Under The Radar Media in no way defends or condones hate crimes
Due to the mainstream media’s inability to inform Americans of significant events, the alphabet soup networks have had a field day covering various racially-motivated incidents involving President-elect Obama. Huge bruhahas have been made of various idiots’ ignorant follies such as the Texas Longhorn lineman Buck Burnette’s Facebook comments as well as the borderline pre-crime of two so-called Neo-Nazis and their ridiculous internet plan to assassinate the president-elect. One story that the networks ignored was that of a New York-based Israeli fashion designer and his “Who killed Obama” t-shirts, but alas, that is a different story altogether.
Therefore, it strikes me as odd that the media would focus on such events rather than celebrating the fact that a majority of Americans seem to have finally embraced the message of the famous civil rights anthem and Negro spiritual “We Shall Overcome.” Ironically it is the Puppet Obama and his string pullers who will ultimately gain from this coverage as it follows the ruling elite’s tried and true formula of problem-reaction-solution: present the problem (hate crimes), instigate reaction (public outrage) and offer the solution (hate crimes legislation).
If we flashback to December 07, 2007, the then Senator Obama released a scathing statement over Congress’ failure to include the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy, however Obama was the primary co-sponsor of the legislation. If you visit Obama’s change.gov website, you’ll find that one the upcoming administration’s goals is to ensure the passing of the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But is this truly a legitimate concern of Obama, or is he once again being used as a tool for a private interest group?
You only have to peek behind the curtain to see who is truly in charge of running Obama. This time it is the very questionable, anti-American organization the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith. The ADL’s website doesn’t even hide the fact that they practically run the US Justice Department, along with the feds and local law enforcement. This organization even openly admits it writes the hate crime legislation.
In the bizarre alternate reality in which quasi-governmental organizations like the ADL exist, there are no shortages of cross burnings, noose hangings and swastikas spray-painted on synagogues which the ADL makes to sound as though they happen everyday. While there certainly are legitimate instances of hate crimes, the ADL is nowhere to be found when hate crimes are either staged or provocateured.
The ADL’s drive to root out hate crimes is apparently only selectively enforced as well. For instance the ADL may grandstand over the killing of one Hispanic man, yet turn a blind eye at the growing instances of indiscriminate Hispanic gang violence against African Americans in Los Angeles. In fact, the true agenda of the ADL’s hate crime laws appears to use the Matthew Shepard Act as a pretext to further consolidate federal control over local law enforcement:
“The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act / Matthew Shepard Act gives the Justice Department the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence by providing the Department with jurisdiction over crimes of violence where the perpetrator has selected the victim because of the person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.”
So the real questions here are, why is it the duty of an organization who’s primary function is to serve and protect Jewish interests first and foremost to write hate crime legislation and what control does it really have over the Puppet Obama?
On many internet forums and in public discussions about the attacks of September 11, there always seems to be at least one person who bemoans the subject and recommends that since it has been almost eight years that everyone should just forget about it already. This opinion seems to shared by mainstream liberals and conservatives alike, particularly those that uphold the government’s version of 9/11.
This sentiment was recently echoed in twice by the liberal historian and peace activist Howard Zinn, when asked how he felt about the official accounts of 9/11. Steve Watson from the Infowars team reports the following statements by Zinn:
“I have said that what happened on 9/11 deserves to be investigated more than it has been because I don’t accept and believe official investigations and official reports.
I don’t think the question of what really happened on 9/11 is the most important question we can ask.
I believe there are certain things that happen in history and certainly questions that are asked that divert us from the important things that we have to do at hand.
The truth is I don’t think anyone will ever really know what happened on 9/11 just as I don’t think anyone will really know who killed John F. Kennedy, and there are a lot of people who wasted a huge amount of time working on something that did not have any practical political significance.
I don’t know enough about it (the 9/11 conspiracy) and the truth is I don’t much care, that’s past.”
Coming from an alleged critic of US imperialism and perpetual war around the world, these comments sound very strange to me to me, because if there was no 9/11 then technically America would not be bogged down in two wars in the Middle East.
Watson then makes a short list of foreign and domestic policies that would have never been implemented had 9/11 never happened:
Without 9/11 there would be no “war on terror”.
Without 9/11 there would be no “clash of civilizations”
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iraq.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iran.
Without 9/11 there would be no war in… (insert any country classified as part of the “axis of evil” or defined as being “with the terrorists”)
Without 9/11 thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.
Without 9/11 hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.
Without 9/11 there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Without 9/11 there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.
Without 9/11 there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).
Without 9/11 there would be no Patriot Act.
Without 9/11 there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
Without 9/11 there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.
Without 9/11 there would be no Military Commissions Act and no coordinated program of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.
Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence under the newly created office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Without 9/11 there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers who are suffering crippling and fatal respiratory illnesses.
Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in military and security spending that goes arm in arm with huge cutbacks in other key social programs (such as levees in New Orleans).
While the internet is more trusted than television and newsprint combined, the most trusted television news source is FOX News strangely enough. FOX News, commonly known as FAUX News to the more saavy news hound, is notorious for its rabid, right-wing bias.
The fact that the internet is now more trusted for news than television is very positive news. There can be nothing more constructive in winning the information war and changing the direction of the United States than breaking the hold of the discredited mainstream media.
Monday, Nov 24, 2008
Newly announced team consists of the very people who created the economic crisis
Today President elect Obama officially introduces his economic team to the world. What many may fail to recognize, however, is the fact that those tasked with rescuing the economy are the very people who helped create the financial crisis in the first instance.
We already know that the team will include Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary; Lawrence Summers as head of the National Economic Council; Peter Orszag as director of The Office of Management and Budget; and Jason Furman, Austan Goolsbee and Jack Lew in other senior economic positions.
The man that ties almost all these people together is former Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup executive Robert Rubin.
Rubin is as much to blame for the creation of the current financial crisis as Alan Greenspan is, as both men ignored the advice of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and strongly opposed the regulation of derivatives. Over-exposure to credit derivatives of mortgage-backed securities – or credit default swaps (CDS) was a key reason for the failure of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, and Washington Mutual in 2008.
At Citi, Rubin was one of the grand strategists of the speculation in securitized loans, on November 4, 2007, he became the Chairman there.
Rubin is also currently co-chairman of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Group of Thirty.
Every one of the afore mentioned economic “experts” to be appointed by Obama, with the exception of Skull and Bones representative Austan Goolsbee, is a protégé of Rubin.
Furthermore, as the New York Times pointed out in a weekend feature:
Even the headhunters for Mr. Obama have Rubin ties: Michael Froman, Mr. Rubin’s chief of staff in the Treasury Department who followed him to Citigroup, and James P. Rubin, Mr. Rubin’s son. All three advisers – whom Mr. Obama will officially name on Monday and Tuesday – have been followers of the economic formula that came to be called Rubinomics: balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation, a combination that was credited with fueling the prosperity of the 1990s.
Today the government approved a radical plan to stabilize Citigroup in an arrangement in which will see the taxpayer assume the risk on $306 billion of Citigroup’s predatory loans, including billions in mortgage-related securities.
In addition, the U.S. Treasury will invest $20 billion in Citigroup from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), on top of the $25 billion that the government gave Citi in October.
Critics have called it the worst and most undeserved bailout to date, pointing out that less than two months ago, the agencies tried to give Citigroup the whole of Wachovia, portraying Citi as a savior.
The Financial Times’ chief business commentator writes:
The downfall of Citigroup has taken place over a long time and involved many people, but attention is now focussing on the role of Robert Rubin, the former US Treasury Secretary, who is a Citi director and senior adviser and was briefly its chairman. Mr Rubin has had an influential role at Citi since being brought on board by Sandy Weill in 1999 but has not been an executive. Having formerly been co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, he preferred to exercise influence behind the scenes.
(…) Now, of course, a big loss has been disclosed at Citi and various people are asking what Mr Rubin had to do with it. That was among the subjects covered in a long article in The New York Times on Saturday. It found that Mr Rubin and Chuck Prince, Citi’s former chairman and chief executive, played “pivotal roles” in the bank’s disastrous push into underwriting and trading collateralised debt obligations. The man in charge of this effort was Tommy Maheras, the former head of capital markets at Citi, who lost his job a year ago, shortly before Mr Prince resigned. Mr Rubin was then influential in selecting Vikram Pandit to succeed Mr Prince…
“This seems a little awkward. We’re giving the guys that broke the system the contract for the reconstruction project?” the article concludes.
Perhaps of even greater concern is the fact that Rubin does not even acknowledge his own role in the crisis.
As Matthew R. Lee of Inner City Press has noted, Rubin has no regrets, does not acknowledge that he has damaged the economy and has stated that it was “not under my aegis” to reign in Citigroup’s predatory lending.
The only “change” Obama’s economic team represents is that the foxes are now guarding the hen house, rather than plundering it.