DaniMartExtras, Too



Posted by Xaniel777 on January 12, 2012

TODAY’S NEWS : January 13, 2012

Poll: Most Back Military Action To Stop Iranian Nukes

{ XANIEL’S NOTE : The citizens of the U.S. are awakening to quickly to buy this B.S. anymore. I mean really,  who do they think their kidding with this? See more comments below. } ~~ Xaniel777

From Investors.com


Posted 01/11/2012 05:32 PM ET

As tensions with Iran escalate on several fronts, most Americans favor military force to stop Tehran from building nuclear weapons if diplomacy fails, a new IBD/TIPP poll shows.

That comes as the Obama ad ministration claims that Iran isn’t yet building a bomb and urged the continuation of a “responsible” policy of economic pressure.

Wednesday’s car-bomb killing in Tehran of a scientist at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility, suspected of being the work of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, was the latest in a string of recent events sure to keep Americans thinking about the threat of a nuclear-weaponized Islamist Iran.

In the Jan. 2-8 IBD/TIPP poll, 52% favor U.S. military action to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if diplomacy and sanctions fail vs. 39% opposed.

With the U.S. strategy against Iran’s nuclear program sure to be a major issue in this year’s presidential race, 70% of Republicans favor armed action vs. 20% opposed. Independents were in favor, 48%-41%. Democrats were opposed, 50%-42%.

Otherwise, support was broad-based. Majorities of married women, Hispanics and people ages 18 to 44 back military force to stop Iran from getting nukes, along with large pluralities of women overall, blacks and those ages 45 and above.

By 59% to 28%, respondents approved of Israel attacking Iran to prevent it from building nuclear weapons, a development that would constitute an existential threat to the Jewish state. Democrats were 46% to 40% in favor.

Iran as a foreign policy challenge is beginning to boil over. President Obama recently made it significantly tougher for countries to purchase Iranian oil. Last month, Tehran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the major artery for Persian Gulf oil exports, prompting the U.S. military to warn that it would physically intervene to prevent that. Iran’s Revolutionary Court on Monday condemned to death a 28-year-old Iranian American who had been visiting his grandparents in August, accusing him of espionage.

The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday confirmed that Iran is enriching uranium to a weapons-grade 20% at a secretly built underground facility. Last weekend, however, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta insisted that Tehran is not yet building an actual bomb.

By 46% to 29%, those polled said the U.S. should intervene militarily if Iran interferes with the passage of oil in the Strait of Hormuz. Two-thirds favor U.S. covert activities to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power if diplomacy and sanctions fail, with 25% opposed. Democrats and independents were both 61% in favor of such action.

Covert operations to foment regime change got the support of 49% vs. 41% opposed. But a plurality of independents and Democrats oppose this.

The public also believes, by 47%-25%, that Iran has become a bolder and bigger threat than ever under Obama. Some 34% “strongly agree.” Remarkably, Democrats were split: 34% say Iran is a worse danger than ever under this Democratic president, while 33% disagree.


Either this group is polling the criminally insane again, or “push polling” in just the exactly correct target demographic, to achieve the precise outcome they desire

I know a lot of thinking people on Oahu. And absolutely NONE of my friends or acquaintances think, for a millisecond, that attacking Iran is a really swell idea.

And for the fact and logic challenged, let me break this down for you just one more time.

1. Iran is a signatory to the NNPT. This means that they are allowed to use uranium with which to create nuclear energy projects, which they are doing with Russian technical help.

2. These facilities are inspected by the IAEA.

3. To date, no nuclear materials have gone missing, or unaccounted for.

4. The Iranians are enriching uranium up to 20%, which is necessary for the creation of medical isotopes.

5. You have to be enriching uranium over 95% to create a nuclear bomb, which the Iranians are not doing.

6. Israel refuses to become a member of the NNPT, and does have nuclear weapons, and refuses for their nuclear sites to be inspected.

7. Israel wants the US to attack Iran because Israel claims that Iran is an existential threat to Israel’s survival.

8. Russia and China may well enter the war on the side of Iran, should Iran be attacked; both are nuclear armed countries.

SO, to recap: we are looking engaging in a thermonuclear war with Russia and China to neutralize one of Israel’s existential threats which has no nuclear weapons program.


And 9. The Iranians haven’t started a war in 200 years, and definitely hasn’t started any wars since becoming an Islamic Republic in 1979.~~ Mike Rivero of WRH.com

{ Xaniel’s Note : Our Blood Thirsty Government ( U. S. ) has already decided it’s going to fight Zionst Israels war with Iran for them and in doing so sacrifice our childrens lives once more for no good reason. All they need to do is convince the American sheeple that this is a ‘ JUST ‘ war and we need to do it for our own safety. But regardless of their attempts to convince anyone at all, they are already preparing for war no matter what the U.S. or other Global citizens of the world have to say about it. Mostly because they believe that they are to big and powerful for anyone to stop them ! Very soon however, they are going to find out just how wrong they are. They will stand trail for their Crimes Aganist Humanity !!} ~~ Xaniel777

Here’s further proof of their war preparation: 

Thousands Of US Troops To Arrive In Israel This Week 


‘Standard’ duty? More US battle ships head to Persian Gulf 

Another :

Iran: The Neocons Are At It Again

And Still Another :

War with Iran? Bank on It! 

And let’s not forget this :

Russia fears Israel is pushing U.S. toward Iran war; EU tackles details of oil embargo 



From DesertPeace

Image by Bendib

The phony war over which US party loves Israel most

Josh Ruebner*


“No Aid to Israel?” wonders a recent Facebook ad sponsored by US President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. “Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!” the ad implores, directing people to sign a petition to that effect on my.barackobama.com (“Stand against “zeroing out aid to Israel””).

After signing the petition, the caption underneath a beaming photo of the president declares that “Any plan to cut foreign aid to zero across the board is dangerous and ignorant. It’s up to us to get the word out about it. Donate now to help us spread the facts about the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan to wipe out foreign aid to allies like Israel.”

As Salon writer Justin Elliott correctly notes, “the Obama ads are incredibly dishonest. First of all, the Republican candidates were talking about setting foreign aid at zero each year as a starting point in discussions about how much to give, not setting it at zero as a matter of policy” (“Obama’s dishonest Israel adsSalon, 12 December 2011).

However, the Obama campaign is far from unique in employing a breathtakingly simplistic strategy of artifice and vituperation (both against opposing candidates and against Palestinians) to bolster their pro-Israel street cred in a transparent ploy to attract campaign donations and votes. US support for Israel, once a carefully nurtured bipartisan consensus, is fast degenerating in the context of the 2012 presidential election into a mud-slinging partisan contest as to which party, in the words of Mitt Romney, who leveled the accusation against Obama, is more guilty of having “thrown Israel under the bus” (“Mitt Romney accuses Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus”,” CBS News, 19 May 2011).

Last month’s presidential forum organized by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) managed to ratchet up the rhetoric another notch. Invoking the ghost of Neville Chamberlain, Michele Bachmann accused Obama of having “confused engagement with appeasement.” Romney blamed Obama for “immeasurably set[ting] back the prospect of peace in the Middle East.” Rick Perry asserted the administration has unleashed a “torrent of hostility towards Israel.”

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich took to the airwaves the next day to dub Palestinians an “invented people.” Unnoticed until recently, Rick Santorum topped all other comers when he stated in November that “all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians” (“Pro-settler Santorum claims Mexico and the West Bank,” Salon, 6 January 2012).

This rhetoric occasioned Arab American Institute founder James Zogby to lament that “all of this goes beyond the normal platitudes offered up in an election year. It was dangerous, shameful and crass pandering, making it clear how far today’s GOP has moved from the reality-based foreign policy of the Bush-Baker era” (“GOP candidates discuss Israel-Palestine,” 12 December 2011).

Obama’s clear legacy of support for Israeli policy

Notwithstanding this political hot air, no political elite, whether in the Democratic or Republican Party, can legitimately be accused of “throwing Israel under the bus,” least of all Obama. On behalf of protecting Israeli occupation and apartheid, the president has employed the only US veto at the UN during his term to derail a mild condemnation of Israel’s illegal settlements and backtracked on his hope to see Palestine admitted as a member of the UN this year, while deploying the full arsenal of US diplomacy to block the initiative behind the scenes.

Also lost in the heat of this faux electoral debate is the fact that the Bush and Obama administrations, with a bipartisan rubber stamp in Congress, have tag-teamed to ramp up to unprecedented levels both military aid to Israel and the joint research, development and field testing of anti-missile projects financed separately by the Pentagon. According to the terms of a memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries in 2007, the US is scheduled to provide Israel with $30 billion in tax-payer funded weapons between 2009 and 2018, a 25 percent average annual increase over previous levels (Memorandum of understanding, 2007 [PDF]).

While presidential candidates make risible claims that the other party is abandoning support for Israel, this increasing partisan sniping is no laughing matter to those advocating for a strong US-Israel relationship. In September, the Center for Strategic and International Studies released a policy paper by Haim Malka, deputy director of its Middle East Program, warning that this “partisan wedge is likely to deepen, posing considerable challenges to Israel and the US-Israeli partnership.”

This burgeoning fear led two stalwarts of the Israel lobby — the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee — to issue a National Pledge for Unity on Israel, which beseeches “national organizations, elected officials, religious leaders, community groups and individuals to rally around bipartisan support for Israel while preventing the Jewish State from becoming a wedge issue in the upcoming campaign season” (“National pledge for unity on Israel”).

However, instead of calming the waters, the pledge initiative served only to roil them more. The ultra-alarmist Emergency Committee for Israel’s Bill Kristol responded in Washington Jewish Week with a dismissive “You must be kidding” statement, accusing the organizations of needing “a refresher course on the virtues of free speech and robust debate in a democracy” (“Should Israel be a partisan issue in American politics?,” 2 November 2011).

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, declared that “This effort to stifle debate on US policy toward Israel runs counter to this American tradition.”

Far from rethinking US policy on Israel

Yet Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of “liberal” Israel lobby group J Street, lamented in The Washington Post that this debate is redefining what it means to be “pro-Israel” and rendering it the “exclusive property of the political right. In doing so, they are breaking new ground. Their agenda is not to ensure bipartisan support for aid to Israel or nurturing US-Israeli ties based on shared interests and values” (“What pro-Israel should mean,” 16 December 2011).

Instead, he rather naively accused the candidates of “seek[ing] political advantage,” as if everything that politicians do were not based on their political calculus of what is expedient to them.

While fretting about Israel as an electoral issue has been confined largely so far to the self-described “pro-Israel” crowd, an open and honest debate about US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians desperately needs to take place in the broader body politic as well.

However, this debate must be one which is more substantive and critical than the cotton candy served up in this electoral circus. For far too long, the US political system has treated Israel as a sacred cow, leading to unconditional military and diplomatic support for its illegal 44-year military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its human rights abuses of Palestinians.

Now that Israel is becoming just another issue over which the parties squabble, even if it is to trip over each other in a modern day redux of “who lost China?” (a debate over communism that raged for much of the twentieth century), US support for Israel is becoming in the process normalized as a political issue.

Proof of this normalization occurred after the bipartisan failure of the super-committee to produce a deficit reduction plan, triggering across-the-board budget cuts in 2013. Because of this deadlock, regular appropriations of US military aid to Israel are set to substantially decrease for the first time since President Gerald Ford’s 1975 “reassessment” of US policy toward Israel.

Obama was to have requested a record-breaking $3.1 billion in military aid to Israel in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget, the level at which weapons to Israel was expected to plateau until 2018.

However, according to Nathan Guttman, writing in the Jewish Daily Forward, Israel will lose an estimated $250 million yearly from its military aid package when across-the-board budget cuts take effect. Surprisingly, Guttman notes, AIPAC, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the US, has yet to publicly protest the upcoming cuts in military aid to Israel, because it “may fear a backlash if Israel is singled out for special treatment in the face of broad cuts favored by both Democrats and Republicans” (“Israel faces $250 million slash in aid,” 2 December 2011).

Even as these tangible cuts to military aid to Israel are in the offing, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby also may have noted to its chagrin that inane electoral posturing over Israel has also seeped into the hallowed halls of Congress itself, thereby undermining the bipartisan consensus on Israel it has so laboriously constructed over the years.

According to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation’s 112th Congressional Report Card, 35 of the 37 Members of Congress rating -5 or worse are Republicans — the only Democrats deserving of the dubious distinction are Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) and Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey’s ninth Congressional district). This demonstrates that the most significant Congressional initiatives on Israel and the Palestinians last year were largely partisan affairs designed to undermine, constrain and humiliate any White House attempts to pressure Israel, even if only in the slight, ineffectual way that Obama did during the early days of his term (“Report card for the 112th congress (2011-2012)”).

Although the elites of the Democratic and Republican parties are far from rethinking US policy toward Israel, much less even considering abandoning it, the normalization of Israel as a political issue is already commonplace at civil society levels and in political discourse. Exasperated by political leaders seemingly incapable of policy change, dozens of university campuses and community organizations are deriving lessons learned from the global South African anti-apartheid movement to organize boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel and companies that profit from its human rights abuses of Palestinians. And even in the rarefied pages of The Washington Post, columnist Walter Pincus suggested in October that it is “time to examine the funding the United States provides to Israel” (“Unites States needs to reevaluate its assistance to Israel”).

By continuing to level sophomoric accusations against each other’s mythical abandonment of Israel, the presidential candidates are inadvertently and perhaps counter-intuitively helping to normalize the question of US support for Israel and providing fodder to the strengthening currents in civil society truly questioning failed US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

As is the case in all processes of social and political change, this grassroots ferment is a necessary prerequisite for a broad-scale policy change at the political level. Such a policy review, although a long ways off as demonstrated by the 2012 election cycle, is nevertheless essential if the US hopes to broker a just and lasting resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of human rights, international law and UN resolutions, rather than continuing to obstruct its attainment.

*Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and a former analyst of Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.


5 Minutes To Self-Immolation Of The Israeli Empire

Wesley Clark was given a list of 7 Muslim nations 10 days after 911 that America was to invade. That 2001 hit list originated in Israel in 1982. The last nation on that list is Iran.

From Video Rebel’s Blog

Posted on December 31, 2011

Israel Shahak wrote a foreword to his translation of Oded Yinon’s 1982 paper for the World Zionist Organization which revealed Zion’s plans for America, Israel, the Mideast and the world. Wesley Clark was given a list of 7 Muslim nations 10 days after 911 that America was to invade. That 2001 hit list originated in Israel in 1982. The last nation on that list is Iran.

Today I would hope to prove that if America attacks Iran for Israel, then the Israeli Empire will self-immolate and the America we knew will die. The words 5 Minutes in the title refers to the undeniable fact that it will take Iran 5 Minutes to sink the American Persian Gulf fleet, eviscerate the US Central Command and send America into a Depression so severe that I think it should be called the Greatest Starvation.

The Iranians have hundreds of small boats armed with Russian made anti-ship missiles designed to sink American aircraft carriers. Those would be the N-22 Sunburn (Mach 2.1) and the N-26 Onyx (Mach 3). They also have the Chinese made C-802 which has a 165 kg (364 pound) warhead. They have rocket artillery with ranges of 65, 92 and 130 miles (100, 150 and 210 km). This rocket artillery includes the Zelzal-2 meaning “Earthquake”. It is a 610 mm heavy artillery rocket with a 600 kg (1,323 lb) warhead. The missile is based on the Soviet FROG-7 missile.

Iran has 20 submarines. Their Russian designed torpedoes have a top speed of 360 km/h (223.7 mph).

The Iranians have many other anti-ship missiles that can be launched from small and medium sized boats from the land and from helicopters and jets. See the reference below as they are too numerous to name.

The Iranians recently electronically hijacked an advanced CIA stealth drone proving they are not a primitive nation. Iran has a drone with a 1,000 km range capable of firing 4 missiles.

Perform this thought experiment. Suppose Israel launches 100 jets to attack Iran. What does the American Persian Gulf fleet do? Do they wait for the Iranians to launch ten thousand torpedoes, missiles and rocket artillery shells from more than a thousand locations? Do American fighter pilots scramble their jets and fly in circles waiting for the Israeli jets to show up an hour later? What if Iran issues an ultimatum to the American field commanders that launching their jets would be tantamount to a declaration of war?

In the first 5 Minutes every single ship without exception in the American Persian Gulf fleet will be sinking. In the first 5 Minutes every single base in the US Central Command will have multiple incoming missiles rapid;y approaching and spelling doom for NATO troops.

Israel will have 150,000 incoming missiles from Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. Hezbollah has 300 or more M-600 guided missiles with 1,000 pound warheads and is capable of turning Tel Aviv into a parking lot.

As an exercise, you might calculate what will be left of the Israeli population if the 2,000 most industrialized and most populous square miles in Israel were hit by 1,000 thousand pound fuel air explosives and by 1,000 thousand pound conventional bombs. Hint 1: 42% of Israeli Jews live in 528 square miles of metropolitan Tel Aviv. Hint 2: A fuel air explosive has 4 times the impact of a conventional bomb. Fires and explosives require oxygen. A fuel air explosive burns up all the oxygen in the atmosphere in a radius of half a mile or more so it has more room for explosives.

Might I take this opportunity to point out what the only adult running for President of the United States has said:

The only thing Iran does not have is a plan to make a nuclear bomb.

I would like to make a suggestion:

I believe Iran has an advanced High Powered Microwave Electromagnetic Pulse (HPM EMP) defense system under construction. Israel does not want to attack Iran during winter cloud cover so the Iranians have a few months to prepare a welcome for those Israeli and American jets. I would suggest the Iranians reveal their top secret HPM EMP device either from Syria or Iran by disabling an American ship or a few jets or maybe both. This might be sufficient reason even for a fanatical Israeli to call off World War III. And why proceed with an attack that would be doomed to failure from EMP weapons?

Please consider that Iran is an ally of China and Russia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in which they have Observer status. The Iranians made secret alliances with the Pakistani military after the US killed those 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26th. Pakistan has lots of Hydrogen bombs. Of more immediate concern is that Russian carrier task force in Syria. What plan does Washington have to avoid escalating a missile exchange between Syria and Israel and Russia into a thermonuclear war.

What would Obama, Geithner, Bernanke and Mario Draghi at the European Central bank do if China began selling hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasury bonds while simultaneously buying gold, oil, silver, food and other commodities? The Chinese press could taunt Americans saying that they had their chance to wean themselves away from importing 70% of their oil. Now they can pay $500 a barrel for oil. Americans could scurry around to earn $5,000 to buy an ounce of gold to buy anything from overseas.

What exactly is the Goldman Sachs plan for recovery after America reaches hyperinflation and 30% unemployment? Hint 3: All of those men named above are Goldman Sachs employees. Not one of them had a plan for recovery of the economy before 30% unemployment so I can guarantee you they will have none after you have direct personal experience with hyperinflation.

I suppose I should point out that 40% of all oil tanker traffic goes through the Strait of Hormuz. All Iran has to do is to threaten to sink all oil tankers going through the Strait to force London insurers to shut down oil traffic out of the Gulf and drive oil to %350 a barrel. Iran might elect to use an EMP weapon to disable an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz as opposed to mines or rocket artillery. The EMP device is more selective in its usage. And using it would reveal the sheer folly of an attack on Iran. This assumes the US and NATO use stepped up sanctions to attack Iran economically.

A Navy JAG officer (lawyer) recently said their offices were inundated with calls from flag officers who wanted a legal basis to refuse an order to attack Iran and to refuse to arrest American civilians without trial and render them to foreign prisons for torture. The JAG officers are thinking that they should apply the Geneva Convention to American civilians and defend them in military court. The JAG officer also said that military officers do not want to arrest Americans without trial because they would be turned into a sieve meaning Americans have at least 300 million guns and 10 billion bullets.

I suppose this is where I explain Oded Yinon and the Zionists really believe Israel has the right to all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates river in Iraq. They believe they have the right to destroy every Muslim nation that would say No to Zionist insanity. Why should America suffer self-immolation because Israel thinks national suicide just like at Masada is a wonderful idea?

If we do not decisively say No to Israel and to Zionism very soon, we will all be doomed to what we deserve.

Related Articles:

How Iran Can Collapse All of the Bilderberg Banks and Governments


Israel Shahak: The Laws Against Non-Jews In 2 Minutes


The Bankers Want America To Lose World War III


We Are Not Anti-Semites We Merely Oppose The Psychopathic Religion Judaism


Mr Wiesel, I Would Like To Ask You A Few Questions.


VIDEO- Ernst Zundel: Jewish Voraciousness Will Create Weimar Like Conditions In America And A Final Solutions For The Jews In The US


References: A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties by Oded Yinon


The following article takes a look at Iran’s weapons.


The Plan — according to U.S. General Wesley Clark


10 reasons why even democrats, liberals and progressives are choosing Ron Paul over Obama

From NaturalNews

Thursday, January 12, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)

(NaturalNews) It’s a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you’re a total slave to the police state, it doesn’t really matter whether you’re on the left or the right, does it?

Here, I give you ten solid reasons why even liberals and progressives are supporting Ron Paul. And by the way, I don’t worship Ron Paul or any individual. What I honor isthe principlesthat Ron Paul stands for — the very same principles President Obama has outright abandoned in his broken promises and disturbing reversals against the American people. Out of all the candidates, only Ron Paul has the ethical and moral strength to carry out his office from a place of principle rather than betrayal.

#1) Ron Paul supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the War on Drugs. Obama does not.

Remember when Obama promised he would decriminalize marijuana, but now his own administration continues to raid legal drug dispensaries in California? That’s a classic Obama lie: Say one thing to get elected, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, openly supports decriminalizing marijuana and ending the failed War on Drugs. Although he doesn’tpromoterecreational drug use (and neither do I), he understands that treating weed smokers as hard-core criminals is ethical, morally and economically wrong. See my related article on Snoop Dogg and his recent drug bust in Texas:http://www.naturalnews.com/034612_S…

#2) Ron Paul supports the freedom to choose what you eat and drink, including raw milk, but the Obama administration continues to run armed raids on raw milk farmers

Under Ron Paul, the FDA would be forced to end its vicious armed raids on Amish farmers and raw dairy producers. Obama has openly allowed such armed raids to continue under his watch, refusing to even take a stand for food freedom in America.

Ron Paul understands thatliberty is the most important component of abundance. If you are not free to choose what you want to eat, smoke what you want to smoke, and choose your own type of medicine and health care, then you are a slave, not a citizen. Ron Paul seeks toget Big Government out of your life, away from your kitchen, out of your medicine cabinet and away from your children.

#3) Ron Paul would seek to eliminate FDA censorship of the scientifically-validated health claims for herbs, nutritional supplements and natural remedies

Under Bush and Obama, the FDA’s continued censorship of truthful statements about medicinal herbs, homeopathy and nutritional supplements has been fully supported by the White House. Obama is just a corporate puppet, of course, and that means he does whatever the powerful corporations tell him to do — especially the Wall Street and Big Pharma corporations. So it’s no surprise he hasn’t taken a stand to support health freedom for foods and supplements.

But Ron Paul has pushed theHealth Freedom Protection Act year after year (http://www.naturalnews.com/019382_H…), tirelessly working tolegalize nutrition in Americaand restore Free Speech for Chinese Medicine herbs, Western medicine herbs and dietary supplements. Where Obama wants people to remain ignorant and malnourished, Ron Paul wants to restore your right to know the truth about supplements and natural medicine. As Ron Paul said in late 2005:

“The Health Freedom Protection Act will force the FDA to at last comply with the commands of Congress, the First Amendment, and the American people by codifying the First Amendment standards adopted by the federal courts. Specifically, the Health Freedom Protection Act stops the FDA from censoring truthful claims about the curative, mitigative, or preventative effects of dietary supplements, and adopts the federal court’s suggested use of disclaimers as an alternative to censorship. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the FDA from prohibiting the distribution of scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against disease.”

#4) Ron Paul would shut down secret military prisons like Gitmo, but Obama wants to expand those prisons and fill them with Americans!

It is now common knowledge that Obama lied when he said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay. As it turns out, Obama actually signed the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) on New Year’s Eve (when no one would notice). The NDAA grants the U.S. government the claimed “legal” right to “indefinitely detain” U.S. citizens, throw them in secret military prisons, interrogate them and even kill them withno due process. All this can now take place without a person even beingchargedwith a crime, much less given their day in court. (http://www.naturalnews.com/034537_N…)

Obama quietly signed this bill on New Year’s Eve, hoping no one would notice. This is how low his morals have stooped, by the way — to signing traitorous bills in the dark of night, on the evening before a major holiday where half the nation is hung over from alcohol. Why no signing ceremony with full coverage by CNN, huh? Maybe it’s because nationaltraitorsdon’t want their crimes against the United States Constitution to be filmed on camera.

In signing this, Obama violated his own oath of office, nullified the U.S. Bill of Rights, and essentially committed an act of mass civil rights violations against the People of America. Rep. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of the very few people who has openly and sternly opposed this unlawful NDAA which blatantly and arrogantly violates the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

This single point alone outweighs everything else you might think about Ron Paul. Even if you disagree with Ron Paul on other issues, none of that really matters if you’re rotting away in a secret military prison for daring to protest in a public park, for example.Without the Bill of Rights, nothing else really mattersbecause tyranny takes over. The Bill of Rights must be defended first and at all costs. It is the only thing limiting the power of government and protecting the People from tyranny. Without it, we are all little more than slaves to a military dictatorship.

#5) Ron Paul is anti-war, Obama is pro-war.

Remember when Bush was the President, and everybody on the left was screaming about getting us out of all those wars in the Middle East? Funny how they suddenly fell silent when Obama took over the reins from Bush and continued running those same wars, isn’t it?

Ron Paul is solidly anti-war. Although he agrees with the need to “defend our shores,” he also believes that the United States has no moral authority (nor financial stability) from which to engage in running around the world as some sort of global police force, intervening in the business of nations,especially in the Middle East.

He is solidly against a war with Iran even as all the other candidates seem to be almost desperate to throwother people’s sons and daughtersonto the front lines of violent conflict. Only Ron Paul truly honors the troops bybringing them home. All the other war-mongers who say “support our troops” are really screaming, “Let our troops get killed overseas!” And unlike Gingrich, Ron Paul actually served his country as a military man, even with a child to care for:

#6) Ron Paul’s wants to end the Fed and stop bailing out wealthy banksters, while Obama is a Wall Street sellout

Don’t you find it astonishing that, under the Obama administration, wall street crooks like Jon Corzine have been involved in thetheft of billions of dollarsfrom American farmers and investors, yetno one has been indicted, prosecuted or criminally chargedfor those crimes?

Under the Obama administration, white-collar crime gets a wink and a nod. That’s because people like Vice President Joe Biden actually worship Jon Corzine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm3V…). Wall Street crooks were some of the largest contributors to the Obama election campaign, and they continue to promote both Obama and Mitt Romney.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, gets no support from the criminal banksters. That’s because he pledges to reign in the Fed, end the disastrous trillion-dollar bailouts and halt the theft of money from U.S. taxpayers by the wealthy elite.

Once again, this reason alone is enough of a reason to vote for Ron Paul.He’s the only candidate who doesn’t support the financial criminals on Wall Street. Maybe that’s why the crooked corporate media keeps smearing him in the news… they’re all tied in with the same crooks who run Wall Street.

#7) Ron Paul does not need a teleprompter to tell you what he believes, and his message has remained consistent for over 25 years

Obama needs a teleprompter to figure out what to say. That’s because he’s mainly a puppet who says what he’s told to say and signs what he’s told to sign (like the NDAA, which he of course promised he wouldn’t sign but did anyway).

Ron Paul needs no teleprompter. He doesn’t have to keep track of which lies he told in which speech to which group. That’s because Ron Paul tells the truth every time, and his message is the same whether he’s in Iowa, New Hampshire or Texas.

Ron Paul isn’t sexy, trendy or hip. Instead, he’s honest, reliable and ethical. Gee, those might be good qualities for leaders to possess, ya think?

#8) Ron Paul is not really a Republican loyalist

This should come as quite a relief to the Democrats out there. Ron Paul is really aLibertarianwho is running on the Republican ticket thanks to the necessary mechanisms of our two-party system. Most of today’s Republicans are just as corrupt as status quo democrats. They start wars, stage false flag terror events and hand out trillions of dollars in bailouts and government contracts to their corrupt buddies.

Ron Paul is none of that. He’s a humble, highly intelligent and principled individual who often votesagainsthis fellow Republicans on bills that run counter to the United States Constitution.

If Ron Paul wins as a Republican, that would of course give Republicans some additional power in Congress, but Ron Paul answers to no one other than God and the People. As all the corrupt corporate lobbyists realized long ago,Ron Paul thinks for himselfand cannot be bought off, no matter how high the offer. He sticks to principles, he honors the Constitution, and he is dedicated to improving the future of our nation, period!

#9) Ron Paul wants to legalize Free Speech (again)

Isn’t it interesting how many of the OWS protesters are now being forced to pay daily fees for the “privilege” of protesting? Gee, I thought America was a free country, and I thought you could peaceably assemble anytime you wanted and shout your grievances to your government. Guess not:http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=FF2F1…

Now the police state pepper spraying has begun, all under Obama of course, who now wants to send Americans into secret military prisons and deprive them of their due process rights. If you believe in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, youcan’tbelieve in Obama! He is the polar opposite of freedom (plus, he flat out lies a lot).

Ron Paul has fought for the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution fordecades, and he has a PERFECT voting record in defending it. He does not waver. He does not bend. He fights for your freedoms in a way that no other Democrat or Republican has ever done.

If you want Free Speech to be legal again in America, vote for Ron Paul.

#10) Ron Paul wants to criminally investigate the crooks in Washington

Most Democrats and Republicans are all crooks who just cover each other’s backs. Yeah, you raped a little kid, but I stole a billion dollars from the taxpayers, and we’ll just agree to both remain silent. Sound familiar? That’s what happens in Washington D.C. almost daily.

Ron Paul thinkselected officials should follow the law. Shock! What a concept! Along with that, he also believes that Attorney General Eric Holder should not run guns into Mexico as part of a staged scam to blame the Second Amendment. Gasp!

Who else dares to say the bureaucrats in Washington are crooks who should becriminally investigatedfor their crimes against the People? You won’t find status quo officials pursuing any of this, of course, becausethey’re all corrupt!

Only Ron Paul stands out above the lawless corruption and criminal-mindedness of the status quo in Washington D.C. He is the “anti-insider,” the one man who actually threatens the entire corrupt system (which is why the press smears him every single day). This is why the recent voting in Iowa was falsified and rigged to make sure Ron Paul wouldn’t win (this was openly admitted by the Republican leaders on local radio). The crooks in Washington absolutely do not want Ron Paul to become President, and that alone should be sufficient reason to put Ron Paul into office!

You want real hope? Real change? Support Ron Paul

If you love the way things are today — unemployment on the rise, a government drowning in debt, soldiers coming home in body bags, your friends and neighbors rotting in prison after getting caught with a little weed — then vote for Obama! He’s happy to carry on the insane policies that have led us to this point in history.

But if you wantreal changein America, support Ron Paul.Make a donation today, so that he can raise the necessary funds to clobber “Mittens” Romney and win the Republican nomination. Then we’ll have a faceoff between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and there’s no question Paul would win that contest if the voters still have a couple of brain cells functioning when they go to vote.

Make your donations at:

Or support theSouth Carolina money bombby donating here:

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html#ixzz1jJSR7Ks3


Election Fraud: Arizona’s Ticking Time Bomb Set to Reverberate throughout the Nation


Precedent setting court case could improve election transparency in the United States.

The Libertarian party’s pursuit of a remedy against Pima County’s criminality and incompetence can have nationwide implications for disenfranchised voters throughout the country.  The Arizona Supreme Court ruled favorably on behalf of the Libertarian party, who argued that the courts must intervene when there is a failure of existing laws as well as a failure to enforce existing laws designed to keep elections transparent and accurate.

Today’s press conference marks the beginning of the Libertarian party’s request through the courts for changes to Pima County’s election procedures, which have been found to be woefully inadequate.

Like most voting districts throughout the country, Pima County uses electronic voting machines now infamous for their numerous security flaws and errant outcomes.  Unique to Pima County is the mounting evidence of election fraud surrounding one specific election that took place in 2006.  This was a taxpayer-funded road construction measure worth two billion dollars.   This Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) initiative contained two “yes/no” questions which was part of a simple ballot design that contained only a total of four “yes/no” questions.  Part of the initial suspicion was fueled by this simple ballot initiative’s unusual number of anomalies and malfunctions during the tally process, which was unmatched by any of the other more complex ballots counted in Pima County.

Bill Risner helped set the foundation for
prospective relief in this case.

The means, motive and opportunity for election fraud was clearly established by a previous court case over an electronic records request by the Democratic party.  Pima County refused to release the electronic database files for the 2006 RTA election.  Their resistance cost taxpayers approximately 1.5 million in legal fees in its failed effort to prevent the legal transfer of public records to political parties.  The Democratic Party eventually lost interest in the pursuit of prospective relief for election integrity once it became apparent that Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Terry Goddard was complicit in the criminal investigation of the 2006 RTA election.   Fortunately, the Libertarian party continued with the lawsuit to win the appeal over prospective relief.  

This case eventually demonstrated the failure of existing state laws to enable a timely challenge of election results due to a five day limit.  This problem seemed to be complemented by the failure of law enforcement, which was highlighted by the incompetent criminal investigation conducted by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.  

In short, Terry Goddard refused to conduct an audit by comparing one set of numbers (the ballots) to another set of numbers (the precinct totals or the poll tapes).  Goddard’s team refused to conduct a forensic check of the ballots (which are still in existence) despite the suspects’ (Pima County’s)  access to them throughout the period of litigation.

Today’s press conference is marked by the filing of the Libertarian Party’s initial disclosure statement, which contains the most comprehensive and comprehensible list of facts, legal theories and evidence surrounding the rigged 2006 RTA election.

Additional discovery will take place in this suit to complete the picture of election fraud and to further understand the shortcomings of existing election procedures in Pima County.  Apparently, Pima County is offering stiff legal resistance to the plaintiff’s request for a list of people who visited the storage facility for access to the ballots in question during the period of litigation.  

Since HAVA, (Help America Vote Act), election fraud is rampant throughout the United States.  The Libertarian party’s victory in obtaining prospective relief through the courts means that a court can issue orders that effect the transparency and accuracy of elections.  This case is precedent-setting and may be applicable to other election court cases throughout the country.

J.T. Waldron

Here is the press release info (which has a livestream link):

Press Conferences: The Pima County Election Fraud Case Heads to Back to Court

Just released; will be filed Thursday morning. “Statement of Facts”  Election Fraud Pima County: http://tinyurl.com/76lgzvy

Contacts: John R. Brakey,             520 339 2696       AUDITAZ@cox.net, Bill Risner             520 622 7495      , bill@risnerandgraham.com, Jim March,1.jim.march@gmail.com

When: Thursday January 12th, 2:30 pm
Where: Armory Park Senior Center
220 S. 5th Avenue, 220 S. 5th Avenue, Tucson AZ 

Tucson, AZ: Since our saga began over five years ago, more and more people across America are becoming aware of the serious security flaws in computerized voting systems. They are systems designed to cheat, and they are everywhere. As the political scene heats up with the Presidential election, all eyes will be on Tucson as ground zero for exposing these flaws in open court and proposing reasonable checks and balances in the system. We must protect the purity of elections and public confidence in election results — a cornerstone of our democracy. That’s what this case is ultimately about.

BACKGROUND: AUDIT-AZ, the Pima County Libertarian Party and other interested citizens of multiple parties for years have been investigating election processes in Pima County. In previous actions, the Democratic Party took the lead in winning public records lawsuits and revealing the extent of the problems, including poor security practices on “designed to cheat” systems, election results that consistently did not add up, missing or falsified paper, and election officials and staff who continuously flout the law.

The Democratic and Libertarian Parties jointly filed suit years ago to ask a court to order reforms to the process. One local judge decided that his court was unable to do so no matter how obvious the problems might be. After that, the Democratic Party dropped out. The Libertarian Party did not: They appealed and won. Pima County appealed that decision to the AZ Supreme Court and lost. The courts have now ruled that if it can be proven that elections are being handled poorly, a local judge can indeed order Pima County to institute reforms.

IT’S GAME TIME: So after years of effort, we are “game on.” We plan to prove wide-ranging abuses of basic election security in Pima County Arizona and to obtain court-mandated improvements in the election process that could serve as a national model for how to do electronic voting properly and securely.

We have connected the dots into a 10-point quick summary of the fact pattern in this gripping saga of power and deceit. And we propose a remedy that is easy, inexpensive and doable. Let us share that and more with you. We promise a very interesting time.


·        RTA Fraud Slides for Press Conference 1/12/12 .pdf:http://tinyurl.com/872o8sn

·        Flyer for Press Conference 1/12/12 pdf:http://tinyurl.com/85ddblt

·        Just released: “Statement of Facts”http://tinyurl.com/76lgzvy

·        For more info: http://audit-az.blogspot.com or:http://seekingjusticeauditaz.blogspot.com

Occupy Rigged Elections with C.A.R.E

If you can’t make it you can hopefully watch on line: starting at 2:30pm tomorrow you’ll be able to watch it online at: Occupy Rigged Elections Tucson: 

You may have to sit through one short ad first, after that we’re on. 

Hope, Peace and Occupy with C.A.R.E.  Care stands for Citizens Against Rigged Elections

John R Brakey


Mainstream Media To Bully Bloggers Out Of ‘Fair Use’

From Activist Post

R.F. Goggin, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, along with 28 other news organizations, are launching a company which hopes to further profit on their news reporting, by seeking to make paying customers out of websites or blogs which reproduce their content, either in full or in part.

The new company will go by the ridiculous name of ‘NewsRight’, to make it better appear to the general public that these mainstream media outlets have some kind of exclusivity over the very flow of human existence of any significance (or as equally likely, insignificance) taking place anywhere in the world.

With technology available to the media organizations which I have mentioned to clandestinely encode news stories or articles with the writer’s name and date published, NewsRight, will not only know when content is under their watchful eye, has been copied and pasted elsewhere on the Internet, but also the privacy infringing details of just who may be viewing it.

NewsRight, is to be led by former ABC News president David Westin, who apparently has insufficient grasp of public sentiment toward greedy corporations or conglomerates, these days, as he inform us :

‘More news is available more ways than ever in history. But if reliable information is to continue to flourish, the company’s investing in creating content need efficient ways to license it as broadly as possible,’ Westin said in a statement. ‘NewsRight’s mission is to make sure consumers continue to benefit from the all the original news reporting they want while ensuring those who republish content do so with integrity.

Integrity? If information is to continue to flourish?

Fortunate for me then, I suppose, that I’ve come equipped with enough integrity to know a crock of utter bullshit when it’s sent my way. What if what it is being reported has no integrity associated with it to begin with? This load of tedium (above), is the kind of outdated propaganda that mainstream, big media thinks the general public capable of swallowing hook, line and sinker.

Certainly people like Westin ought to know that most folks who get their news from the Internet are smarter than the average sheep? Or that shrouding complete greed in noble appearance has become predictable enough stuff, indeed, to precipitate a backlash when taking intelligent human beings who spend time occupying the medium of cyberspace for a gullible collection of indiscriminate fools?

According to the US Copyright office on the doctrine of ‘Fair Use’ :

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work. (Source)

Now is there a soul present consuming this article, who can sit there and tell me that other than in some print media op-ed or opinion article of some sort, there is any semblance of  ‘originality’ whatsoever in reporting actual or factual news or events? It’s absurd by its very nature to suggest such a propriety, as Westin clearly does, and it would hardly stand up in a court of law, I would reckon, even if said news event were reproduced from one of his clients – word for word.

So, therefore, what we basically have here is a case of good old-fashioned, power-playing, American bullying seeking to take shape. The NewsRight company hopes to dictate the terms of its existence to a publication such as The New World Reporter  – being, either you fall in line where we think you belong and pay us for reproducing a factual news story, or we will sue you for copyright infringement, even as we try to banish your site into some bottomless blacklist, or have it pulled from the Web entirely.

Where have I heard something like this before? Oh right, S.O.P.A. (Stop On-line Piracy Act), minus the Congressional kickback.

If a single news organization were to choose to lease out content, which some do, that’s something entirely different, of course, than dozens of large companies banding together to attempt to control both the market, and the content, of Internet news. There are anti-trust issues at play here, which far surpass copyright protection at the heart of such an ungainly collusion, whether or not an individual information outlet could indeed claim copyright to the course of human activity.

Yet, without the backing of a governmental body behind this effort, this new attempt to curtail free speech and/or personal liberty has no discernible teeth worthy of consideration. Consequently, I can do little but laugh whilst I snicker at the very idea of this thing called ‘NewsRight’, and wish them every success in convincing anyone at all that anything I publish via the resources of their well-to-do overseers  is every bit as likewise ‘original’ a story, as their own version. 

Henceforth, it would be wise of me, it seems, that instead of adding a source link to such material as I was hitherto inclined to do in such case, that this not so humble editor and chief (on such matters), shall simply be obliged to change a few words here and there, so as to be completely sure not to anger whatever gluttonous beast of which copied such news to begin with via perfectly ‘original’ human affairs, circumstances and/or events. 

R.F. Goggin – is the editor of The New World Reporter, where he is a contributing author. 


Traditional Media to Bully Bloggers with NewsRight? 


A Culture of Resistance is Born in 2011: the People United in an Independent Movement

From Occupy Wall Street News

In 2012, the Real Conversation will be in the Occupations, while Corporate Candidates have a False Conversation

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

The Occupy Movement that developed in 2011 profoundly shook the foundation of the 1%.  Almost instantly a new form of political power was created, all truly grown from the grass roots, and handed the 99% some REAL political capital for the first time in decades, and installed the Occupy Movement as a force to be reckoned with. Next spring promises to see more growth of this movement as the economy continues to stagnate and the government continues its dysfunction. Already, the Occupy Movement it showing its political independence: protesting candidates from both parties who are part of corrupt money-based elections.  The irrelevance of the political debate, primarily between two-corporate approved candidates, will become more evident as the voices of the people grow.

How We Got Here

No doubt every occupier has their own story, this is ours.  On December 16, 2010 we joined with Veterans for Peace and other organizations in an anti-war protest.  The theme of the protest was developing a ‘culture of resistance’ in the United States.  Many of us spoke that day about the need for resistance, perhaps none more clearly than noted author Chris Hedges who said “Hope will only come when we resist the violence of the state. . . . those who resist here today with non-violence are the last thin line of defense between a civil society and its disintegration.”  That day 132 Americans, mostly veterans, were arrested standing against the corporate-military state that the United States has become.

The next day, Mohamed Bouazizi, a Tunisian vegetable vendor in Sidi Bouzid, a poor town of 40,000 people located in the center of Tunisia, set himself on fire in front of the municipal building seeking redress for police abuse.  Bouazizi’s death highlighted an unfair economy that created a life of poverty and misery for many in Tunisia, similar to many around the world.  Police corruption and brutality that enforced the unfair economy sparked his suicide. His mother told TIME Magazine that his death “was about his dignity. Dignity before bread. Mohammad’s first concern was his dignity.” His death ignited a rebellion that toppled the 23 year old autocratic rule of Zine Ben Ali in less than one month.

The Tunisian revolution sparked revolutions that became known as the Arab Spring.  Most notable was the still-ongoing Egyptian Revolution which began on January 25th receiving wall-to-wall coverage in the United States. Al-Jazeera reported a 2,500% increase in web viewership during the revolt, with more than half of the upsurge coming from the U.S.  By February 11th the long-time dictator Hosni Mubarak had resigned.  The Arab Spring led to a European summer, especially notable in Spain and Greece – these rebellions also continue.

While these uprisings were occurring, the United States was already in revolt but for the most part it was not covered by the media.  The media did take note of the occupation of the capitol in Wisconsin, and to a lesser extent in Ohio and Michigan, but those were the tip of the iceberg of a widespread revolt.  There were protests multiple times a week on a range of issues including closings of schools, tuition increases, mountain top removal for coal, austerity measures, health care, banking, foreclosures, failure of big business to pay taxes, climate change, war, torture,  Bradley Manning – the issues and actions go on and on.  There is a sampling of protest videos in this article, It Can Be Done. Now is the Time, published in July to convince people that the time was right to successfully occupy Freedom Plaza.



Fair Use Notice ):

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make ‘fair use’ of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.} ~~ Xaniel777



Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: