Israel Lobbyist: False Flag Needed To Attack Iran

A false flag may be on the horizon, one that will be used to throw the United States into full-on military conflict with Iran.

Consider these remarks from Patrick Clawson, director of the pro-Israeli lobby Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

I frankly think that crises initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not company that the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests.

Some people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into WWII; you may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into WWI; you may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr. Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the [U.S.S.] Maine exploded. And, may I point out, that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the Federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked — which is why he order the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians said would cause an attack.

So, if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.

Clawson went on to suggest that the United States could move on to blatantly launching military assaults against the Iranian armed forces in undeclared war saying, “Iranian submarines periodically go down, someday one of them might not come up — who would know why?”

Clawson’s closing remark suggested that the United States should “get nastier” in its use of covert and unConstitutional military attacks against Iran in order to provoke a violent response aimed at the United States from the uncooperative nation. Doing so would serve to drum up patriotic American public support for yet another long, costly and unwinnable Mideast war at behest of Israeli special interests.

The above-mentioned catalysts for war offer a frightening outline of the campaign of subversion that anti-Iranian zealots like Clawson wish to employ in order to make Americans support another conflict in the Mideast. Any aggression, such as acts of terror, toward the United States in coming months will likely be blamed on the Iranian government. But people like Clawson make it perfectly clear, things are not always what they seem.

GOP Lawmakers Want More Answers On Libya Attack

On Wednesday, a group of eight House GOP committee chairmen demanded that the Administration of Barack Obama issue a new briefing about the events that unfolded in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens dead.

According to The Hill, the lawmakers scolded the Administration for its inconsistent account of the events leading up to and during the attack. In a letter to Obama, the lawmakers said that they were “disturbed” by statements indicating the attack stemmed from an anti-Islamic video.  

“Decades after al Qaeda attacked our embassies in East Africa, which catalyzed a series of events that led to the attacks on 9/11, it appears they executed a highly coordinated and well-planned attack against us again,” the letter said. “Clearly, the threat from al Qaeda and affiliated groups has metastasized; yet we do not appear to be learning from the past.”

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent a separate letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Wednesday asking “how the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations could characterize an attack on a U.S. consulate so inaccurately five days after a terrorist attack that killed four Americans.”

This was in response to Rice’s assertion that the attacks were “spontaneous.”

Johnson Files Suit Against Democrat, GOP Monopoly

Former New Mexico Governor and Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson, determined to get a place on the stage during the upcoming Presidential debates, has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the Democratic and Republican parties.

Johnson’s campaign contends that the parties are working in collusion, despite his having satisfied the requirements to be included in debates, to block third-party presence at the events. The Commission on Presidential Debates and the Johnson campaign disagree on polling results.

The Libertarian candidate’s campaign alleges that the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have conspired in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to limit competition, thereby causing material injury to the American electorate and the Johnson campaign.

“Someone has to stand up and call this what it is—a rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly,” said Johnson spokesman Ron Nielson in a press release. “That someone will be the Johnson campaign.”

In the suit, the plaintiffs argue that because the Presidency is a salaried position, pursuit of the position can be treated as commerce. The pertinent portion of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is stated in the suit as follows:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

In agreeing to these rules to exclude the plaintiff from participating in the debates, the defendants are conspiring and contracting to restrain the plaintiffs from participating in the electoral process.

The suit is unlikely to gain much traction. Some pundits have described it as an unprecedented move for a third-party candidate, but it could increase Johnson’s visibility to voters who are still disenchanted with the Mitt Romney/Barack Obama choice they face in November.

Johnson, in a recent interview, described his appeal to those voters: “The majority of Americans are fiscally responsible and socially accepting. I’m in that category of people – I think I’m representative of the majority of people in this country.

“Yet these people are let down by the two-party system. You’ve got Democrats that are supposed to be good on civil liberties but haven’t been so good of late, and Republicans who are supposed to be good on dollars and cents but I’m not sure they have ever really been good at that. Combine them both, and arguably that’s me.”

In 2000, third-party candidates Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan both sued in an attempt to be included in the debates; both were unsuccessful. The last third-party candidate to share the stage with the Republican and Democratic candidates during a Presidential debate was Ross Perot in 1992. Perot went on to win 18.9 percent of the popular vote on Election Day.

Blaming Soldiers For Bad Policy From Elites

The government elites in the United States have perpetuated failed foreign policy initiatives in the Mideast at behest of the military-industrial complex while simultaneously attempting to make the U.S. occupation of certain countries in the region appear to be purposed for training the citizenry to provide safety for themselves. For American soldiers, the sham has had fatal consequences.

In Afghanistan, the number of “green on blue” attacks — strikes by Afghan soldiers being trained by Americans (whom they often shoot in the back) — has been increasing over the past year. But rather than admit that the war in Afghanistan (Iraq, Libya, technically Syria and soon Iran) is a failed undertaking perpetuated only to continue the flow of profits to monied elites connected to the military industrial complex, the Pentagon has taken to faulting the American troops.

Over the past three years, 97 U.S. and NATO troops have been murdered by uniformed Afghan “allies.” And currently, the entire Arab world is rife with hatred for America and her foreign policy — though, for political reasons, the anger has been blamed on a ridiculous and terrible YouTube video.

Unwilling to admit the folly that is American foreign policy in the Mideast, the Pentagon has decided that American soldiers in the region need to undergo more rigorous “Islamic sensitivity training.”

“There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey explained in a recent interview.

According to the New York Post, American soldiers in the Mideast should observe the following rules in order to avoid becoming the victims of fratricide:

* Wear surgical gloves whenever handling a copy of the Koran.
* Never walk in front of a praying Muslim.
* Never show the bottom of boots while sitting or lying across from a Muslim, which in Islam is  considered an insult.
* Never share photos of wives or daughters.
* Never smoke or eat in front of Muslims during the monthlong Ramadan fasting.
* Avoid winking, cursing or nose-blowing in the presence of Muslims — all viewed as insults in Islam.
* Avoid exiting the shower without a towel.
* Avoid offering and accepting things with the left hand, which in Islam is reserved for bodily hygiene and considered unclean.

For more than a decade, the United States has fought wars of futility in the Mideast. And support for American policy in the region is no greater than before. Despite the efforts to blame all of the unrest on Islamic hatred for Americans’ way of life, one would be ignorant to believe that drone strikes in Pakistan that routinely kill civilians, support for the Muslim Brotherhood that angered many in Egyptians and America’s myriad other past transgressions in the Mideast have nothing to do with what is happening to American troops in Afghanistan at present.

The Nation’s ruling elite will never admit that Mideast peace and democracy is an unattainable option as long as the United States is involved. U.S. soldiers are agents of an occupying foreign military in the eyes of people of Mideast nations. And if their behavior is any indication, they don’t like it.

Instead of blaming Islam (or, worse, the behavior of American heroes overseas), perhaps it is time for America’s military-industrial complex to admit to the public that there is little left that can be done in the Arab world, withdraw from the region and stop allowing American soldiers to be sitting ducks for profit.

Mideast: A New America

In an illustration of American foreign policy so elegantly simplified that even the most un-informed among American citizens can see that it is flawed, former President Bill Clinton explained on Sunday what destabilized Mideast countries like Libya need the most: Wal-Mart.

Amid the upheaval throughout the Arab world that has been — questionably — attributed to the discovery of an offensive anti-Muslim film produced by an American smut peddler, Muslim protesters have spoken out against the influence of Western culture. Anti-Western protests are phenomenon not uncommon throughout Arab nation-states for more than half a century.

Clinton, speaking to a gathering at the annual Clinton Global Initiative Summit, challenged Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke, who was a panelist at the event. “If the new president of Libya asked you to open a store in Tripoli, would you consider it?”

Clinton’s reasoning is that people simply want jobs, and giving those jobs would stabilize radicalism.

At the same conference, the former President’s wife and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also had a message for countries in the process of restructuring.

“One of the issues I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Clinton said. “It is a fact that around the world the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to their growth of their own countries.”

In essence, despite the idealistic lie that Americans are simply in the business of disseminating democracy throughout the world, it is not the sort of people-first democracy that is romanticized in American high-school textbooks. It is the “democracy” currently enjoyed by citizens of the United States, wherein government is run by elite banksters and corporate money movers via political affiliations. Those who do not have the connections to benefit from government manipulation are then taxed into oblivion, creating a corporate-political feudal system whereby all the players are on the same team.

This will be nothing new to Arab nation states, only the dictators will have a different, less blatant appearance. But, don’t expect to see the Mideast States of America become a fluid reality any time before the war that will eliminate any dissent in the region.

Ventura: Obama, Romney Putting On A Show

In an interview with RT last week, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura summed up the upcoming Presidential election in his own words as one that leaves voters without a choice.

Ventura, who recently suggested that he may begin preparing for a 2016 Presidential bid, says that he doesn’t feel there is much difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney because the two are simply putting on a show for voters. Behind the scenes, Ventura suggested, it’s simply all business between the two.

Ventura, a former professional wrestler, had this to say about the election campaign:

I think what you are seeing is them finally rising up to the level of professional wrestling. In Pro Wrestling, in front of the cameras, we all hate each other. Behind the scenes, it is a business.

And it is the same way it is for them. It is a sham.

In front of the cameras and the public, they hate each other and they are on different sides of the fences. Behind the scenes, they are going out to dinner together. They are ensuring their two-party dictatorship maintains its power.

There is no difference between these two. Don’t kid yourselves.

Ventura, a Navy veteran and former SEAL reservist, also decried the Federal government’s penchant for claiming to peddle democracy in the Mideast while quashing various forms of democratic protest at home.

Is Obama Using Nixon Tactics?

Representative Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) likened President Barack Obama to former notoriously paranoid President Richard Nixon last week because Obama reportedly keeps an “enemies list.”

“Not since Richard Nixon have we seen a president who puts together an enemies list and has a whole team pursuing it,” Issa told the cast of “Fox and Friends.” “That’s what’s happened in this administration. It’s sad. It’s not the America I want to see going forward. I sincerely hope that after the election, regardless, the American people will have made a statement that they won’t tolerate this.”

Issa was referencing collusion between the left-wing political advocacy group Media Matters and the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice. The Daily Caller brought the relationship to light earlier this month reporting that Attorney General Eric Holder’s communications staff has collaborated with Media Matters for America “in an attempt to quell news stories about scandals plaguing Holder and America’s top law enforcement agency.”

The publication provided dozens of emails between Justice and Media Matters to support its revelation.

As of deadline of this article, Media Matters and Justice were both mum on the issue. There is a possibility, however, that the House Committee on Oversight and Government reform, which Issa chairs, will probe the relationship.

“I think the important point is, these people represent the culture that President Obama brought into Washington, a culture of division, a culture that embraces the concept of, the 1 percent is evil and somehow the rest of America just needs to…punish the 1 percent,” Issa said. “I guess I’m part of the 1 percent for purposes of their attack. So are you.”

Tuna Could Contain Dangerous Mercury Levels

Some consumer groups are working to convince the U.S. Department of Agriculture to remove tuna from school cafeterias after a study found variable levels, sometimes higher than those allowed by Federal guidelines, of mercury in cans of the fish.

The Mercury Policy Project tested 59 samples of tuna in large cans and foil pouches from 11 States. Levels of methylmercury found were close to previous tests done by the Food and Drug Administration for the most part. But, levels of mercury varied widely, sometimes even in the same package. On average, methylmercury content ranged from 0.02 to 0.64 parts per million in light tuna and between 0.19 and 1.27 parts per million in albacore tuna.

“On any given day in a given school, children eating the same meal could get mercury doses that vary by tenfold, just because of the variability of the chunk of meat in the packet,” says Edward Groth, author of the report on the test.

The Environmental Protection Agency says the most methylmercury, a potent neurotoxin, that a person should consume equals one-tenth of a microgram per kilogram of their body weight. Miniscule levels of methylmercury have been linked to learning disabilities and developmental delays in children.

Even consuming tuna four times a month could have “subtle adverse effects” on some children, according to Groth.

Obama’s Useful Idiots

The campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama is no stranger to pushing collectivist and government-first propaganda to excite its base, but many people have noted that the campaign initiatives are beginning to get creepier than ever before.

A couple months ago, the Obama campaign released an online application called “Life of Julia” which demonstrated how government involvement in the life of a young woman would likely differ under the policies of an Obama Administration as opposed to a Mitt Romney Administration’s policies. Small-government advocates were quick to point out that neither scenario was conducive to removing the government from the most intimate facets of day-to-day life, but the apocalyptic vision of a woman’s life without Obama’s big-government health policies proposed by the current Administration were, to many, downright laughable.

The demonstration plays as follows: Without Obama, young Julia is denied education. Then, she is denied surgery. Poorly educated and in less-than favorable health, Julia is forced to take an undesirable job at the age of 23 after barely scraping by in college. Later in life, she has more problems paying for healthcare and has a baby who she has trouble supporting. And then her kid has the same problems. In old age, Julia has no money and worries all the time.

It sounds preposterous, but you can check it out for yourself here.

The Obama cult of personality and government-always-helps campaign strategy has popped up again in his effort to encourage his supporters to praise the campaign by writing on their hands and sending photos to the campaign showing what makes them love Obama.

Here are some of the reasons — displayed in creepy fashion “#For All” — that some people support Obama.

Supporting Obama for food could actually seem logical, though food stamps may be a better thing for the President’s supporters to write on their hands. According to a recently released Congressional Research Service report, the number of able-bodied Americans now using food stamps nearly doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, after Obama suspended the requirement for able-bodied adults without children to attempt to work before drawing full nutritional assistance.


And like those in Chicago who, through collectivist action, put on hold the start of school for nearly 350,000 already lagging students in the city.


See: Solyndra, Bright Source, Solar Trust of America, LSP Energy, Energy Conversion Devices, Amonix Solar, Abound Solar, Sun Power, Beacon Power, Ecotality, A123 Solar, UniSolar, Azure Dynamics, Evergreen Solar, Ener1. All are renewable energy firms, many of which received direct subsidies from the Obama Administration; all failed.


Despite promises from the President during the last campaign, large numbers of American troops remain in the Mideast long after Obama’s promised withdrawal dates. Worse, they continue to be killed by the very people they are attempting to train in places like Afghanistan where the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida have taken a strong foothold thanks to failed American foreign policy shared by both George W. Bush and the current President.


Increased drone strikes that routinely kill civilians, the classification of any male old enough to hold a weapon as enemy combatant, indefinite detention and Fast and Furious are all policies that began or continued under the Obama Administration. Also, Guantanamo Bay is still open; and, as a U.S. citizen, your chances of being sent there have increased under Obama.


Hoping you don’t get fooled again?There are plenty more of the one-word pictorial devotions to Dear Leader Obama on his campaign sight here.

Voting Netanyahu 2012?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have a long-standing friendship that dates back to 1976, when they both worked as corporate advisers to the Boston Consulting Group.

Despite some efforts to downplay the 36-year relationship, both men have noted that they formed a lasting bond during the time they spent working together at the Boston Consulting Group. In a New York Times article from April, Romney and Netanyahu were both quoted saying they share a common worldview in many respects.

Romney told the newspaper: “We can almost speak in shorthand. We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.”

And Netanyahu described their communication as follows: “[D]espite our very different backgrounds, my sense are that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them.”

Now with Romney in the running for President, the close relationship between candidate and Israeli Prime Minister is an unprecedented one that may pose some heavy questions about the future of American foreign policy in the Mideast and how Israel-dominated its direction will be.

One of Romney’s closest foreign policy advisers is Dan Senor, a high-profile and decidedly neocon foreign policy expert whose resume includes advocating a number of Bush-era Mideast foreign policy initiatives. But even when George W. Bush was hesitant to unleash an American or Israeli military assault on Iran because of a stretched-thin military battling in Iraq and Afghanistan, people from Senor’s school of thought were openly calling for the United States to embark on an aggressive bombing campaign against the nation. Senor has exhibited a career-spanning support for Israel and was reportedly one of the key orchestrators of Romney’s recent legally questionable campaign fundraising event in Israel where he received money from a number of unnamed donors who were alleged to have been linked with illegal diamond trading.

Indeed, Senor is not the only pro-Israel advocate tied to the Romney campaign. In a recently leaked video, Romney admitted that his campaign uses the same consultants that manipulate campaigns the world over to garner favor for the globalist-backed candidate in a given race. He said:

I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world, I didn’t realize it. These guys in the US – the Karl Rove equivalents – they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So, they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I’d tell them to you, but I’d have to shoot you.

Romney’s allusion to his international thought shapers raises questions about the true origin and purpose of events that have transpired in recent weeks throughout the Mideast and what Israeli-manipulated shenanigans may unfold over the next month leading up to the election.

Here’s another telling remark from the same Romney speech:

[I]n the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

Will a manufactured Iran crisis arise before November? Only time will tell, but it is getting pretty close to October surprise season. And given the amount of speculation that the recent round of Mideast riots are part of a psyops ploy, it isn’t implausible.

Paying attention to American/Israeli news coverage, one cannot help but notice Netanyahu’s recent push for media visibility in the United States. He has essentially inserted himself into the 2012 Presidential campaign.

Netanyahu has repeatedly made critical statements about Obama’s foreign policy stance of crippling economic sanctions and patience to stifle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying that the United States must essentially draw a line in the sand and dare the Iranian regime to step over it.

He had this to say on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press”:

I actually I read this in the American press. They said, well, you know, if you take action, that’s– that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons. Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East– stabilize the Middle East. I– I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity. We have to stop them. Don’t rely on containment. That is not the American policy. It would be wrong. It would be a grave, grave mistake. Don’t let these fanatics have nuclear weapons. It’s terrible for Israel and it’s terrible for America. It’s terrible for the world.

Whether Obama or Romney assume the office of President following the election matters not to Netanyahu, because Israeli influence in America’s military-industrial complex and legislature guarantees American backing of Israel should it launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. But his relationship with Romney and Romney’s promise to telephone him with questions like “Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?” before making key American foreign-policy decisions make Netanyahu’s most-favorable option clear.

With the prospect of a virtual handover of Mideast foreign policy decision-making to the Israeli government, American voters can bet that Netanyahu, with the help of Mossad, will do everything in his power to ensure that Romney takes the White House.

Many “conservatives” reading this are likely saying to themselves, “Good, anything to get Obama out of the Oval Office.” And unfortunately, they have been brainwashed into believing that support for Israel is a biblical mandate that directly affects American prosperity through divine intervention. (That doesn’t sound all too different than the way some other cultures make policy decisions, does it?)

But the harsh and unavoidable reality for more pragmatic thinkers is that Romney’s willingness to give Israel such a powerful role in American policy goes against any true patriotic value left over from our Nation’s founding.

During his farewell address in 1796, President George Washington gave a grave warning against the very kind of relationship the United States has cultivated with Israel, a relationship that Romney seeks to further embolden with Israeli power in American decision-making.

Washington warned:

[A] passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

… Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

… Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Of course, more prophetic was probably Washington’s understanding that money and zealotry would lead the Nation astray and into a spiraling collapse as he said later in the speech: “I dare not hope they [these counsels] will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit…”

There are thousands of reasons to support “anyone but Obama” for President and maybe even a few reasons to believe that Romney would make a good President. His slobbering love for Netanyahu and willingness to wholly entangle the United States in the battle between Muslims and Jews are not those reasons. Anyone who believes otherwise cannot be called a true conservative, and most definitely not a patriot, in the sort of Nation envisioned by America’s Founding Fathers.

Justice Report Clears Holder In Fast And Furious

A report released by the Justice Department on Wednesday says that 14 employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives face “disciplinary action” in regard to roles played in the fatally flawed Fast and Furious gunrunning operation, though no criminal charges have been recommended.

The report says that Fast and Furious was plagued by “misguided strategies, tactics, errors in judgment and management failures” on the part of agents, prosecutors and senior ATF officials in Washington. The Justice Department investigators also contend that Attorney General Eric Holder was not informed of the operation until after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

Holder said in a statement: “It is unfortunate that some were so quick to make baseless accusations before they possessed the facts about these operations accusations that turned out to be without foundation and that have caused a great deal of unnecessary harm and confusion. I hope today’s report acts as a reminder of the dangers of adopting as fact unsubstantiated conclusions before an investigation of the circumstances is completed.”

As a result of Fast and Furious roles outlined in the report, Kenneth Melson, the former director of the ATF, retired from the department and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein resigned from his post. The Justice Department has not released further information about the other involved employees.

Federal Government Not Willing To Rethink NDAA

Many civil liberties activists felt that a small victory had been achieved when Federal Judge Katherine Forrest temporarily suspended the National Defense Authorization Act’s indefinite detention provision in response to a lawsuit brought forth by renowned American journalists and intellectuals earlier this year. But this week, an appeals judge reinstated the provision at request of the Administration of Barack Obama.

Forrest ruled last week that the indefinite detention provision of NDAA could implicate American journalists for providing “material support” to entities that the Federal government defines as terrorists for simply covering issues surrounding the groups. This, the judge argued, posed threats to Constitutional free speech and freedom of the press.

“First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be legislated away,” Forrest wrote in her opinion. “This Court rejects the government’s suggestion that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they could not predict might subject them to detention.”

When he signed the bill into law last New Year’s Eve, Obama claimed that: “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

Despite his assertion, the President’s Administration, evidently alarmed by Forrest’s suspension of the indefinite detention provision until language in the bill is clarified, asked for an emergency stay on the order. Within hours of the request on Monday, U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier agreed to intervene and place a hold on the injunction.

Indefinite detention is alive and well. Barring Forrest’s previous ruling means the President again has the power to put any American citizen who “was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” in a military detention center until “the end of hostilities.”

Amid Solyndra Failure, Chinese Solar Panels Were Bought For Fed Building

If you can’t beat them, let them win.

That appears to have been the attitude of American bureaucrats who deemed it acceptable to use stimulus funds acquired via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to purchase Chinese solar panels for the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building in Carbondale, Ill.

In 2010, the contractor hired to install the panels questioned the Federal government as to whether it was even legal to purchase the Chinese panels with stimulus funding, but the bureaucrats dismissed the query, according to The Washington Times.

Significance of the transgression has heightened in the years since the installation of the panels with the highly publicized failure of taxpayer funded firms like Solyndra LLC and Abound Solar. Both firms were involved in the manufacture of solar panels similar to those purchased from China for the building.

Since the companies’ bankruptcy filings, government officials have repeatedly blamed failure of the taxpayer-subsidized green-energy experiments on unfair competition from China.

Hezbollah Chief Wants U.S. Laws Against Islamic Ridicule

At behest of Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah, tens of thousands of protesters have gathered in Beirut, Lebanon in protest of the anti-Islamic film that is alleged to have sparked massive unrest throughout the Mideast.

According to RT, many of the protesters have adorned themselves with green and yellow headbands bearing the words “At Your Service God’s Prophet” to signify membership to Hezbollah.

“America, hear us – don’t insult our Prophet,” the protesters have been heard chanting.

“Prophet of God, we offer ourselves, our blood and our kin for the sake of your dignity and honor,” Reuters quoted Nasrallah during a rare address to the protest crowd.

The Hezbollah leader is reportedly calling for the government of the United States to make it a criminal offense to ridicule the Islamic prophet in the public sphere and is calling for punishment against those involved in the production of “Innocence of Muslims.”

“The US should know the film has dangerous repercussions,” Nasrallah said, according to Press-TV.

OWS Protesters Outnumbered By Cops

Occupy Wall Street protestors took to New York City’s financial district Monday to mark the one year anniversary of the movement against corporate greed in the United States; according to reports, police outnumbered protestors.

Protesters who began taking to the city’s streets over the weekend were met with heavy police presence by NYPD officers clad in military and riot gear who barricaded many streets throughout lower Manhattan.

About 100 protesters had either been detained or arrested near the New York Stock Exchange by noon Monday as police filled buses with the activists.

Smaller OWS-related events also cropped up in other cities throughout the Nation, though with less fanfare than the New York gathering.

Many observers of the OWS movement say that because of a lack of defined goals and failure to put forth a solid ideological statement, the anniversary resurgence of OWS will be short-lived.

A recent New York Times article explains:

As the Occupy movement turns 1 year old, its primary target — Wall Street — keeps churning out scandals. Major banks have been caught rigging key interest rates, laundering money and taking risky bets that lose billions of dollars.

Yet the movement cannot claim any new policy, law or regulation as its own. Unlike the Tea Party on the political right, there is no cohesive Occupy group promoting candidates in November’s national election.

Can Green Tea Kill Cancer?

Recent studies have added to the knowledge about the many health benefits of green tea, noting that chemicals found in the drink can actually help regenerate brain cells. Now, researchers studying the same chemicals have found that they can also shrink cancerous tumors.

Chemicals present in green tea, such as epigallocatechin 3-gallate or EGCG, are gaining prominent attention as new research demonstrates an impressive ability of EGCG to halt cancer growth and improve cardiovascular health.

Research from the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, published in Nanomedicine, says EGCG extracted from green tea could be a powerful weapon in treatments for tackling cancer with no side effects. Scientists at the university developed a method for delivering the natural compound directly to tumor cells and found that nearly two-thirds of the tumors shrank or disappeared within a month.

Dr. Christine Dufès, a senior lecturer at the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, said: “These are very encouraging results which we hope could pave the way for new and effective cancer treatments.

“When we used our method, the green tea extract reduced the size of many of the tumors every day, in some cases removing them altogether. By contrast, the extract had no effect at all when it was delivered by other means, as every one of these tumors continued to grow.

“This research could open doors to new treatments for what is still one of the biggest killer diseases in many countries.”

The tests are believed to be the first time that this type of treatment has made cancerous tumors shrink or vanish.

Gingrich: U.S. At War With Libya

In a scathing rebuke of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, former House Speaker and failed Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich described the events in Benghazi, Libya, and other U.S. consulates throughout the Arab world last week as acts of war.

Responding to Obama’s speech following the news of the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in which he described the deadly Libya protest as a “senseless act of violence,” Gingrich writes in a recent op-ed:

These are not acts of senseless violence.

These are acts of war.

Our ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were not killed by a senseless mob. They were killed by a purposeful group of men armed with sophisticated weapons. These killers had tracked Ambassador Chris Stevens down to the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, where he was much more vulnerable to attack and had less protection. They waged a coordinated, military-style assault.

Our four dead are combat casualties as much as anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan.

While American involvement in the overthrow of the Libyan government took place without much fanfare, the United States is definitely at war with Libya. Experts agree that it is the same type of endless military conflict in which the Nation has been entangled for the past decade in Afghanistan.

Can America Survive Mideast War?

Gauging the response from the hawkish, neocon wing of the American populace along with some fence-sitters, it is apparent that the Nation’s handlers of disinformation are doing a spectacular job at steering public opinion in favor of an all-out international brawl in the Mideast.

Most recently, this has been demonstrated by the unbelievable narrative that transpired in Benghazi, Libya, and Egypt. Protesters have attacked American consulates and murdered the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.

American blood has been spilled in Libya, Egyptians have torn down the American flag at the embassy in their country and the anger and violent protests are spreading like wildfire across the Arab world. But, of course, there must be a reason. Could it be American freedom of speech?

The unrest is said to have been sparked by a film made in the United States that is extremely offensive to Muslim believers. There are many reasons which make the film an unlikely catalyst for the current anger in the Mideast; you can read about them in Bob Livingston’s “Freedom Watch” in today’s issue.

But to pretend that the film was what really sparked this unrest makes it much easier for America’s warmongers to validate what is about to come to a head in the Mideast region, while simultaneously covering more than 70 years of American hegemonic failure.

Less-informed Americans are led to believe some extremely nonsensical and historically contradictory things about the Nation’s ambitions in the Mideast. These ambitions were solidified with a 1944 State Department memo describing Mideast oil as “a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”

Over the course of the following decade, American foreign policy in the Mideast was quite simply to remove anyone who displeased the Nation’s puppet masters and to create a sense of celestial manifest destiny for Americans who might shun the idea of becoming involved in a region that had been embroiled in holy war for a large portion of recorded history.

President Harry Truman in 1946 ordered the Soviets to get out of Kurdistan and Azerbaijan in northern Iran under threat of a “super bomb.” This was an effort to ensure that Iran would remain friendly to the United States in the future, and not object to imperialist U.S. objectives in the meantime.

Two years later in 1948, the United States manufactured what is, to this day, one of the primary publically acceptable reasons for the Nation’s nearly perpetual war stance in a region worlds away even when the United States falters domestically under massive debts and economic woes.

U.S. and British interests worked with the United Nations to create the Zionist homeland of Israel by ceding 54 percent of Palestine to the Jews who made up roughly one-third of the population. This quickly prompted Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Syria, who opposed the newly proclaimed state, to attack unsuccessfully. The war ended in the exodus of nearly 800,000 Palestinians into surrounding Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank. Israel promptly took control of 77 percent of historic Palestine and was vindicated by American support.

To put it into vastly oversimplified terms, what followed involved a series of upheavals and U.S. interventionist money-pumping in Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Beyond proxy war with other major world powers like Russia, the United States has interest only in Mideast oil reserves and the avoidance of nations in the region throwing out brutal regimes in favor of ones that would upset the global wishes of Western monied elite.

The cycle has been a vicious one, the latest reincarnation of which was witnessed in the Arab Spring of recent years. But the result will be the same as it has for decades. The United States supported the party that would soon empower Saddam Hussein in 1963, al-Qaida boogeyman Osama bin Laden years before the 9/11 attacks (because he irked the Russians in Afghanistan), and the revolution that created the current situation in Iran. The United States also destroyed bin Laden and Saddam, and it will likely soon do quite a number on Iran.

Does the Nation simply like playing God with the Mideast and reaping the rewards of oil control and continual busywork for the military industrial complex? Surely, the best and the brightest in American foreign policy know well that Arab people will likely never accept Western culture and values and will continue to revolt against them in horrific ways.

Whether they buy into celestial reasons for blind support of Israel and its imperialist ambitions or actually think American intervention in the Mideast has ever been about peace, Democracy or nuclear weapons (none of which have been found in large quantities in the region), there is something that Americans should be very worried about right now: The situation, regardless of the Nation’s arrogance, is very quickly becoming more unmanageable than before.

Israel continues to push the United States to aid in a strike against Iran, which has the backing of Russia and China. Meanwhile, Iran is gaining favor among the populations in Nations the United States has already gone to great lengths to destabilize in recent years: Libya, Egypt, Syria and Afghanistan. War with Iran could mean another 10 years of the past decade’s wars at best and, at worst, all-out war in the Mideast that will spread across the planet, the likes of which Americans haven’t seen in a long time.

Given the shape the Nation is in at home, one can only hope America could triumph in such a conflict. Then again, perhaps that isn’t the goal.

Fed Announces QE-Infinity

The Federal Reserve announced Thursday that the United States will definitely go into another round of quantitative easing, despite the economic failure of QE1 and QE2.

The central bank announced in a statement:

To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.

The difference between this round of quantitative easing and previous inflationary stimulus attempts made by the Fed is that this time the central bank announced an open-ended timeframe for bond buying. Essentially, the Fed has given itself the power to buy bonds for as long as it wants without announcing any more quantitative easing.

Gold stocks, as expected, skyrocketed after the announcement.

Mideast Imperialism: The Coming Collapses Of America, Israel

Following the horrific attack of the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens (some accounts say by lynch mob) and rioting in Egypt, some lawmakers are calling for the United States to withdraw aid from the countries.

That’s a good idea, but certainly not good enough.

The House will vote today on a resolution that would extend Federal funding through March to prevent a government shutdown before the election. Some conservatives raised concerns about the inclusion of additional foreign aid funding in the bill.

“It would show a tremendous amount of leadership from this administration, in light of the recent developments, if the president were to come back and demand that the amount of money that is in the [continuing resolution] for Libya and Egypt be stripped. That would be tremendous leadership,” Representative Jeff Landry (R-La.) said yesterday.

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said the inclusion of continued aid to the nations should be contingent upon agreement that those responsible for the attacks be brought to justice.

For a little more than a decade, the United States has been meddling in the Mideast in the name of “democracy.” Instead of stripping some aid, perhaps it is time for the United States to strip all Mideast aid and get out of the world’s sandbox once and for all. Simultaneously, the United States could devote more resources to developing domestic energy (so that destabilization in the area does not hurt the United States economically) and focusing its entire military might on defending the homeland rather than imperialism.

Could the results be any worse than what the current Mideast foreign policy has yielded?

The Muslim Brotherhood, with the aid of the United States, has taken control of Egypt and Libya.

Afghanistan is overrun by sectarian violence, and the very Afghans the United States is attempting to train are killing American soldiers.

Iran, capitalizing on the United States’ reckless deeds throughout the Mideast, is making inroads in further radicalizing Egypt, Libya and Afghanistan.

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing his best to guilt the United States into a war that will amount to at least a decade more of the very same type of Mideast fighting that has failed already.

Check back Friday for in-depth Mideast analysis from Personal Liberty on why things are heating up in the region and what it may mean for the future.

The Internet Spy Executive Order Exists

American Internet users will most likely soon be wholly governed in their online activities by the Department of Homeland Security due to an Executive Order that has reportedly already been drafted by the White House.

According to information from The Associated Press, the order uses the fear of cyber terror to implement a system whereby a committee made up of members of the departments of defense, justice, commerce and national intelligence, under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, will monitor America’s Internet use.

The AP claims the measure will provide “digital defenses for critical infrastructure while encouraging economic prosperity and promoting privacy and civil liberties.”

Critics of the idea of government control over the Internet have myriad concerns over what the passage of an executive order like the one proposed could mean for Internet freedom.

Will The Assault Weapon Ban Return?

Tomorrow marks the eighth anniversary of the expiration of the Federal assault weapons ban put into place in 1994 by the Administration of President Bill Clinton. And even after eight years, the fight from anti-gun lobbies to reinstate the ban is still full force.

Last week, the Democratic Party included in its platform — just as it has every four years since the ban expired — a commitment to reinstating the ban that disallowed Americans the right to legally own certain semi-automatic rifles and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has promised to introduce legislation to reinstate the ban as early as next year. The success of her efforts will be determined largely by the outcome of the Presidential election. President Barack Obama has already made it remarkably clear that he strongly supports reinstatement of the ban, which will likely become a reality under a second term. Furthermore, some pundits expect at least three Supreme Court appointments to be made during the next Presidential Administration; Obama appointments could spell disaster for gun rights.

Though Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is not often noted for his extreme devotion to the 2nd Amendment, he has been outspoken on the side of those who oppose reinstating the assault weapons ban.

Another key component of fighting legislation like what Feinstein has promised to introduce is the election of gun-friendly Senators in Senate battleground States.

Without paying attention to Senate races, making sure that Obama is not re-elected and that a Romney Administration would follow through with 2nd Amendment promises (instead of reverting to the candidate’s previous anti-gun stances), there is little hope in winning the battle against America’s gun grabbers.

Politicians Use 9/11 To Talk Defense Spending

Being sure not to let the anniversary of 9/11 go to waste, House Republicans spent Tuesday doing the bidding of the military-industrial complex and speaking out against any form of military spending cuts — even as the United States faces $16 trillion in deficits.

“The president should be called upon and asked, what is his plan?” House Majority leader Eric Cantor told reporters. “How is he going to lead and make sure that our military is not hollowed out?”

In addition to military spending cuts already under way, an additional $500 billion in military spending cuts will automatically go into effect at the end of the year as part of an agreement between President Barack Obama and Congress to avoid a debt default.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday of the automatic cuts: “The president didn’t want his re-election inconvenienced by another fight over a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt increase, and that’s why we have it.”

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta also spoke out against the cuts recently. During an interview with CBS, he said: “What’s irresponsible is the fact that…they put these cuts into place and they are failing to come up with the answer as to how to prevent this from happening…They said ‘Let’s put a gun to our head and if we don’t do the right thing, we’ll blow our heads off.’ Well, now they’ve cocked the gun. This thing’s supposed to take effect in January, but the whole purpose of it was both Republicans and Democrats to do the right thing and to prevent this from happening. That’s what’s irresponsible.”