Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Foreward by Paul Craig Roberts: Clinton Destroyed The Financial System

Nomi Prins points out how Wall Street and the Big Banks used money to seduce the Clintons and then used the Clintons to remake the US financial system in the interest of the maximum profits of the Big Banks.

Try to imagine your fate if the Clintons get a second crack at your well-being.

By Nomi Prins
May 22, 2015

The past, especially the political past, doesn’t just provide clues to the present. In the realm of the presidency and Wall Street, it provides an ongoing pathway for political-financial relationships and policies that remain a threat to the American economy going forward.

When Hillary Clinton video-announced her bid for the Oval Office, she claimed she wanted to be a “champion” for the American people. Since then, she has attempted to recast herself as a populist and distance herself from some of the policies of her husband. But Bill Clinton did not become president without sharing the friendships, associations, and ideologies of the elite banking sect, nor will Hillary Clinton. Such relationships run too deep and are too longstanding.

To grasp the dangers that the Big Sisx Banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) presently pose to the financial stability of our nation and the world, you need to understand their history in Washington, starting with the Clinton years of the 1990s. Alliances established then (not exclusively with Democrats, since bankers are bipartisan by nature) enabled these firms to become as politically powerful as they are today and to exert that power over an unprecedented amount of capital. Rest assured of one thing: their past and present CEOs will prove as critical in backing a Hillary Clinton presidency as they were in enabling her husband’s years in office.

In return, today’s titans of finance and their hordes of lobbyists, more than half of whom held prior positions in the government, exact certain requirements from Washington. They need to know that a safety net or bailout will always be available in times of emergency and that the regulatory road will be open to whatever practices they deem most profitable.

Whatever her populist pitch may be in the 2016 campaign — and she will have one — note that, in all these years, Hillary Clinton has not publicly condemned Wall Street or any individual Wall Street leader. Though she may, in the heat of that campaign, raise the bad-apples or bad-situation explanation for Wall Street’s role in the financial crisis of 2007-2008, rest assured that she will not point fingers at her friends. She will not chastise the people that pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop to speak or the ones that have long shared the social circles in which she and her husband move. She is an undeniable component of the Clinton political-financial legacy that came to national fruition more than 23 years ago, which is why looking back at the history of the first Clinton presidency is likely to tell you so much about the shape and character of the possible second one.

The 1992 Election and the Rise of Bill Clinton

Challenging President George H.W. Bush, who was seeking a second term, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton announced he would seek the 1992 Democratic nomination for the presidency on October 2, 1991. The upcoming presidential election would not, however, turn out to alter the path of mergers or White House support for deregulation that was already in play one iota.

First, though, Clinton needed money. A consummate fundraiser in his home state, he cleverly amassed backing and established early alliances with Wall Street. One of his key supporters would later change American banking forever. As Clinton put it, he received “invaluable early support” from Ken Brody, a Goldman Sachs executive seeking to delve into Democratic politics. Brody took Clinton “to a dinner with high-powered New York businesspeople, including Bob Rubin, whose tightly reasoned arguments for a new economic policy,” Clinton later wrote, “made a lasting impression on me.”

The battle for the White House kicked into high gear the following fall. William Schreyer, chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch, showed his support for Bush by giving the maximum personal contribution to his campaign committee permitted by law: $1,000. But he wanted to do more. So when one of Bush’s fundraisers solicited him to contribute to the Republican National Committee’s nonfederal, or “soft money,” account, Schreyer made a $100,000 donation.

The bankers’ alliances remained divided among the candidates at first, as they considered which man would be best for their own power trajectories, but their donations were plentiful: mortgage and broker company contributions were $1.2 million; 46% to the GOP and 54% to the Democrats. Commercial banks poured in $14.8 million to the 1992 campaigns at a near 50-50 split.

Clinton, like every good Democrat, campaigned publicly against the bankers: “It’s time to end the greed that consumed Wall Street and ruined our S&Ls [Savings and Loans] in the last decade,” he said. But equally, he had no qualms about taking money from the financial sector. In the early months of his campaign, BusinessWeek estimated that he received $2 million of his initial $8.5 million in contributions from New York, under the care of Ken Brody.

“If I had a Ken Brody working for me in every state, I’d be like the Maytag man with nothing to do,” said Rahm Emanuel, who ran Clinton’s nationwide fundraising committee and later became Barack Obama’s chief of staff. Wealthy donors and prospective fundraisers were invited to a select series of intimate meetings with Clinton at the plush Manhattan office of the prestigious private equity firm Blackstone.

Read more

by Paul Waldman
May 20, 2015

None of the conservatives running for president want to be associated with the last Republican president — not even his brother (for whom stepping away is rather complicated). After all, George W. Bush left office with an approval rating hovering in the low 30s, and his grandest project was the gigantic catastrophe of the Iraq War, which we’re still dealing with and still debating. If you’re a Republican right now you’re no doubt wishing we could talk about something else, but failing that, you’d like the issue framed in a particular way: The war was an honest mistake, nobody lied to the public, and anything bad that’s happening now is Barack Obama’s fault.

For the moment I want to focus on the part about the lies. I’ve found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they’ll insist, it wasn’t his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It’s the George Costanza defense: It’s not a lie if you believe it.

Here’s the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition of the word “lie,” to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than Dick Cheney, who lied without hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush’s guilt and responsibility to how many lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

Read more

By James Rosen
McClatchy Washington Bureau
May 19, 2015


The Pentagon is seen in this aerial view in Washington, in this March 27, 2008 photo. According to an audit released by the Pentagon’s internal watchdog, service members and other Pentagon employees used Defense Department credit cards for thousands of unauthorized transactions at casinos and strip clubs across the country.

WASHINGTON — Service members and other Pentagon employees used Defense Department credit cards for thousands of unauthorized transactions at casinos and strip clubs across the country, according to an audit released Tuesday by the Pentagon’s internal watchdog.

The report by the department’s Office of Inspector General found that misuse of the official credit cards was highest in the Air Force, followed by the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps, for the one-year period investigated, July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.

The locations where Defense Department credit cards were used for personal transactions included the VIP Room of the Sapphire Gentlemen’s Club and Vegas Showgirls in Las Vegas, Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club in Baltimore, and Dreams Cabaret in El Paso, Texas.

“DOD cardholders improperly used their government travel charge card for personal use at casinos and adult entertainment establishments,” Michael J. Roark, assistant inspector general for contract management and payments, wrote in the report.

The head of the Defense Travel Management Office acknowledged the abuses, but protested that they represent a tiny fraction of overall use of the Pentagon’s travel credit cards.

“The report language applies a very broad stroke against all cardholders when, in reality, personal use of the Government Travel Charge Card is negligible when compared to the size and scope of the program,” Harvey W. Johnson, the office director, responded in a letter provided along with the report.

Read more

Sending the wrong message to Russia, China and Iran

By Philip Giraldi
May 19, 2015
The Unz Review.com


Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev’s army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind, I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow. I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine’s aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.

I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate, leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.

Read more

May 19, 2015
by Dave Lindorff
WhoWhatWhy.org

In the wake of civil unrest this year spurred by deaths of black suspects in police custody, on May 18, 2015, President Obama made a surprise announcement to limit police militarization. This topic is not new to WhoWhatWhy readers. We first brought you the story of the disturbing trend of police departments arming themselves with surplus weapons from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq in February 2014.

If you’re a small town or perhaps a university security department, the US Department of Defense has got a deal for you!

BearCat in Boston lockdown.

Thanks to the ending of the Iraq War, and the winding down of the war in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has 11,000 heavily armored vehicles that it has no use for. Called MRAPs—Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected—they are designed to protect against AK-47s, rocket-propelled grenades and IEDs. And as pitchman Paul Richards used to say of the ’69 Pontiac Firebird, “They’re practically giving them away!”

Correction, they are giving them away.

All a local police department has to do to get itself an 18-ton MRAP—which originally cost taxpayers between $400,000-$700,000 complete with gun turret and bullet-proof windows—is send a few cops to pick it up and pay for the gas.

There are a few downsides: the things get only five miles to the gallon, can’t go over most bridges, or under them, and have a nasty habit of tipping over on rough terrain.

For departments that find them too unwieldy, the Homeland Security Department is also offering grants to communities so they can buy smaller Lenco BearCats, lighter armored military-style vehicles that run about $280,000.

Since last summer, police departments across the country have taken possession of 165 DOD surplus MRAPs, and there are another 731 requests for the 14-foot-high vehicles. Even Ohio State University police got their hands on one, saying it would provide a “police presence” at football games. Most of the rest of the vehicles to date have gone to smaller community police forces—everywhere from Farmington, NM (pop. 45,000) to Hamburg Village, NY (pop. 9,500).

The number of BearCats purchased with Homeland Security grants isn’t readily available, but they were on conspicuous display in and around Boston last year during the metro-area-wide martial law lockdown while police and National Guard searched for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the wounded and unarmed 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.

For the most part, Americans don’t seem to question the use of military vehicles by their local police, but some communities are starting to object. In Concord, New Hampshire, for instance, 1500 residents last fall signed a petition opposing their town’s use of a $258,000 federal Homeland Security grant to purchase a BearCat for the local police department.

The Concord Monitor reported that most of those opposing the purchase said they feared further militarization of their local police. Despite the opposition, the town government went ahead with the acquisition anyway.

Read more

By Glenn Greenwald
May 13, 2015
The Intercept

We learned recently from Paris that the Western world is deeply and passionately committed to free expression and ready to march and fight against attempts to suppress it. That’s a really good thing, since there are all sorts of severe suppression efforts underway in the West — perpetrated not by The Terrorists but by the Western politicians claiming to fight them.

One of the most alarming examples comes, not at all surprisingly, from the U.K. government, which is currently agitating for new counterterrorism powers, “including plans for extremism disruption orders designed to restrict those trying to radicalize young people.” Here are the powers which the British Freedom Fighters and Democracy Protectors are seeking:

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.

It will also contain new powers to close premises including mosques where extremists seek to influence others. The powers of the Charity Commission to root out charities that misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism will also be strengthened.

In essence, advocating any ideas or working for any political outcomes regarded by British politicians as “extremist” will not only be a crime, but can be physically banned in advance. Basking in his election victory, Prime Minister David Cameron unleashed this Orwellian decree to explain why new Thought Police powers are needed: “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone.’” It’s not enough for British subjects merely to “obey the law”; they must refrain from believing in or expressing ideas which Her Majesty’s Government dislikes.

Read more

05/17/2015
by Kevin Ryan

Recently it has been noticed that Wirt Walker, a 9/11-insider trading suspect who ran security for several of the impacted facilities, now works with men who were, prior to 9/11, key players in national defense and terrorism response. Given the role that Stratesec played and the relationships between suspects already revealed, this seems more than coincidental. Moreover, these men have top-secret clearances, which further suggests that Walker is a covert operative.

Walker, the son of a CIA and DIA operative, was managing director for the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm). This led to his management of Stratesec as well as other KuwAm subsidiaries that have surprising connections to 9/11. Stratesec had contracts to provide security services not only for the World Trade Center (WTC), but also for United Airlines, which owned two of the planes hijacked on 9/11, and Dulles Airport, where American Airlines Flight 77 took off that day.

Walker’s employee Barry McDaniel, the Chief Operating Officer of Stratesec, went from providing security at the WTC to starting a business with one of Dick Cheney’s closest colleagues. The fact that McDaniel is now working with an old partner of Cheney, who as vice president on 9/11 oversaw the failure of the nation’s defenses, raises many interesting questions.

The same kinds of questions can be asked about Walker’s current coworkers. Today, Walker runs Ecohawk Tech Services, an “applied technology company.” The company shares the same address in Leesburg, Virginia as Walker’s other company, Vortex Asset Enhancement. And as with the many other firms registered by Walker, it’s not really clear what the company actually does.

The only other director of Ecohawk Tech is David W. Hearding, a former military officer. Like other associates of Walker and McDaniel, Hearding has a top secret/SCI security clearance, sometimes called “above top secret.” Why Walker and McDaniel, presumably simple businessmen, are associated with so many secretive individuals can only be guessed.

Until August 2001, Hearding served as the liaison between the commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and the Joint Staff Office of the Secretary of Defense. Just weeks after Hearding left for a job at SRS Technologies, his STRATCOM office was in the midst of coordinating coincidental military exercises, President Bush’s flight on 9/11, and dispatches of the “doomsday plane.” It appears that, due to the exercises, STRATCOM experienced communications problems and confusion that hindered the air defenses.

EcoHawk is a subsidiary of Walker’s company Eigerhawk. At Eigerhawk, Walker works with Peter H. B. Lejeune, who has been called an expert on terrorism. Lejeune lectures on terrorism and consequence management at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management Institute.

In the years before and after 9/11, Lejeune contributed to several books on terrorism and was considered to be among the nation’s foremost experts. One of his books included a chapter from George Tenet, who was director of the CIA on 9/11. Another contributor to the same book, which had a photo of the smoking WTC towers on the cover, was Michael Sheehan, National Security Council advisor to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Lejeune’s chapter in the book quoted 9/11 suspect Brian Michael Jenkins as saying, “Terrorists want a lot of witnesses, not a lot of dead.” Jenkins, who designed the WTC security system that Stratesec implemented, is also known to have a history with Miles Kara, who produced the ever-changing stories about the air defense failures on 9/11.

Another surprising thing about Walker’s new partner Lejeune is that he was the Director of Emergency Planning and Response for New York City. From 1978 to 1982, Lejeune ran the City’s emergency response office that later evolved into the Office of Emergency Management under 9/11 suspect Rudy Giuliani. Of course, Lejeune holds top-secret security clearances too so it’s unlikely that he can say much about it.

Read more

9/11 AE911Truth AIA Building 7 Resolution 15-6 Richard Gage wtc 7

Saturday, May 16th, the American Institute of Architects will hold a vote on Resolution 15-6 in Atlanta.

“Thousands of members of the architecture and engineering professions, including 55 sponsors of this resolution, believe the NIST investigation did not adhere to the principles of the scientific method and as a result the conclusions of the NIST investigation are fatally flawed.”

Source: http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab105884.pdf
____________________________________________________________________________

May 2, 2015 – Telephone Interview – Transcribed May 15, 2015
__________________________________________________________________________

Quick 15 Minute Q&A with Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on the upcoming AIA convention campaign this weekend.

Where are you?

RG: We’re in London right now! I will be in a theatrical performance written by Peter Neathey which has played in London about 20 times, it’s called “7 Seconds” — I play Richard Gage and conduct a live presentation of the evidence for Building 7’s key demolition features. It’s a couple hours long.

You’re in London right now as apart of your tour, correct?

RG: Yeah, we started in Reykjavik on the 11th of April and we went to Copenhagen where we were with Neils Harrit on the stage with around 150 people in attendance. Later on we presented in front of around 950 people in Amsterdam at Delft Technical University—largely students—which was great. Then we’re off to Paris, Lavon, and then onto Vienna, Rome, and Budapest. Then we go straight back to Atlanta where the conference is going on with the American Institute of Architects.

Let’s get into this AIA stuff — how did the 55 sponsors come to be?

RG: We have more than 100 AIA members counted among our 2,300 architects and engineers. We realized we could sponsor a resolution, so we got 50 of them to sign the resolution which calls for a new investigation into Building 7. The good news about this is that they have to accept it due to our sponsors, which they did, and on May 16th in a session with 300 delegates a vote will be held. We will have the opportunity to present the evidence for Building 7 and why the NIST investigation is flawed.

So you get to present in front of these 300 delegates before the vote? That’s great.

RG: Yes! We have 3 presenters and they get 2 minutes each, but we’re a little disappointed that we do not get to actually show Building 7 coming down…we will have to describe it.

Is the voting anonymous? People have been saying that if it is, there would be a better chance of it passing.

RG: Well it’s a visual vote, it’s very open as to who is voting for what and how many voted and did not for each resolution. It could go both ways. Originally the AIA leadership from the top down bought hook line and sinker of the NIST report. We don’t know what the level of openness or discussion was, so among these 300 mid level members I think we would rather have an open vote. I don’t think they are going to feel any pressure that might intimidate them in voting openly for the resolution.

What happens if it passes?

RG: I guess it could be amended, but it would be an adopted resolution in writing on their website. I don’t know what happens after that, certainly a lot of discussion and hullabaloo will ensue if it passes!

Some say that this could be used to discredit the truth movement by having it rejected by the AIA, which would discredit AE911Truth and the overall message that Building 7 was a demolition and needs to be re-investigated because the NIST report is fraudulent — what do you think about that?

RG: I think that’s a risk that we take, you know? Anytime we speak the truth about 9/11 we run the risk of the Powers That Be discrediting or at least trying to discredit us. This is one of those risks and we thought it would be worth taking. At least at the minimum we are bringing the truth about Building 7’s uniform, 7 second, symmetrical, free fall collapse, suddenly, on the afternoon of 9/11 at 5:20—which was not hit by an airplane—after witnesses hear explosions. So that information will be given to at least 300 mid level members in this open meeting and that is unprecedented. Now, if they choose to vote down the resolution I don’t know what else we could do, but we are presenting at Georgia Tech that night, so hopefully more come to learn more about the controversy.

My good friend goes to SDSU for Mechanical Engineering and his class was assigned to do a report on building failures and his group chose Building 7 — all of their minds have been blown…they’re confused as to how it collapsed so symmetrically! Ever since your C-SPAN video and Rudy Dent things seem to have reignited. How’s it going since Rudy has jumped on board? He’s a former Fire Marshall, 9/11 survivor and FDNY first responder. He’s very articulate and his original interview has over 1 million views on youtube.

RG: (Laughter) Yeah that’s a phenomenon! And we’re just delighted to have Rudy on board of course, he saw Building 7 go down with his own eyes and he was on the towers’ pile where he lost brothers. He is quite a force for speaking the truth out there. The video with LeAnn Macadoo who interviewed him is very powerful. We have enjoyed having him on our conference calls and we’re strategizing and forming new ways of getting to the fire fighters that haven’t been able to speak out yet because of their own internal battles going on. It’s been great. I have to go in about 60 seconds, but you can call me anytime.

No problem, one more question before I let you go — recently your ‘Solving the Mystery of WTC 7′ video on youtube was removed, which was at over 1 million views as your most popular video. None of your other videos were touched and it was just taken off your youtube channel — do you know anything about that?

RG: I sure do. We’ve been in a series of communications with Google from our attorneys and now they have hired attorneys. We want them to act responsibly and legally with respect to the arbitrary removal of our video. So far it is not going as well as we want it to, they won’t even tell us specifically what copyright infringement or spam or commercially deceptive content they have claimed. Obviously they are acting illegally and arbitrarily, but we do believe eventually somehow we will get justice and force them to put it back up. They haven’t taken the new one down, but of course we lost the view count which was well over 1 million.

I tried to e-mail you about it when it happened, so I am glad you noticed. Just having a million views gives credibility and helps the video go viral through different youtube channels, so the fact that it was censored is not very cool.

RG: They’re just not responsive. A few times they have sent us some lame responses saying basically there’s nothing we can do and stating their non-descriptive problems, so we’re still continuing that battle too.

Coming up on 15 minutes, I’ll let you go now, thanks for this interview and we’ll be in contact later. Have a great tour!

RG: Okay. Thank you, Goodbye.

______________________________________________________________________

To those in the Atlanta area, Richard Gage, AIA, will be giving his live multimedia presentation 9/11: Blueprint for Truth at Georgia Tech, Saturday, May 16, after the AIA Convention.

Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney will be joining Mr. Gage at Georgia Tech on Saturday evening.

Link: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/911-blueprint-for-truth-how-and-why-did-3-wtc-skyscrapers-fall-on-911-tickets-16662547127

PS. I had an interview lined up with a Honorary AIA member and Vice President in regards to how the delegation process works and some questions about resolutions, but he cancelled last minute. If I get in touch with him I will share the information here.


Voted Down

“We are a professional – not a political – organization. But in this case, if we vote “no” on this resolution, we are making a political decision, not a professional one. Thank you very much.” – Daniel Barnum, FAIA

Those were the closing remarks from the lead sponsor of AIA Resolution 15-6, Daniel Barnum, FAIA. Seconds later, the AIA delegates cast their votes. The unfortunate outcome was that an overwhelming majority made the political decision. Resolution 15-6, which called upon the AIA to support a new WTC 7 investigation, was voted down 3,892 to 160, garnering 4% of the delegates’ votes.

The vote came after a number of impassioned statements from supporters and opponents. It was evident that those who opposed the resolution did not fully understand the official explanation of WTC 7’s destruction for which they claimed such adamant support. One architect from New York stated that diesel fuel fires were responsible for WTC 7’s destruction, an explanation that even NIST itself has disavowed.

Resolution 15-6 met the same fate as all but one of the substantive resolutions considered. Even in terms of percentages, the outcome was not that different, with the other four losing resolutions garnering between 6% and 26% of the votes and one being tabled. This does not mitigate our disappointment—nor does it excuse the delegates for their failure to accept their moral and ethical responsibility as architects—but it does illuminate something that we learned: it is difficult to pass even most slightly controversial resolution at the AIA National Convention.

However, that does not signal to us that we should give up on reaching out to the AIA membership. We are pleased to have gained the signatures of another 150 AIA members, seven of whom are fellows of the Institute. We will continue and intensify our outreach efforts with ever more creative and incisive strategies.

We would like to thank everyone who supported and contributed to our AIA resolution campaign. We were able to spark an unprecedented level of dialogue at the convention and gain a much deeper understanding of how we can successfully awaken the architecture community. Thank you.

by William Astore
May 14, 2015.
TomDispatch

In September 2001, the Bush administration launched its “global war on terror,” to which its supporters later tried to attach names like “the long war” or “World War IV.” Their emphasis: that we were now engaged in nothing less than a multi-generational struggle without end. (World War III had theoretically been the Cold War.) In fact, only the “war on terror” would stick and, in 2009, even that would be tossed overboard when the Obama administration opted for a global war with no name at all. Nonetheless, the idea that we were now in an eternal “wartime” became part of the post-9/11 atmosphere. At the same time, George W. Bush famously called on Americans to act as if everything were normal — to spend, vacation, and visit Disney World.

In other words, the “homeland,” protected in new ways, was to be locked down and at peace, while Washington was to be a war capital into the distant future. In the process, the Bush administration invoked warring powers of every sort — from torture and offshore imprisonment to assassination and warrantless wiretaps. At the time, all of this seemed like a unique combination, but looking back, the marriage of war and Disney, of military might and consumerism, has a far longer history. Considered a certain way, Washington has been a war capital since December 7, 1941, and certainly the global capital of consumerism since at least 1945.

Unlike after World War I, post-World War II demobilization proved to be anything but complete. The various structures of the relatively new national security state and its intelligence networks, as well as the U.S. military, were left largely in place and soon expanded massively, as were the array of global bases from which the U.S. had fought its world war. From 1945 on, as the Cold War gained strength and staying power, war was distinctly on Washington’s agenda. In a big way in Korea and Vietnam, of course, but also globally in what was then called “the shadows.” And it didn’t end when the Soviet Union began to totter and finally imploded. The 1980s and 1990s saw a range of interventions, invasions, raids, air strikes, and the like in Afghanistan, Grenada, Lebanon, Libya, Panama, Serbia, Somalia, and of course Iraq (again and again).

In the twenty-first century, the U.S. military was simply let loose across the Greater Middle East and North Africa and eternal war (as well as military-first policies of all sorts) became the American Way. Meanwhile, in Washington, there arose a war-hawk party in Congress and beyond who never saw a military solution that didn’t appeal to them (no matter how ineffective it had proved in its previous incarnations). All of this, in turn, took place in a country in which corporations were mobilized to go to war while the population itself was demobilized in just about every way imaginable. In other words, Americans became ever more divorced from their military and ever more fawning about it

Pamela Geller needs to be exposed for what she is

By Philip Giraldi
May 12, 2015
The Unz Review

Personally, I believe that the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is the bedrock freedom granted by the Constitution of the United States and as long is someone is not using that right explicitly to call for violence against someone else he or she should be free to say anything, even if it is deliberately offensive or calculated to provoke a hostile response. Pamela Geller, who recently staged the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest” in Garland Texas that resulted in two deaths, would no doubt say the same thing. But in reality Geller is a hypocrite. She is only referring to her own personal “freedom” to say what she wants to inflame passions regarding a religious group that she despises. When Muslims try to use the same “freedom” to express their own concerns over speech that they consider blasphemous Geller dismisses their appeals as a ruse to enable the introduction of Shariah law.

Geller is a wealthy Manhattan-based Jewish widow who is the founder and editor of what until recently was called the Atlasshrugs.com website as well as president of Stop Islamization of America and the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). She first came into prominence in 2010 when she helped spearhead the successful campaign to block the construction of the proposed Park51 Islamic Center that she inaccurately described as a “victory mosque” that would dishonor the victims of the terrorist attack and constitute a second wave of 9/11 , persistently conflating Islam in general with what she refers to as “barbarism” and terror.

In 2011 Pamela Geller campaigned to block the U.S. government’s licensing of al-Jazeera America, which she refers to as “Terror TV,” revealing the insincerity of her espousal of free speech when the speech does not conform to her agenda. She has also been one of the leading promoters of the palpably ridiculous assertion that “Fundamentalist Islam wants Shariah to replace the U. S. Constitution and fundamentally transform America,” a theme that has unfortunately been picked up by a number of Republican politicians. She also believes that anyone who bows to pressure and avoids cartooning or lampooning Mohammed is ipso facto conforming to Islamic law.

More recently Geller and AFDI have been behind a series of poster campaigns on urban transit trains and buses in New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco. The posters have featured the World Trade Center burning alongside a Quran verse advocating terror, a call to support civilization (Israel) against barbarism (Jihad), and the message that “killing Jews is worship that draws us closer to Allah.” A poster that ran in Washington featured Hitler meeting with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with the caption “Islamic Jew Hatred: it’s in the Quran.” An ad in San Francisco showed journalist James Foley just before he was beheaded by ISIS. When local transportation boards resist placing the posters on their vehicles and in their stations because of the highly politicized bigoted views they reflect AFDI takes them to court to force them to cooperate.

There is little ambiguity or subtlety in what Geller does and her ten year track record reveals clearly that she wallows in hate. She believes that when Muslims pray five times a day they are actually cursing Christians and Jews. Her Mohammed art exhibition featured cartoons showing a malevolent looking founder of Islam with a roll of toilet paper on his head and pants pulled down to reveal his buttocks while pissing on “Freedom of Speech.” Or if that does not leave one laughing, there is another showing Mohammed impaled through his anus on a pencil labeled “truth” and still another featuring a grinning Prophet riding a unicycle while juggling five dismembered heads. The caption reads “Religion of Peace.”

Read more

Better Tag Cloud