Saturday, May 22, 2010

West Virginia bombing incident... more duplicity.

There has just been an incident in W. Virginia, in which a bomb exploded, killing one person (probably the bomber), but apparently, terrorism has been ruled out. Other explosive devices were discovered by police... indicating that the bomber had planned multiple explosions.

This says it all: "Ferguson called the blast an "isolated incident" and said it was unlikely that the explosion was related to terrorism. We don't have much of that here."

Good heavens... someone builds a bomb, detonates it, a person is killed, and the powers-that-be consider that it's "not related to terrorism"? Earth calling West Virginia.... beep... beep....beep....

Perhaps they should be a little more honest and say it the way it is: Basically, the public in the US have been programmed and conditioned for decades that terrorism is a Muslim characteristic.. all Muslims are terrorists and all terrorists are Muslims: There is no muslim connection here, so this is merely a crime, nothing to look at here folks. If the perps' name had been Saeed (or Mohammed, or Ahmed etc.), the fearmongering mainstream media would have swarmed all over this like ants, as they did with the Times Square fake bomb incident, which didn't kill (and couldn't have killed) anyone.

How did our country get into such a duplicitous frame of "awareness"? Consider who owns the mainstream media, and then consider who provides all the translation services to the MSM as regards news from the Middle East (MEMRI), and then consider the words of William Colby, ex CIA chief, who was very frank and honest about the influence of the intelligence agencies, regarding the material that Americans are permitted to hear. Hatred and irrational fear of middle eastern people (non-Jewish of course) is one of the biggest factors here.

Friday, May 21, 2010

The Liberal Media. LOL

Liberal media? If journalists had the liberty to publish the articles they would wish to write in the mainstream media, then we might have a liberal media. But journalists, radio and TV presenters etc are shackled, hidebound and straitjacketed: as everyone knows, the further up the media hierarchy one goes the more "un-liberal" it gets. The way this ridiculously meaningless "liberal media" phrase gets bandied about would make any unsuspecting visitor believe that the corporate media boardrooms (where the major policy decisions are made) were populated by a bunch of forward-thinking, centered, people with a sense of decency and proportion. The media is no more "liberal" than the market is "free". The "liberal media" in the US is limited to city freebies and a few boutique magazines, and even they have taboos regarding a number of topics which should (if there was any justice or sense of priorities in the world) be in blazing 4 inch flashing headlines.

Liberal media... Goebbels would be proud of such doublespeak.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Kagan: Saudis princes count for much more than US families.

To protect the personal security and wellbeing of Saudi royalty/princes, Kagan stuck a big fat middle finger up at family members bereaved as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Some 6000 family members had filed lawsuits against the Saudi elite.

Kagan posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.

Anyone who has read up on 9/11 (outside of the infantile gibberish regurgitated by the mainstream media of course) knows full well that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by those alleged 19 Arabs (including 15 alleged Saudis), and Kagan probably also knows this is the case. The threat of a highly public lawsuit, with thousands of plaintiffs involved, following the money trail and other aspects of 9/11, where high level people in both the US and Saudi (and elsewhere) are subpoenaed and placed under oath in a courtroom, is the LAST thing that the powers-that-be wanted to happen, and get the subject under public scrutiny. Kagan (as well as the Supreme Court justices) were probably under enormous pressure to get this issue swept under the carpet ASAP.

But the message reaching mainstream American, if the media do their duty and report this, is as follows:

Elena Kagan to Saudi princes: "FUNNELING $$$ TO TERRORISTS IS OK,.... and the US supreme court agrees with me.
Elena Kagan to thousands of American families: GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Silly season at the Supreme Court... yet again.

The controversial cross in the middle of the Mojave desert has been stolen. I cannot condone theft and vandalism, of course, but this is the inevitable result of the lack of forethought and awareness on the part of those who selected the final design of the monument. Same old.....

A war memorial honoring the dead should be "faith neutral". Perhaps some of those who died in the service of their country (or to be more accurate, multinational corporations) were Jews, or Buddhists, or atheists. A cross is an inappropriate design, and when placed on federal land, plainly provocative. The supreme court's decision was not only wrongheaded and unconstitutional, but pandered to the over powerful "Christian" right.

The article at yahoo.com, written by a seemingly geographically challenged A.P. reporter, mentions that the cross was erected some "200 miles northwest of Los Angeles". This would place the monument in the Pacific Ocean, perhaps the best place for it.