most powerful elite are meeting in secret on U.S. soil for the first time since 2002 in Chantilly, Virgina. It was reported today that Obama and Clinton held a "secret" meeting last night... hmm, being someone who doesn't believe in coincidences and the speculation over Clinton attending the Bilderberg meeting in 2006 in Canada, and the sheer fact that Bill Clinton attended in 1991 and recently publicly admitted to attending after We Are Change confronted him about it, hearing this story made my jaw drop. So this is freedom eh?
Press Let Rip At Obama Spokesman Over Exclusion From Secret Meeting
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance in Northern Virginia was a last minute rearrangement.
It has emerged that Obama’s press entourage were not informed of his secret meeting with Hillary Clinton in Northern Virginia until they were literally locked inside a plane that was taxiing down the runway on its way to Chicago.
The press reacted angrily to the way in which Obama’s campaign organizers covered up the meeting, which is now suspected by many to have been planned in conjunction with the secretive 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting of around 140 corporate and political luminaries.
Reporters were duped into believing that they were getting on a plane back to the campaign headquarters in Chicago with the presumptive nominee, while in reality Obama’s motorcade instead sped off in secrecy to Northern Virginia.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs in a heated exchange that was caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
"Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting" asked another reporter.
"I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting." Gibbs fired back.
Gibbs denied that the secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance was a last minute rearrangement.
"There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private." Gibbs repeated.
“If the president goes bike riding, we go with him. If he goes out to dinner or goes to visit a friend three blocks up the road, we go with him in the motorcade,” another reporter told Gibbs. “That’s the expectation in a general election, and that’s the way it’s been with previous candidates…That’s the way it is done.”
"You could tell the media you’re having a private meeting and give them the option of not getting on the plane." came another comment. Of course, had this transpired, the media would most probably have connected the location of the Obama/Hillary meeting with that of the Bilderberg group.
The last thing the Bilderberg elite would have wanted was a confused and inquisitive mob of journalists at their Marriott hotel doorstep, along with scores of protesters and alternative media reporters such as Infowars’ Alex Jones, American Free Press Editor Jim Tucker and We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski.
Following an unusual solitary press release this morning, a full list of the attendees of this year’s Bilderberg meeting has been released. It would hardly be surprising to find Obama and Clinton rubbing shoulders with the likes of Condoleeza Rice, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, former White House advisor Richard Perle and former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz.
Also in attendance is Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson, who, as we reported last month, will select Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
It is now seems increasingly likely that the secret meetings with Bilderberg this weekend will herald the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Obama’s VP candidate.
This is a History Channel program that even talks about Bilderberg! Yet every year when they meet you don't hear one single word from the press.
Press Let Rip At Obama Spokesman Over Exclusion From Secret Meeting
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs denied that secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance in Northern Virginia was a last minute rearrangement.
It has emerged that Obama’s press entourage were not informed of his secret meeting with Hillary Clinton in Northern Virginia until they were literally locked inside a plane that was taxiing down the runway on its way to Chicago.
The press reacted angrily to the way in which Obama’s campaign organizers covered up the meeting, which is now suspected by many to have been planned in conjunction with the secretive 2008 Bilderberg Group meeting of around 140 corporate and political luminaries.
Reporters were duped into believing that they were getting on a plane back to the campaign headquarters in Chicago with the presumptive nominee, while in reality Obama’s motorcade instead sped off in secrecy to Northern Virginia.
"Why were we not told about this meeting until we were on the plane, the doors were shut and the plane was about to taxi to take off?" one reporter asked Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs in a heated exchange that was caught on camera by CNN.
"Senator Obama had a desire to do some meetings, others had a desire to meet with him tonight in a private way and that is what we are doing." Gibbs replied.
"Is there more than one meeting, is there more than one person with whom he is meeting" asked another reporter.
"I am not going to get into all the details of the meeting." Gibbs fired back.
Gibbs denied that the secret meetings were planned beforehand and indicated Obama’s attendance was a last minute rearrangement.
"There was a desire to do some meetings tonight, he was interested in doing them, others were interested in doing them, and to do them in a way that was private." Gibbs repeated.
“If the president goes bike riding, we go with him. If he goes out to dinner or goes to visit a friend three blocks up the road, we go with him in the motorcade,” another reporter told Gibbs. “That’s the expectation in a general election, and that’s the way it’s been with previous candidates…That’s the way it is done.”
"You could tell the media you’re having a private meeting and give them the option of not getting on the plane." came another comment. Of course, had this transpired, the media would most probably have connected the location of the Obama/Hillary meeting with that of the Bilderberg group.
The last thing the Bilderberg elite would have wanted was a confused and inquisitive mob of journalists at their Marriott hotel doorstep, along with scores of protesters and alternative media reporters such as Infowars’ Alex Jones, American Free Press Editor Jim Tucker and We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski.
Following an unusual solitary press release this morning, a full list of the attendees of this year’s Bilderberg meeting has been released. It would hardly be surprising to find Obama and Clinton rubbing shoulders with the likes of Condoleeza Rice, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, former White House advisor Richard Perle and former Deputy Secretary of Defense and President of the World Bank Paul Wolfowitz.
Also in attendance is Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson, who, as we reported last month, will select Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
It is now seems increasingly likely that the secret meetings with Bilderberg this weekend will herald the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Obama’s VP candidate.
This is a History Channel program that even talks about Bilderberg! Yet every year when they meet you don't hear one single word from the press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)