Thursday, June 30, 2011

Pete Stark brazenly mocks constituents at town hall meeting

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Looking like a burnt-out teacher with three years left to retirement presiding over an after school detention session, Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) took great pleasure recently in alienating his constituents at a town hall meeting by marginalizing the Mexican border issue and issuing sarcastic, belittling answers to reasonable questions that were asked of him.

When a Minuteman– part of a group that voluntarily patrols the Mexican border and reports crossings by illegal immigrants–stood to ask a question, Stark first asked him, “Who are you going to kill today?” Then in response to the question itself, which was why the federal government wasn’t doing more to seal the borders, Stark mockingly responded, “We’d like to get all the Minutemen armed so they can stop shooting people here.”

Stark then went on to make other amazingly detached and dismissive retorts which sparked outrage from various members of the audience, including a round of applause when the Minuteman asked his question again. Stark then insisted that the border was secure, which invited more jeers.

Politicians have always been accused of pandering to their constituents and offering transparently phony promises to address their concerns, feeling that a false front of sincerity was enough to placate their critics. In recent history however, politicians have reacted to voters with arrogant ridicule and outright hostility as a mass awakening has caused Americans to increasingly exercise their duties as citizens to become more politically active, challenging the dominance of the establishment that keeps career politicians in office.

Pete Stark’s performance at the town hall is the most brazen display of disdain from a politician towards ordinary Americans since Bob Etheridge assaulted a student who asked him a question on the street a few weeks ago. Such displays show that the masks are falling off the controlled authorities of the nation as the metaphorical lizards underneath them are revealed. Now, instead of rushing to put the masks back on, some political reptiles are deciding to show their true faces, baring their teeth and lashing their tongues out at their stunned constituents, whom they once at least pretended to represent.

Monday, June 27, 2011

TX–Committee passes castrated version of anti-TSA groping bill; Jones and activists respond with “Citizens’ Filibuster”

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

A Texas State Senate committee passed a castrated version of the anti-TSA groping bill on Monday (the one that the DOJ threatened the state with a blockade over last month), nullifying it by continuing to allow TSA agents to molest passengers as long as they act with “reasonable suspicion” that the search is necessary. The original bill would have made it a crime for TSA agents to “… touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place”.

As activist Heather Fazio said, “The simple act of opting out of the body scanners is going to be reasonable suspicion. That is unacceptable.”

Some Texas politicians are using this castrated version of the bill to pretend that they’re taking on the Federal Government while in reality they are merely putting on a show of rebellion as they capitulate to its demands. Texas Governor Rick Perry tried to avoid reintroducing the bill after it was dropped amid the DOJ threat controversy last month, even incorrectly claiming that the bill didn’t have enough support to pass. (This was until after an activist filmed a conversation between himself and Perry in which he reminded the Governor of Senator Patrick, who had read a note days before indicating that there were indeed enough votes in the Texas legislature to back the bill.)

It’s rumored that Perry is considering a presidential run. Pretending to stand up to the President by backing a new version of the bill big on talk but lacking teeth may, in theory, give him PR points within the establishment GOP while maintaining the same overbearing federal power his administration would enjoy overseeing if he took Obama’s place in 2012. However, with the age of the Internet creating a more politically awakened public, such political tricks no longer work.

Radio host Alex Jones on Monday called for citizens to once again converge on the Texas Capitol in what he calls a “Citizens’ Filibuster”– a grassroots lobbying effort aimed at pressuring lawmakers to save the original legislation before the special session of the legislature ends on Wednesday, asking them to filibuster if necessary.

Videos of the protest have been posted at They can be viewed HERE.

The White House and the DOJ have everything to lose by threatening Texas, while the state itself has everything to gain by standing up to TSA oppression. If the activists succeed in getting the original version of the bill passed it will dim the illusion of superiority that the Federal Government needs in order to maintain its “Wizard of Oz” like intimidation of states seeking to exert their rights under the 10th Amendment. Texas will go down in history as having fired the first shot in the revolution against the out of control TSA, and Rick Perry will have had nothing to do with the bill’s success other than acting as the puppet with the pen who had his arm twisted by Texans sick of bowing to federal terrorism.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Some critics throw a fit over Richard Gage being allowed to present 9/11 controlled demolition evidence to RIBA

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

A group of critics within the Royal Institute of British Architects and others outside it are throwing a fit over the fact that architect Richard Gage was allowed to present evidence of the Twin Towers and WTC 7′s controlled demolition before the organization last Monday. Citing absolutely no evidence to debunk Gage’s presentation, certain members are regurgitating the commonly used slur “conspiracy theorist” and expressing melodramatic outrage at the notion that something other than what we’ve been told by the U.S. government and the corporate media may have caused the buildings to come down. Clinging to their professional titles as the sole justification for why anyone should listen to them, the architects quoted in THIS article by bdonline don’t attack Gage’s argument scientifically, but rather with the same groundless schoolyard screaming and fanatical zeal once voiced by the Catholic Church when condemning Galileo for having the audacity to claim that Earth revolves around the Sun.

Though attacks like these might be enough to convince the wine and cheese crowd to drop all debate, more and more people around the world have decided to use their own common sense and acknowledge a tragic truth…that being that fire alone couldn’t have possibly caused this building to fall the way that it did:

“Architects and engineers have willfully ignored the message that we’ve been speaking about for five years,” Richard Gage said in response to the latest criticism. “When is the RIBA going to take this seriously? It is extremely important that we understand exactly what happened on 9/11… the implications of the demolition of the Twin Towers are very disturbing – I’m not denying that – but to refuse to look at the evidence because it has dark implications is ignorance.”

Indeed, most people who keep silent on the issue of 9/11 or attack it, refusing to look at the evidence, do so out of fear, neurotically believing somehow that their own identity is wrapped up in the world’s perception of miscreant individuals within the U.S. government who they don’t even personally know (like George Bush, for example), or that exposing what really happened on 9/11 would somehow be damaging to the United States when in reality it would be the greatest thing Americans had ever collectively done since getting slavery abolished. (Lincoln was just a politician overseeing the final stage of a process maintained by countless activists over a span of years, after all).

There is also a fear of admitting that one was duped, and that the reality that we’re presented by government and television isn’t all that it seems. Admitting this is more difficult for those holding esteemed titles who have already gone on record to defend the official story, and whose egos would be bruised even more if they had to admit that…just possibly…Richard Gage and the over 1500 other architects and engineers he currently represents might have a point.

Though individuals, (even the “esteemed” ones), have a right to cling to their personal insecurities if they so choose in order to protect their own mental well-beings, the times we live in don’t afford humanity itself any future worth living if the majority of the world’s people continue refusing to acknowledge difficult realities. Let’s not forget that it was “conspiracy theorists” who said that George Bush was lying about WMD’s in Iraq, that the world’s economy was heading over a cliff, and that Obama would be as much if not more of a war monger than Bush, despite the slick media campaign that packaged him as being something different. Currently the actions of our government are shaking up the world order so much that they could potentially lead to a conflict with China if we’re not careful. (China has a billion people and nuclear weapons , folks). Not only that, but President Obama has essentially declared himself a dictator by refusing to acknowledge the authority of the U.S. Congress in carrying out his war in Libya.

These current events have everything to do with 9/11 because 9/11 was the initial stunt that shocked the American public into submission to their government, letting their foreign policy become based more on emotion than common sense.

The people of the world, (especially the American people), have to look beyond the opinions of ego-protecting, self-proclaimed “experts” and begin thinking for themselves. To simply look at the evidence and acknowledge that explosives may have been involved in bringing down the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 is not in itself an accusation against the U.S. government, or any party for that matter. (If you want to allege that Muslim terrorists somehow put them there, go for it.) All it is is an acknowledgment that possibly there’s more to the story of 9/11 than most of us first thought, and that the matter deserves a new investigation.

This is the most reasonable thing that anyone on either side of the argument can say.

After all, a new independent investigation would also be useful to the so-called debunkers, if for no other reason than to provide a chance for them to shut their opposition up.

Friday, June 24, 2011

House rejects measure to continue Globalist takeover of Libya

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

In a 295-123 vote the House rejected today a measure that would have given the President permission to continue the Globalist takeover of Libya. It’s an official repudiation of Obama’s bogus argument for conducting the war and restricts his ability to escalate it with troops later on. (Unless he tyrannically decides to ignore it.)

So far Obama has tried to justify involving the U.S. military in Libya’s civil war by claiming that he gained the authority to do so from UN resolutions 1973, and 1970, and because he doesn’t believe that bombing missions constitute “hostilities” in relation to the War Power Resolution. These false arguments have already been debunked (see related article below) and further demonstrate to the American public the ignorance and/or (more to the point) grandiose arrogance of the President, whose mental competence and understanding of his role as President outlined by the U.S. Constitution now clearly must be officially questioned by Congress.

If Obama goes on bombing Libya without congressional approval he will only be continuing to violatate U.S. law and further justify calls from members of the public demanding his impeachment.


Mr. President, U.N. Resolutions do not trump U.S. Law

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Obama’s continuing unpopularity over wars and Gingrich’s sudden disdain for Federal Reserve show Ron Paul has already won

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Radio host Alex Jones has said about Ron Paul’s candidacy for President that Ron Paul will win just by running, (forcing real issue into the debate). It’s beginning to look like he’s right.

Off the heels of Ron Paul’s popular speech regarding “endless, undeclared, unwinnable wars dumped on the young people” at the Republican leadership conference in New Orleans last week, Obama will be taking to the airwaves tonight to announce a drawdown of troops from Afghanistan. Though the deadline for a decision had long been set, President Obama has been put under the heat lamp during this election over his continuation of Bush’s wars and for ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution to get the U.S. involved in Libya’s civil war, thanks largely to the candidacy of Ron Paul, and to the lawsuit against the President over Libya that Ron Paul is a part of. As Spencer Ackerman of Wired Magazine wrote in an article yesterday, despite Obama’s announcement most troops will still remain in Afghanistan until 2014, meaning Obama’s announcement tonight is simply a token gesture.

Obama won’t withdraw all troops from Afghanistan (or Iraq) because he doesn’t, (and never did) intend to.

Now, however, the “Hope and Change” messiah is desperately and unsuccessfully scrambling to reclaim his war weary flock. No longer fighting controlled opposition in a fake debate over minute details of war strategy, but rather one of whether or not the U.S. should even be involved in the wars to begin with, Obama is left having to maintain an even more transparently phony front, pretending to seek an exit strategy for the U.S. while at the same time carrying out the orders of his Globalist masters who seek endless war for empire.

The President isn’t the only 2012 candidate bowing to the demads of Ron Paul’s liberty movement, though.

Within the GOP primary election, Newt Gingrich has suddenly announced that he cares about reigning in the Federal Reserve’s power. According to a press release from his campaign, Gingrich will speak tomorrow in Atlanta, Georgia and call for actions that would strip the Federal Reserve of most of its authority. Of course, for real reform to happen the Federal Reserve would have to be abolished completely, and no doubt Gingrich’s new push is motivated by politics instead of passion. However, the fact that politicians are beginning to realize that they will have to at least appear to be anti-Federal Reserve in order to have a chance at gaining popularity shows the success of Paul and his supporters, not just in the presidential race, but in all their years fighting to spread the truth about America’s destructive monetary system.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Ron Paul introduces legislation for audit of gold at Fort Knox

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would require an independent audit of the more than 5,000 tons of gold at Fort Knox. He also wants an audit of smaller amounts being held in government facilities in New York City, Denver, and West Point, along with an independent laboratory test to verify that the bars are as pure as the U.S. Treasury Department claims they are.

The bill may or may not get passed but a vote of no will no doubt prompt more Americans to ask, (just as Gold Alert does in its story covering the legislation), “why is the U.S. government refusing to simply provide the American people with evidence that the gold actually exists?”

Well…because for all we know we may not have as much gold as we’ve been told we do. Considering the way the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have lied in past to the American people in regard to their handling of digital and paper money, and the fact that the fort was sealed off for 37 years and only recently opened up to one so-called “outsider”– Eric M. Thorson, inspector general of the Treasury– an audit of the gold by the House Financial Services subcommittee would be fitting, and certainly wouldn’t hurt.

Especially now since the establishment seems so eager to get rid of it.

An article in the Washington Post in May laid out to Americans the idea of selling off the gold in Fort Knox (quoting Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation who callously claimed “It’s just sort of sitting there”), as well as government owned land and utilities to pay off government debt, stealing the resources and wealth of the American people in a rubber stamped robbery. (A link to my article covering it is provided below). Ron Paul’s legislation would provide reassurance that America really has the gold the Treasury claims it does, and that a sell-off hasn’t already taken place.

Washington Post article attempts to acclimate Americans to the idea of selling off the nation’s gold, land, and utilities

Pentagon now wants to continue Afghan War “Troop Surge” to fall of 2012

June 18, 2011(Edit Post)

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Like we didn’t see this coming.

From the Wall Street Journal yesterday…

“The military is asking President Barack Obama to hold off on ending the Afghanistan troop surge until the fall of 2012, in a proposal that would keep a large portion of the 33,000 extra forces in the country through the next two warm-weather fighting seasons.”

It goes on to say that the military is seeking to “avoid a scenario in which large numbers of troops are pulled out during the heaviest period of militant activity next year, just as it hopes to be focusing on the violent eastern provinces bordering”.

What this means is that the Afghan people are still fighting back against U.S. occupation, and since we’re also going to continue antagonizing Pakistan, we’ll need Afghanistan as a base to launch from when we decide to fire up an all out war in that country. (Or whatever it will be called now that President Obama in defense of his illegal actions in Libya has tried to make war ambiguous in order repel a lawsuit against him and prevent himself from eventually being impeached.) So instead of drawing down the troops from Afghanistan, like we were allegedly going to start doing next month, the Pentagon wants to keep sending them in.

Last month Defense Secretary Robert Gates urged that we keep troops in Iraq beyond the end of 2011 deadline for withdrawal. These are just delaying techniques by a government that has little respect for its people, hoping Americans have a short enough attention span to not realize that the Anglo-American Empire never plans on ending their occupation of these countries, hoping to use them as bases from which to start new wars, using the planned chaos of the staged “Arab Spring” as a pretext.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Mr. President, U.N. Resolutions do not trump U.S. Law

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

On June 15th,, 2011– the same day that the media announced that 10 congressmen were suing President Obama over his violation of the War Powers Act while executing his war in Libya– the White House released a report attempting to justify why congressional approval was not needed in order to carry it out. Through a text link ABC News made an unauthorized copy of that report available. That report can be viewed HERE.

In the following article I will provide a summary of the 32 page PDF report and rebuttals to the White House’s key arguments. Though other parts of the report will be covered, the most important topics in the report relating to the President’s constitutional authority for single-handedly committing the United States to another war are: “U.S. Support to NATO Mission” on page 11, “Consequences of U.S. Not Participating in NATO Operations” on page 13, and “Legal Analysis and Administration Support for Bipartisan Resolution” on page 25.

Other issues such as cost, humanitarian aid, and the White House’s perceived success of NATO’s mission do not relate to the President’s legal authority to take the U.S. into war and are included in the White House’s report only to 1) blur the clear lines of constitutional law by making emotional arguments and 2) divert the focus of the argument by trying to assure the U.S. Congress that the money spent for the U.S. military operation in Libya doesn’t cost too much (in the White House’s own opinion, of course). On that last point, the question of taking a country into war isn’t only one of financial cost, but also of gambling with national security, the lives of U.S. personal, and whether or not there is a legitimate justification for destroying property and committing murder in the name of the country, which causes blowback and further hostility overseas against the United States that will undoubtedly resonate for years. Regardless, neither point has anything to do with the legality of the President not getting permission from Congress before going to war or ignoring the War Powers Resolution deadline.

The report also includes a “Contents of Classified Annex” at the end listing topics that don’t address the legal issues mentioned above regarding constitutional authority, and can’t be assessed in order to address the imminent threat question because the text of these topics haven’t been made available, though the topic titles appear to have nothing to do with imminent threats to the U.S., only logistical issues involved in the execution of the Libyan war. Nowhere else are any of the topics listed cited in the White House’s arguments trying to justify the President’s actions in Libya. If there were an actual imminent threat forcing the President to take the U.S. to war listed in this annex, he would need to cite it openly in his argument to the Congress and to the American people.


The text of the report starts on page 2—“Overview of United States Activities in Libya”

It begins:

“In his address to the nation on Libya on March 28, 2011, President Obama presented a comprehensive explanation for why he authorized military action as part of an international coalition to protect the people of Libya and to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973.”

(UNSCR) 1973 is a U.N. resolution passed in March allowing the Security Council to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya. The establishment of a no-fly zone is an aerial blockade, which is an act of war. Throughout the entire report the only specific legislative acts cited by the White House justifying his actions are U.N. resolutions. (UNSCR 1973, and UNSCR 1970) The President believes that a mandate from the U.N. trumps U.S. Constitutional requirements for him get permission from Congress to declare war, and the 60 day limit set down for him to commit troops overseas without congressional approval outlined in the War Powers Resolution. In this belief the President is dead wrong.

In Chapter VII, Article 43 of the U.N. charter titled “ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION” describing the U.N. Security Council’s legal authority and process for waging war, it states:

“The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

The law can’t be any clearer—U.N. mandates do not trump the U.S. Constitution or the constitutions of any of the individual member nations with respect to their participation in overseas conflict.

Throughout page 2 the report rehashes what led to the conflict in Libya. One important point to note is this appeal:

“In contrast, the war in Bosnia raged for nearly two years before the first NATO military operations took place, and three years before NATO began ground strikes to protect the civilian population.”

Referencing Bosnia as a historical precedent for why the President couldn’t wait for approval from Congress is not a legal argument when it doesn’t pertain to the immediate security of the United States. On top of that, since the White House was able to put together this formal report to defend itself so shortly after it found out that the President was being sued, there is no reason to believe that a similarly styled request for permission from Congress couldn’t have been presented and voted on in an emergency session before the bombs started falling on Libya if the President felt there was such an important need to go to war.

In respect to the war in Bosnia, which was never officially declared either, there was at least a sliver of congressional approval. According to a report written by Richard F. Grimmett from the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division of the Federation of American Scientists on November 25th 1996:

“On August 13, 1992, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 770 calling on all nations to take “all measures necessary” to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Sarajevo. On August 11, 1992, the Senate had passed S.Res. 330 urging the President to work for such a resolution and pledging funds for participation, but saying that no U.S. military personnel should be introduced into hostilities without clearly defined objectives. On the same day, the House passed H.Res. 554 urging the Security Council to authorize measures, including the use of force, to ensure humanitarian relief. Thus, both chambers of Congress supported action but not by binding legislation authorizing the use of U.S. forces.”

Though troops were eventually sent to Bosnia, these resolutions provide a record of at least some attempt at congressional oversight.


On Page 3 of the report the White House states:

“Moreover, the Libyan government’s actions posed a significant threat to regional peace and security.”

It goes on to cite refugees fleeing to other countries as the cause for regional instability, but again this does not explain how this presented an imminent threat to the United States. Indeed Hitler invading his neighbors presented an even greater regional instability that would of course affect the future security of the United States, but that didn’t stop the United States from getting an official declaration of war from Congress before bombing Germany (and only after we were attacked by Japan, I might add). Again, there is no reason a vote on bombing Libya couldn’t have been taken before the United States got involved.

For the rest of pages 3 and 4 the White House argues that had the United States not taken action in Libya the U.N.’s credibility would have been in question and that essentially the U.N. resolutions cited before would have been shown to have no teeth.

As demonstrated earlier by the U.N.’s own charter, the resolutions don’t have any teeth…not without validation from each member nations’ respective constitutional processes.


Page 5: “Political and Military Objectives and Means”

It states:

“The President has honored his commitment to focus the preponderance of our military effort on the front end of operations in Libya, using our unique assets to destroy key regime military targets and air defense capabilities in order to establish a no-fly zone (again, these are acts of war) and enable protection of civilians as part of the enforcement of UNSCR 1973. These actions set the conditions so that, after a limited time, command of these operations transferred to NATO. Since that April 4 transition, U.S. military involvement has been limited to a supporting role, enabling our allies and partners to ensure the safety of Libyan civilians.”

The notion that the NATO mission in Libya is enabling the protection of civilians is a joke. Libyan rebels are carrying out genocide and NATO bombs are killing civilians, and damaging civilian buildings, such as Al Fateh University, Campus B. There’s even evidence that depleted uranium bombs are being used by NATO forces.

In regards to the military involvement only being in a supportive role after April 4th, according to an Associated Press article posted on the Army Times’ website on April 13th 2011:

“Pentagon officials disclosed Wednesday that American fighter jets have continued airstrikes inside the country even after the United States turned the mission over to NATO last week.”

Pentagon officials admitted that the missions included bombing attacks on Libyan surface-to-air missile launchers.

“It was the first time the Pentagon acknowledged that airstrikes continued after the U.S. handed over control of the Libya mission to NATO on April 4.”

Furthermore, the article states that military officials claimed U.S. fighter jets would still conduct airstrikes in Libya (after April 4th) if NATO made a special request and it was approved by top Pentagon leaders. The fact that U.S. fighter jets can still be called upon to carry out bombing missions in Libya proves that the U.S. is not acting only in a supportive role, and can still be involved in conflict based on the decisions of military officials, not the U.S. Congress. On top of that, the approval process only applies to airstrikes meant to protect civilians from Gadhafi’s forces. Because the U.S. fighter jets taking out Libyan air defenses have been assigned to NATO and are considered NATO aircraft, the Pentagon argues, their use falls under separate leadership and are not subject to the post April 4th halt in U.S. combat.

(But they’re still U.S. fighter jets!)

Understanding this context, one can see why the last line in the quote from the White House’s report posted above is intentionally misleading—“ Since that April 4 transition, *U.S.* military involvement has been limited to a supporting role, *enabling our allies and partners to ensure the safety of Libyan civilians*.”


The rest of page 5 and up to page 8 rehashes the history of White House executive orders signed and U.N. Resolutions passed in response to the Libyan crisis, as well as once again mentioning how the White House believes we took too long to respond in Bosnia during the 90’s. In one section, under the title “Where We Are Now” it lists numerous actions that are also being taken by U.S. allies, as if that’s relevant to the debate over the President’s constitutional authority to take us to war without permission from Congress or his ignoring of the War Powers Resolution deadline.

Pages 9-10 report how wonderful the White House believes the Transitional National Council of Libya (the widely recognized interim government) is and all of the things it has done, and reminds the reader how the United States didn’t act alone but led a coalition of other nations….again this has no relevance to the debate.


Pages 11 (“U.S. Support to NATO Mission”) and 12 describe the role of the U.S. in combat, reiterating the same misleading argument mentioned earlier that the operations were fully under NATO command by April 4th and that the mission of the *U.S.* (not NATO which includes U.S. fighter jets that are still bombing the country) focused now on maintaining the naval arms embargo and the no-fly zone (again, acts of war) and protecting civilians. They also list the objectives of NATO in the mission.

“As President Obama has clearly stated,” it also says on page 12, “our contributions do not include deploying U.S. military ground forces into Libya, with the exception of personnel recovery operations as may be necessary.”

According to the President, because the conflict in Libya only involves U.S. fighter jets dropping bombs and no boots on the ground (yet) the current actions of the U.S. in Libya do not constitute acts of war. By this same argument, then, the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor didn’t constitute an act of war, either. Who is he kidding?


Page 13: “Consequences of U.S. Not Participating in NATO Operations”

This is it. This is the imminent threat to the United States that required the President to act immediately in order to protect its national security without getting approval first from the U.S. Congress. One would think that such an argument would consist of pages and pages of detailed analysis.

But it doesn’t.

It’s only one paragraph…not even a full half of the page.

Again it lists UNSCR 1973 as (the already debunked) justification for the President’s military action in Libya with no immediate threat to U.S. national security cited. The short argument made for continuing the U.S. military’s role in Libya is, essentially, that if the U.S. withdrew its military support in Libya, its NATO allies might be unable to continue alone, and if they withdrew before the meaningless September 27th NATO extension passed, NATO would lose credibility.

Maybe, or perhaps (more likely) President Obama would.

On the flip side, however, the U.S. Constitution would gain more credibility. (No, we mustn’t have that.)


Pages 14-16 lay out the cost for U.S. military operations in Libya, 17-19 the cost for humanitarian operations, and page 20 lists the cost for the Department of State’s operations. While this is all useful information, it’s irrelevant to the argument.


Page 21—”Analysis of Impact on U.S. Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan”– is also irrelevant but interesting. The one page argument reassures the reader that the war in Libya has not had any significant operational impact on the activities of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. In relation to the DOD’s operations in these countries it states:

“All the forces that were briefly diverted from other operations have been replaced, with the exception of one Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG). That capability will be replaced during June 2011. In some cases, forces were delayed in arriving in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the operational impact was mitigated by forces already supporting these operations.”

Hey, wait a second…I thought we were trying to remove our forces from those countries. The U.S. is supposed to start a drawdown of troops from Afghanistan next month, and all U.S. forces are supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. Just last summer President Obama went on TV and declared an end to the combat mission in Iraq. (Tell that to the families of the two U.S. soldiers who died during an insurgent attack in Iraq this week, or the pilot of the U.S. military helicopter that engaged in combat with insurgents in Iraq on Wednesday. )


Pages 22 and 23 go on to explain the operations of the Transitional National Council of Libya, the political interaction the U.S. has with it, and its transition planning to an eventual new government.

On page 23 it is written:

“To facilitate the vesting of assets blocked by the United States, the Administration supports Senate Bill 1180 (which hasn’t been passed yet) that would allow the United States to confiscate property of the Government of Libya to be used for costs related to providing humanitarian relief to the Libyan people. Under this vesting authority, the President would have the authority to decide precisely how the assets would be used, consistent with the legislation. The President would only disburse assets through means that meet our legal and policy standards regarding transparent oversight of the disbursements.”

So while the President is not asking for congressional approval to wage war, he is asking for approval to steal the property of the Libyan government in the name of offsetting the costs for humanitarian relief during the war.


On page 24 under “Analysis of Potential Ties to Extremist Groups” the White House attempts to dismiss reports of ties between anti-U.S. terrorists and the Libyan rebels by focusing solely on the U.S. relationship with the Transitional National Council of Libya, claiming that the TNC itself has no relationship to terrorist organizations and that it’s secular in nature. However the TNC is just an administrative body and would be unable to stand up and maintain power if not for the rebel forces that are fighting the war for it. Indeed without NATO committing “boots on the ground” to the war, these rebels would make up the army that would be sharing power with the TNC due to the fact that they’re the ones holding the weapons.

From “The two faces of the Libyan Rebels, which is the real one?” published on the International Business Times’ website on May 31st 2011:

“A second problem derives from the fact that, the INC’s (aka the TNC) purpose is essentially administrative and remains quite separate from the rebels who fight on the ground. Technically the rebels fight for the council to overthrow Gaddafi, however the discourse that emanates from the fighters is somehow less bureaucratic and West-friendly than that of the council.

In March, Abdul Hakim al-Hasidi’s, a Libyan rebel leader from Derna, east of Benghazi, was quoted telling an Italian newspaper he had recruited “about 25″ Libyans to fight alongside insurgents in Iraq, and claimed some had now returned and were fighting Gaddafi forces in Ajdabiya.” …

…“Interestingly, Al-Hasidi himself was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and handed over to US forces after fighting against US troops in Afghanistan. He was held in Libya and eventually released in 2008.”


Page 25— “ Legal Analysis and Administration Support for Bipartisan Resolution”

Once again, what should be considered an important section of the White House’s report receives only limited attention. In only a little over half a page the White House rationalizes the President’s justification for involving the U.S. in Libya’s civil war without first seeking congressional approval by insisting:

“Given the important U.S. interests served by U.S. military operations in Libya and the limited nature, scope and duration of the anticipated actions, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad. The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are distinct from the kind of “hostilities” contemplated by the Resolution’s 60 day termination provision.”

The War Powers Resolution does not define “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. Given that the War Powers Resolution was passed in response to previous presidents involving the U.S. in wars—(the most recent and resonating war at the time being Vietnam)– without a declaration of war, and the concern over eroding congressional authority in deciding when the U.S. should become involved in war, or any use of the military that might lead to war, it wouldn’t be crazy to assume that any form of U.S. military combat (including bombing missions) would be defined as “hostilities” and be subject to the resolution’s deadline. The involvement of the U.S. in Vietnam, after all, started at a much slower pace than the U.S. has taken in Libya, beginning with the U.S. providing military advisors and transports to the French and stretching out over a span of years before official U.S. combat troops were committed.

The White House’s report goes on:

“U.S. forces are playing a constrained and supporting role in a multinational coalition, whose operations are both legitimated by and limited to the terms of a United Nations Security Council Resolution that authorizes the use of force solely to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under attack or threat of attack and to enforce a no-fly zone and an arms embargo. (Again, this doesn’t trump the requirements of the U.S Constitution.) U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve the presence of U.S. ground troops, U.S. casualties or a serious threat thereof, or any significant chance of escalation into a conflict characterized by those factors.”

The White House concludes this chapter by strongly supporting S. RES. 194, which was introduced in May by Senators McCain, Kerry, Lieberman, Levin, Feinstein, Graham, and Chambliss that– while proudly proclaiming joyous support for everyone involved in the Libyan war (except Gadhafi)– supports the limited use of military force by the United States in Libya as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973”.

That resolution has not been passed, and one of the men listed above—Kerry—has begun to backpedal on his support of it.


Finally, from page 26 until the end we have “Congressional Consultation”. This consists of a list of various Libya-related hearings, briefings, calls, and other communications and consultations between Congress and the Executive Branch. Trying to claim that briefing members of Congress on the situation in Libya from March 1st to June 15th equates to getting approval from Congress to commit the U.S. to war there or continue bombing Libya beyond the War Powers Resolution deadline, the White House’s multipage list is, once again, irrelevant. Nowhere is any U.S. legislative granted authority cited justifying the President’s actions.

Indeed, after ancient Rome fell to emperors, they too briefed the Roman Senate on the overseas adventures they had committed their armies to, though the Senate no longer had any real power to do anything about it. When an executive simply tells a legislative body what he is doing while disregarding his need to seek their authority, he reduces that body to the status of ministers beneath an unchallenged autocrat. The U.S. government is based on the rule of law, which maintains the separation of power between each branch…that has not changed. The U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are clear on this fact and on the limitations set down for the executive branch to follow when it comes to starting wars.

One of the most telling excerpts in this section of the report is the March 18th entry. It lists 18 members of Congress (none of which are involved in the lawsuit against the President, such as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, who have voiced strong opposition to U.S. involvement in Libya from the beginning) being invited to the White House.

It states:

“President Obama invited Congress’ bipartisan bicameral leadership to the White House to consult on the situation in Libya and brief them on the limited, discrete and well-defined participation that he envisioned for the United States to help implement the U.N. Resolution. The White House invited House and Senate Leadership, Chairs and Ranking of Foreign Affairs, Armed Services and Intel committees.”

This speaks volumes regarding the President’s perception of his own power and his dismissal of the U.S. Constitution under what he believes to be the greater authority of the U.N. Such a view being held by a man in a position like his is dangerous for U.S. sovereignty and for our republican form of government. The President cannot be allowed to ignore the rule of law and wage war based solely on what he envisions the United States’ role in the world to be. Otherwise there will be nothing to stop him or future presidents from waging war at will without any constraint. At that point the constitution that the President took an oath to defend will cease to exist and the people of the United States will no longer be sovereigns determining the destiny of their nation, but rather subjects to an international body that no longer has to answer to them.

Obama decries enviornmental disaster in the Gulf, but is silent about US made toxic waste dump in Iraq

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

President Obama made his first Oval Office speech Tuesday night assuring Americans that their leaders were doing everything they could to contain the oil spill in the Gulf, playing the environmentally minded patriarch to a public that has had coverage of the oil spill fed to it in an endless news cycle since the disaster happened.

“We cannot consign our children to this future,” said the President. ”The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now.”

Indeed, the President’s words are environmentally friendly. His administration has promoted “clean energy” and “green jobs” and promises to make sure the people who have lost their livelihoods because of the Gulf oil spill are rightly compensated. However, commonly absent from the President’s expressions of outrage at human caused eco-peril is the large environmental disaster that the U.S. has created in Iraq.

According to an article from the Times of London last Sunday, hazardous materials from U.S. bases are being dumped locally rather than being sent back to America for proper disposal.

The Army is currently disposing of 14,500 tonnes of oil, and oil contaminated soil. Iraqis are suffering blisters after exposure to Army “surplus” items and some of the containers of dumped chemicals are clearly labeled as being property of the U.S. military. The Pentagon’s disposal rules state that toxic waste can’t be dumped within Iraq, but according to one contractor, ’11 million pounds of hazardous waste has been left behind by U.S. troops’. The toxic materials are then mixed with recyclable materials and sent from U.S. bases to Iraqi scrap yards.

Another Iraqi contractor defended the U.S. military and blamed foreign countries that receive the recycled materials of mixing them with toxic waste.

Since the story was published, the military has said that it would launch an investigation.

However, as far as polluting Iraq is concerned, the disposal of waste is only the half the issue.

The greatest U.S. caused environmental tragedy in Iraq has been the boom in birth defects from the use of depleted uranium bombs during combat there. (See the pictures below)




D.U. interferes with the functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, and heart. The aerosol produced from the explosions of depleted uranium munitions contaminates large areas surrounding the impact sites and is inhaled by locals, as well as American soldiers. The radiation from D.U. can also penetrate soil and water through the air.

An Iraqi Minister is launching a lawsuit against the United States and Britain, seeking compensation for the victims who have suffered birth defects as a result of the use of D.U. bombs. The U.S. government and the American mainstream media have tried to downplay the environmental impact of D.U. munitions in Iraq, but according to an article from the London Guardian in November of 2009, doctors in the Falluja– a city which has seen a lot of fighting during the war– were counting 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants when compared to a year before, as well as a rise in early life cancers.

“We are seeing a very significant increase in central nervous system anomalies,” said Falluja general hospital’s director and senior specialist, Dr Ayman Qais. “Before 2003 [the start of the war] I was seeing sporadic numbers of deformities in babies. Now the frequency of deformities has increased dramatically.”

The term “Green” has been used in the media and by the President since he took office to describe the future of America and the world, with “global governance” being pushed as the key to making sure that people live more planet conscious lifestyles.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit last winter played a large role in that agenda, yet it fell apart after developing countries found out they would be getting the short end of the stick. Now, new emission goals proposed by the UN secretariat would force these countries to arrest their development and remain subservant to western powers by requiring them to move rapidly away from their use of fossil fuels in just a few years.

Just like the issue of human rights, the environmental movement has been hijacked by a political/media machine seeking to consolidate power and strengthen its grip over the world’s economy. Expressing outrage only when it’s convenient and overlooking its own violations, the U.S. government is steering well intentioned Americans into supporting an agenda that will only result in further government regulation, tighter control over private business, and starve even more people in the third world.

If Obama really cared about the environmental impact of human actions he would talk about Iraq the same way he talks about the Gulf of Mexico. He would speak of deformed babies the same way he speaks of oil covered birds. And while he’s at it he might propose a real withdrawal of troops from Iraq…not a self-satisfying, media hyped draw-down that leaves 50,000 “residual forces” still in place to guard the goods now that the entrenched war establishment feels that Iraq has been thoroughly conquered.

That way, at least, the real polluters there could get out of the way.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

CIA to covertly kill people in Yemen with its own drones

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Continuing another war that the President and his supporters of course won’t call a war, the CIA will be using its own predator drones to kill people in Yemen instead of the U.S. military. This will provide the hollow cover that the war-monger-in-chief seems to believe erases reality and makes the conflict legal for him to carry out at will without Congressional approval…or the American peoples’.

The U.S. has been bombing Yemen since 2009, with the CIA providing only intelligence support. With the CIA acting as a shadow military force in Yemen the impact of war there will seem less real to the American public because it will not involve regular soldiers, and it will also free the U.S. military to carry out combat operations in other countries that the U.S. government and its allies want to take over, such as Libya. Because the actions of the CIA are considered “covert” no operational permission needs to be sought from the government in Yemen in order to carry out strikes.

In Pakistan U.S. drones have been killing people for years. Recently tribes in North Waziristan declared war on the U.S. in response to numerous civilian casualties over the years and U.S. indifference in what it considers collateral damage in the War of Terror. Even the Pakistani government, which because of fear of the American Empire has been forced to allow such operations within its territory, has begun speaking out again such attacks, recently condemning a drone bombing that took place in Angoor Adda in April of this year.

Rapper Lupe Fiasco calls Obama a terrorist; doesn’t care about media outrage (neither should you)

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

On CBS News’ “What’s Trending” show rapper Lupe Fiasco referred to President Obama as the “biggest terrorist” and went on to explain why:

“I’m trying to fight the terrorism that’s actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff that the U.S. government allows to happen, and the foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists. And it’s easy for us because it’s just some oil.”

The media has tried to create public outrage over his words but unlike in the past when celebrities have made similar statements, this time it’s not succeeding, mainly because instead of withering in the shadow of the manufactured scorn Lupe Fiasco is standing his ground.

According to MTV, Billboard’s “The Juice” approached Lupe so he could “clarify the comments” (newspeak term for retracting his comments and grovelling before the media mind controllers) . Lupe responded, “I’ve got nothing to clarify. It’s Obama and the U.S. government. Every president that came before him and every president that comes after him. It’s funky because everybody’s pulling sound bites from this one interview that we did, but they don’t talk about anything else from the interview. So it’s really about, ‘What do people want to listen to?’ It’s not what I want to talk about, ‘cause I want to talk about all types of sh–.”

A day after Lupe Fiasco’s words went public he tweeted: “And now the Morning Hate…Ready…Set….Go…”.

Then a day after that: “Damn right I’m out of line! Out of the line of the lost and the inactive. Out of the line of war and cowardice. U line up to be lied to. #FF”

While some may be concerned about the hurt feelings of a president committing us to more wars, callously killing civilians overseas, giving money to genocidal maniacs while calling it “humanitarian” and pursuing empire at the expense of making America less safe, more and more Americans are beginning to agree with Lupe Fiasco. Obama’s policies overseas are the same ones that the majority of his supporters criticized when they were being carried out under George Bush. The blowback from these policies might make the DC establishment pause if not for the fact that blowback serves the purpose, when portrayed in an opportunistic way, of energizing Americans to accept further escalation of the Anglo-American Empire’s worldwide crusade for domination. When blowback is needed but not present, it is created, such as when the Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolition on September 11th to create terrifying images to shock the public into mental submission, the entire attack then used as justification for a new century of endless warfare.

Lupe Fiasco is not apologizing for his comments about President Obama and neither should anyone who says anything similar. The war of words was one started by the media labeling those who stood against the wars and questioned the official story of 9/11 as (among other things), potential domestic terrorists. The words fired back at machine puppets like Obama are justified by the reality of their deeds, unlike those that were used against concerned citizens speaking the truth only a few years ago. Though Obama is just one piece of a much bigger problem, he is the man who cynically promised “Change” to get elected and then turned his back on those promises because in reality he never intended to keep them.

Only after the American public began to wake up and stick the finger back in establishment’s face did the media start to worry about “rhetoric” and “vitriol”. This is not because of concern for hurt feelings and fostering real debate but simply because political correctness is needed in order to keep people spending their energy neurotically picking and choosing their every word instead of expressing how they really feel and demanding that their treacherous leaders resign.

Americans don’t trust the mainstream media anymore.

Americans don’t trust public officials anymore.

More importantly, more Americans are starting to fall less and less for the mental traps that have previously been used to keep them silent. The whiny calls for civility in the presence of criminals and murderers looting the treasury to give to their Wall Street and defense contractor cronies…the shrill demands that Americans tip-toe carefully across the political floor while the house around them burns down. For many Americans, the only respect they have for Obama and other officials like him now is the same kind they would have for a bank robber pointing a gun in their faces. It is one based on fear– fear of ridicule, loss of prestige, and government recrimination.

However, the more people there are standing up and telling the truth, ignoring this fear, the more others will realize that they aren’t outnumbered. In reality our “leaders” need the respect of the people in order to govern them, and they are desperate to keep it, knowing that they’ve already lost most of it. Once the fear is lifted they’ll have no other option left but to brutally clamp down on the public or to give in. Ether way, the truth tellers, like Lupe Fiasco and others, will win in the end.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Graham plants the seed for attacking Syria

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Using the attack on Libya by NATO as the justification for further aggression overseas (aka “humanitarian bombing”), Senator Lindsey Graham said on CBS’ Face the Nation Sunday: “If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria…we may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table….”.

Conveniently overlooking the fact that Libyans are being slaughtered by the rebels that we’re supporting, as well as the relentless bombing that NATO’s planes are carrying out in Libya, Graham is laying the groundwork for the next possible Western overthrow of a foreign government under the guise of some kind of humanitarian rescue mission when in reality the leaders targeted are just pieces remaining on the Risk board after the first wave of staged revolutions only partially succeeded in installing Western subservient governments in the Middle East.

Taliban says foreign secret agencies are to blame for Saturday’s bombing in Pakistan

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

“We did not carry out this attack in Peshawar,” Tehreek-e-Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsanin told a reporter from the Pakistan Observer regarding Saturday’s bombing in Peshawar, Pakistan. “It is an attempt by foreign secret agencies who are doing it to malign us.”

39 people were killed in the bombing. No group has yet claimed responsibility. First a gas cylinder exploded at Lala Restaurant in Khyber Supermarket, according to a witness that spoke to the Pakistan Observer. Then, as earlier reports indicate, when rescue teams rushed to the scene a young man on an explosive packed motorcycle drove it into the crowd of people that had gathered there.

Scholar Webster Tarpley has gone on record with his analysis claiming that the United States is seeking to wage war in Pakistan and is now trying to create a ground scenario to justify an attack to the American public and the international community, beginning with the “Osama bin Laden death” stage show and continuing by creating increased unrest within the country through a newly invented, U.S. (among other nations) run Taliban. His entire analysis can be heard in the video below as he spoke on The Alex Jones Show a month ago.

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Globalists let it ride– “Libyan rebels” to receive huge cash infusion for another round of orchestrated chaos

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

From the Washington Post, 6/9/11:

“Western and Middle Eastern countries began opening the aid spigots Thursday for Libya’s beleaguered rebels, approving measures that will immediately send at least $1 billion to the opposition and promising much larger sums in the weeks ahead.

The cash infusion came as the Obama administration took a step toward officially recognizing Libya’s main rebel group, with the State Department declaring the Transitional National Council (TNC) “the legitimate interlocutor” for the Libyan people, even as Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi clung to power.”

In sum:

As the American economy collapses, Obama and his globalist allies are giving $1 billion to genocidal revolutionaries in a civil war that the West clandestinely started in order to overthrow one of the enemies of the Anglo-American empire. They are determined to oust Gaddafi and take over the country with a puppet regime, all at the expense of shredding the U.S. Constitution, killing innocent people, and further diluting what’s left of their nations’ individual wealth. Because Gaddafi ended up being harder to pluck out via staged revolution than Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali were, the globalists are going to the ATM (printing press) and letting it ride for another round, like gambling addicts in a casino where war is the game of choice.

In the end, since it’s you who is paying for it, you might as well see what it’s buying:

Video: Libya Rebels Execute, Behead, Mutilate Gaddafi Army who Surrender! Where is CNN now?

Wake up! Obama’s Libyan Rebels are Carrying Out Genocide of Black Africans

After Obama ignores War Powers Resolution deadline, NATO bombs the hell out of Tripoli

“NATO’s Feast of Blood” by Cynthia McKinney

Wow That Was Fast! Libyan Rebels Have Already Established A New Central Bank Of Libya

“Libyan Rebels” Create Central Bank, Oil Company

Are attacks on Chinese interests in Libya the first battles of World War 3?

In a pure coincidence, Gaddafi impeded U.S. oil interests before the war

Suicide bombing in Pakistan kills over 30 people

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

According to various news reports, anywhere from 34-39 people were killed in a series of multiple bombings in Peshawar, Pakistan on Saturday. No group has yet claimed responsibility.

Xinhua reports that the first bombing was relatively small, going off at the Khyber market in the downtown area of Peshawar, leaving three people injured. As the rescue team rushed to the scene a 17 year old rammed his explosive packed motorcycle into the crowds of people that had gathered there, killing several of them. The blast destroyed over 20 shops, collapsed a two story hotel, and created a huge fire.

3 people were arrested at the scene under suspicion of being involved in the attack. The Taliban’s media spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told reporters that the Taliban was not involved, claiming that his group targets only security forces and not innocent people. The media has pointed the finger at the Taliban, however, reiterating how the group allegedly vowed revenge after the U.S. government, through Navy Seal Team 6, supposedly killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1st…a story that hasn’t been proven and which changed numerous times after it allegedly happened. The body of Osama bin Laden’s was said to be dumped in the ocean by the U.S military within hours after his death, leaving no forensic evidence for independent sources to verify.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

CNN’s exclusion of Gary Johnson from debate designed to keep liberty from becoming even more “mainstream”

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

CNN is excluding Gary Johnson from its GOP primary debate on Monday night, claiming that he doesn’t have enough support to justify his presence there. For those of us who took part in the Ron Paul Revolution in 2008 we are already aware of how the mainstream media gears turn to decide winners and losers through how it portrays certain candidates and the amount of coverage it gives them, and how much grassroots work it took to force the media to acknowledge Ron Paul as being “mainstream” in 2012. Without the diligent work of his supporters, and of course Ron Paul’s own persistence in the telling the truth all these years, the revolution couldn’t have come this far.

Now Gary Johnson is getting the same treatment, being banned from CNN’s debate just as Ron Paul was from one of Fox’s debates in 2008. Why is this? Some clues can easily be found on Gary Johnson’s campaign web-page.

Under the title “Civil Liberties” in the issues section of the page is written:

THE FREEDOMS ON WHICH AMERICA WAS FOUNDED are now under attack from the very people charged with protecting and upholding them.

*The PATRIOT Act should be allowed to expire, which would restore proper judicial oversight to federal investigations and again require federal investigators to prove probable cause prior to executing a search.

*Habeus corpus should be respected entirely, requiring the government to either charge incarcerated individuals with a crime or be released.

*The TSA should take a risk-based approach to airport security. Only high-risk individuals should be subjected to invasive pat-downs and full-body scans.

*The TSA should not have a monopoly on airport security. Airports and airlines should be encouraged to seek the most effective methods for screening travelers, including private sector screeners. Screeners outside of government can be held fully accountable for their successes and failures.

Under Foreign Policy is written:

AMERICAN MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND, now, Libya should end, our troops returned home, and the focus of our foreign policy reoriented toward the protection of U.S. citizens and interests.

*With Osama bin Laden now killed and after 10 years of fighting, U.S. forces should leave Afghanistan’s challenges to the Afghan people.

*Saddam Hussein has been out of power in Iraq for nearly eight years. America must leave so Iraq can have a chance to grow into a responsible member of the world community.

*Without a clear goal for our military actions in Libya, fighting rages on, and the American people are footing the bill.

*Decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, American troops remain scattered throughout Europe. It is time to reevaluate these deployments.

*The U.S. must make better use of military alliances which allow greater sharing of the human and financial burdens at less cost of protecting national interests.

AMERICA CAN USE ‘SOFT POWER’ AS EFFECTIVELY as ‘hard power’ to further our foreign policy goals.

*No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

*Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

*Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.

The fact is, Gary Johnson and Ron Paul have very similar stances on the wars and civil liberties. Veering off the approved script regarding these issues is a big no-no in 21st century Amerika, and although the tireless efforts of freedom loving activists have forced the controlled mainstream media to grimace and lift the curtain for Ron Paul, the establishment is determined not to let another voice advocating these positions tarnish its carefully planned election pageant. Doing so would further derail the continuity of agenda mission that American politics has been mutilated to serve, always leading to more war and the further erosion of our civil liberties. While the media can try, with rapidly fading ability, to label Ron Paul’s views as “fringe” if he stands alone, having another voice in the debate advocating these positions would redraw the lines of what is considered “popular” political opinion. (Not just in the GOP, either, but in the United States as a whole). It would also give more legitimacy to these views for those trapped in the political herd mentality who don’t think beyond party labels, advocating whatever position takes dominance within the GOP. Along with that, it would embolden other possible liberty minded candidates to stand up and be heard in future elections.

The more voices there are calling for an end to interventionism and for a truly free society, the more the war mongers and Big Brother lovers will be drowned out. This is why liberty activists need to support the rights of every candidate to be heard, especially those who stand on the side of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to these critical issues.

CNN’s exclusion of Johnson is baseless. While allowing Herman Cain–former Kansas City Federal Reserve Chairman and pizza chain CEO– to come out of nowhere and be toted by the press as some sort of grassroots Republican voice of the people (controlled opposition is more like it), Johnson has been regarded as a lower tier candidate not worthy of coverage based on nothing but CNN’s selective math and the fact that the establishment doesn’t like what he says. In Johnson’s own words, in a piece he wrote about his exclusion, “I didn’t just crawl out from under a rock and declare myself a candidate for the presidency. I served for eight years as arguably the most fiscally conservative governor in the nation.”

“The real issue,” he concluded, “is that a major network is using largely irrelevant polling data and statistically insignificant arithmetic as justifications to impose its political wisdom on the American people.”

Indeed Johnson is right– CNN fished for excuse to keep him from being heard on Monday night.

The reality is, (if we’re going to exclude people based prescribed “tiers” for candidates), in terms of providing substantive answers in the previous debate and views that stand with those of real conservatives, Johnson has more of a right to stand on the national stage before the American people than Herman Cain ever will.

CNN simply doesn’t want the American public to figure that out.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Panetta– ‘Iraq to request’ US troops to stay past deadline (big suprise)

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

Leon Panetta– the outgoing CIA head and President Obama’s new pick to head the Pentagon– told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday “It’s clear to me that Iraq is considering the possibility of making a request for some kind of (troop) presence to remain there.” He said he had “every confidence” that the request would be “forthcoming at some point,” and that ”It really is dependent on the prime minister and on the government of Iraq to present to us what is it that they need, and over what period of time, in order to make sure that the gains that we’ve made in Iraq are sustained.”

Though the words are coming from Panetta and not the Iraqi government, the press has taken the cue to get their readers prepared for a continued presence in Iraq past the July 2011 deadline that has been held out in front of the American people to give them the illusion that Obama has made good on his promise to end the war there, though in reality the American Empire wishes to remain as it launches new wars in the region.

Recently Robert Gates publicly suggested keeping troops in Iraq to counter Iran. The U.S. accuses Iran of supporting Shia groups in other countries while the U.S. itself quietly backs terrorist groups that operate in Iran such as Jundullah and the MKO. Iraq would be a launching ground for a new war aginst Iran when the United States and its allies decide to launch it.

Friday, June 3, 2011

Stepping up the overthrow of the Yemen Government. Presidential Palace shelled.

America 20xy


By Andrew Steele

President Ali Abdullah Saleh was injured in an artillery attack on the presidential palace by ‘rebels’ as the planned implosion of the Middle East continues, with the West attempting to sweepthe last pieces off the game board and tighten its grip on the region, beginning in Tunisia and currently stalemated in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

Saleh was inside a mosque within the palace compound when the shelling occurred. Other Sr. government officials were injured. The attack set off heavy fighting in the capital city and the home of opposition leader Hamid al-Ahmar was immediately shelled.

If Saleh responds by cracking down on protesters and firing back at the rebels President Obama and other NATO representative will no doubt grandstand on the tragedy, condemning Saleh’s actions and possibly using them as an excuse to expand NATO’s current bombing mission in Libya to Yemen…depending on how successful Saleh’s forces are able to fend off the attack. Obama has already stepped on the U.S. Constitution and committed the U.S. to the Libyan War without a declaration from Congress, only casually acknowledging the War Powers deadline after it already passed. No doubt the President would have no problem committing the U.S. to another conflict if things didn’t go as planned in other Western intelligence lit ”hot spots”.