Who will blink first in Iran's nuclear poker game?
By Aluf Benn
"Do not strike" is what the Americans are telling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Let's first
try sanctions on Iran."
"Do not strike" is what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is saying to Netanyahu. "If you
go crazy and go to war, it will be the end of the Zionist regime."
Netanyahu managed to convince the world that Israel is on the verge of a preemptive war to try to foil Iran's nuclear program. His speeches on a second Holocaust and Amalek, the acceleration of military preparations, the exercises on the Home Front, the distribution of gas masks and even the stockpiling of dollars by the Bank of Israel all suggest that Israel is preparing to strike Iran, as it did when it attacked the nuclear plants in Iraq and Syria.
AdvertisementThe preparations for war give Israel unprecedented international significance. U.S. President Barack Obama, who kept his distance at the beginning of his tenure, is now airlifting senior officials to ask Netanyahu to hold back. When he wanted to deal with the Palestinian problem, Obama made do with a retiree without authority in the form of George Mitchell.
It turns out that the Israeli threat to spark a regional war is bothering the administration a lot more than the occupation and the West Bank settlements. Not only are the politicians troubled, representatives of global investment firms are curious to know "when they will attack," as a way of gambling on oil prices. It turns out that Israel's economic significance is buried in its ability to cause trouble - not in high tech, start-ups or the Bamba snacks the Israelis pride themselves in.
Netanyahu will certainly argue that his assertive stance is what convinced Obama to take a tougher line on Iran. But the prime minister's approach is risky: What will happen if diplomacy and sanctions fail, as they are expected to, and Ahmadinejad continues on his nuclear path? Will Netanyahu then be able to pull back from his heated statements and announce that the Iranian threat is not so bad? Or has he already burned the bridge for a withdrawal and will have to go to war?
Netanyahu is playing poker and hiding his most important card: the Israel Defense Forces' true capabilities to destroy Iran's nuclear installations. If he attacks, he is risking a war of attrition in which Tel Aviv will be hit by missiles and Ben-Gurion International Airport will be closed. And the longer the violence continues, the more international firms will leave the country; the talented and wealthy will abandon it, too.
Netanyahu sees the same danger, but from the other side. He believes that if Iran goes nuclear, the elites and high tech will leave and the economy will be destroyed, so an Iranian bomb must be prevented.
Ahmadinejad is also playing poker, and in recent weeks he upped the ante when he posed the destruction of the Zionist regime not merely as a religious-ideological ambition, but as a practical goal. Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is functioning as a super-adviser to Netanyahu for national security affairs, said in response that "the clock for the Iranian regime's downfall is ticking."
Israel and Iran are gambling that only one of them will survive the confrontation. Is this threat serious? History suggests it is. In the Six-Day War and the War of Attrition, Israel defeated Nasserism, which, like Ahmadinejad today, preached the wiping of Israel off the map of the Middle East. The price was high and cost Israel the Yom Kippur War, but the Arabs became convinced that the Jewish state is not a passing phenomenon.
The third player, Obama, holds the weakest hand. This is so because of domestic political weakness and because he can't seriously threaten Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu. Obama doesn't want to attack Iran himself and will find it hard to restrain Israel at the moment of truth.
What will he do? Will he turn off the American early warning radar in the Negev and announce that there will be no airlift and no diplomatic support, and as far as he's concerned Tel Aviv can burn because Israel acted against his advice? It's hard to imagine that Obama will abandon Israel to its fate. He can only complain and signal to Netanyahu that American support is not guaranteed for any Israeli action.
Before war breaks out - if indeed it does - the real hands the leaders are holding will not be seen. But in the meantime the stakes are constantly rising with the expectations that one of the players will recognize his weakness, blink and leave the table.
New ghost towns: Industrial communities teeter on the edge
By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY
RAVENSWOOD, W.Va. — When Henry Kaiser arrived 55 years ago, this place was no place — "a rural problem area," the government called it, so poor and isolated that the population had dropped 15% since 1940.
That all changed after Kaiser, the industrialist who'd turned out ships and planes at a record pace in World War II, built the nation's largest consolidated aluminum works here on the banks of the Ohio River.
The plant paid Tim Shumaker his first living wage, and he won the right to keep it two decades ago after his union was locked out for 19 months.
Today, that victory seems hollow. Shumaker, 49, has been laid off. Part of the vast aluminum complex is closed, and the rest is for sale — its orders down, its workforce reduced, its future uncertain. Shumaker stands at the locked plant gate and, after a year without work, worries what's next for him and his community. "The way things are going," he says, "there's not going to be anything here."
Ravenswood, with 4,000 people and one big factory, is like many towns in the USA where things still are made: caught in a winter between recession and recovery, hoping the latter will arrive before the former kills the last decent blue-collar job.
If the rest of the aluminum works closed, "would this become a ghost town?" muses Jim Frazier, principal of the Henry J. Kaiser Elementary School.
Whether it's textiles in the Carolinas, paper in New England or steel in the Midwest, most industrial cities and mill towns "are on pins and needles," says Donald Schunk, an economist at Coastal Carolina University. "Day to day, week to week, any manufacturing facility seems vulnerable. People don't know if they'll be there."
That's true in:
• Georgetown, S.C. (pop. 9,000), where the closing of the local steel mill last year left International Paper as the last major private employer.
• Madawaska, Maine (pop. 4,000), where workers voted last month to take an 8.5% wage cut to keep the financially strapped paper mill going.
• Glenwood, Wash. (pop. 500), where flat lumber prices and rising land prices are crippling the forest products industry.
Anxiety over possible layoffs or closings can disturb workers as much as the real thing, experts say. Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert says it's uncertainty that really bothers people: They feel worse when they think something bad might happen than they do when they know it will happen.
Ravenswood knows the feeling. It's waiting for the other shoe to drop.
The aluminum works south of town has two parts: a reduction plant (or smelter), where ore is heated to 1,800 degrees to make aluminum; and a fabrication plant, where aluminum is rolled or stretched into sheets or plates. Since 1999, the plants have been separately owned.
A year ago last month, Century Aluminum closed the reduction plant, laying off Shumaker and about 650 other workers. The fabrication plant, owned by Rio Tinto Alcan, still employs more than 1,000.
What if the Alcan plant, which bought its raw aluminum from Century, also were to close?
That worries almost everyone, including Frazier at Kaiser Elementary. Of the school's 160 families, 37 have parents who worked at Century; many others have breadwinners at Alcan.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a Cornell labor relations professor who studied the 1990 Ravenswood lockout, says that if the second plant closes "that town would die." Other communities sustained by manufacturing face a similar fate, she adds: "We had ghost towns in the past. We could have them again."
The difference is that people could leave a ghost town — miners to work new veins, farmers to till fresh land, merchants to move closer to road or rail.
Today, Tim Shumaker sees no such options. In past layoffs, he always found work somewhere; now there seems to be none anywhere.
So, like almost everyone else here, he's staying put, wondering whether Ravenswood could become a new kind of ghost town: a place where people stay, because they have nowhere else to go.
Rise and fall
Kaiser's Ravenswood plant created a middle class where there was none. When the United Steelworkers Union was voted in after the plant opened in 1957, the hourly wage jumped from $1.78 to $3.25.
Three decades later, the aluminum works was sold to a group that secretly included Marc Rich, an American commodities trader who was living in Switzerland to avoid charges of violating the U.S. trade ban with Iran.
According to a history by Bronfenbrenner and Tom Juravich, working conditions at the plant deteriorated. The company forced workers into double shifts — sometimes for several days in a row — in the 100-degree heat of the "pot rooms," where molten aluminum is made.
When the union contract expired, the company locked the workers out.
Organized labor had been losing such battles, but at Ravenswood the Steelworkers launched an innovative "corporate campaign" that went beyond the picket line.
The union mobilized pressure from foreign unions and governments, persuaded beer companies to stop buying Ravenswood aluminum and lobbied the state Legislature to investigate the company. In 1992, the company settled, agreeing to a new contract with higher pay and limits on mandatory overtime.
By the end of 2008, though, energy prices had risen, foreign competition had increased, and the price of aluminum had dropped 50% in a few months. On Feb. 4, 2009, the smelter closed.
Workers gathered in the high school gym. Gov. Joe Manchin, a pro-union Democrat, came up from Charleston. "The world's changing," he said.
In the America where things are made, the recession has been a depression. According to a new Northeastern University study, one in every six blue-collar industrial jobs have disappeared since 2007, matching the drop in overall employment in the Great Depression.
Last year, about 1.3 million factory jobs vanished, including Shumaker's. For the first time, the government announced in January, most union members are government employees, not private-sector workers.
One-horse towns such as Ravenswood risk losing their reason for being, says Juravich, who teaches about labor at the University of Massachusetts. Without a hospital or university campus or county seat, "they're one plant shutdown from oblivion."
Sometimes oblivion is a ghost town with tumbleweed blowing down Main Street and the doors of the Last Chance Saloon swinging in the desert wind. But most 21st-century ghost towns will not be deserted.
People, many unemployed or underemployed, will fill the bars, stoops, corners, clinics, jails and social welfare offices.
An industrial town makes products that bring wealth into a community; a post-industrial ghost town has a zero-sum economy — people in marginal jobs, "serving and paying each other," Bronfenbrenner says.
At best, the new industrial ghost towns become places for low-rent homes for long-distance commuters. At worst, they slowly empty out.
Uncertainty and anxiety
At first, some Century workers — who as a group averaged $51,000 in pay per year — regarded the layoff as a vacation. Besides unemployment compensation, 20-year veterans such as Shumaker got two years of layoff pay (about $400 a month) and continued health coverage (no premiums, no deductible and a $10 co-pay for office visits).
A year later, some benefits are expiring, savings are running low, and people are beginning to hurt. The local food bank's caseload has tripled. The pawn shop's business has doubled. "I'm warm and dry," Shumaker says, "but I don't have a dime to my name." He's behind in the payments on the three-bedroom house he shares with his wife and teenage son.
He has pawned some tools. Instead of stopping for a burger at lunchtime, he goes home and fixes a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich. He drinks less milk, eats less meat, buys less gasoline. He drives a dented Ford pickup with 150,000 miles on it.
What's most striking about Ravenswood, however, is not the material deprivation but the psychological distress, an anxiety about the future that tests faith itself. "I try to explain that God has not abandoned us," says Scott Mapes, pastor of the Church of the Nazarene, where yearly giving has dropped from $180,000 to $150,000.
Shumaker does not lack daily sustenance; he lacks a future and a purpose. "I'm not depressed or anything, but I can't seem to get started in the morning," he says. "I didn't get out of bed today until 9 a.m."
He's wearing a black T-shirt with pictures of a U.S. flag and a buffalo and the words "Roam Free." Problem is, he can't. The old rule — go where the work is — no longer applies, unless maybe you're a nurse or a teacher.
There's constant speculation that Century might reopen. Shumaker's not optimistic.
Others aren't waiting for a call back to work. Hundreds are taking advantage of a federal program that pays $20,000 for education or training for workers who lose jobs because of foreign competition.
Dave Guthrie, 51, says he's glad he was laid off because now he has the time, money and motivation to go to college. He wants to be a traveling nurse, working short-term contracts around the country, far from what he calls the plant's "us-vs.-them" labor-management dynamic.
He sees Ravenswood as a nascent ghost town: "Industrial workers are dinosaurs. In the future, it's going to be service jobs and electronics. … Eventually, people will start leaving here. It's that or a minimum-wage job at Wal-Mart."
Tim Shumaker is not going anywhere. On another slow, jobless day, he sits in the union hall, which is a sort of shrine to the great lockout. There's a picture of a worker who died on the job in 1990; a union-issued Marc Rich "wanted" poster; a photo collage of members' children, under the words "Why We Fight" and "Labor's Future."
There's also an aerial photo of the sprawling colossus that sucked up more power than a city and pumped out 500 tons of metal a day. For a half-century, the hottest place in West Virginia; now, stone cold.
"It's disheartening," he says. "I enjoyed working there — even the pot rooms. I miss it."
Tim Shumaker, 49, stands in front of the shuttered plant where he worked before being laid off a year ago. These days, he's scrambling to pay the mortgage and other bills.
Birther, truther, drug war critic, tea partier, libertarian, liberal – any and all dissent is “violent extremism”
Pentagon Shooting: Now Everyones a Terrorist 050310top2
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, March 5, 2010
If someone tripled the fire insurance on their house and then it was burned to the ground days later, would you be suspicious? A similar comparison can be made to last night’s shooting at the Pentagon, which was preceded by weeks of hype from both the establishment left and right about the inevitability of 9/11 truthers going postal.
The media’s almost instantaneous explanation for the motive behind the shooting that injured two police officers was assailant John Patrick Bedell’s sense of injustice surrounding 9/11 truth.
Quite how Bedell planned to take on the hub of the military-industrial complex on his own with a couple of guns defies logic and renders the claim that Bedell was acting on his political angst ludicrous.
But the most disturbing aspect surrounding yesterday’s incident is the fact that people like Glenn Beck on the establishment right and establishment liberal media outlets like CNN and MSNBC on the left have been aggressively promoting for months the notion that people who express dissent against the government are intent on killing people.
It’s no coincidence that the last two targets of low-level domestic terrorism were the IRS and the Pentagon, and in both cases the propaganda victory enjoyed in the aftermath by the same establishment registered a far greater impact than the actual attacks.
The Pentagon shooting has been seized upon as a way to demonize 9/11 truthers, Tea Party members, drug war opponents, libertarians, and just about anyone with a political opinion.
The Media Elites website feverishly set about using Bedell’s actions as a stick with which to smear anyone and everyone from supporters of former Democratic candidate Mike Gravel, to “teabaggers,” to marijuana decriminalization advocates, to adherents of the economic philosophy of Ludwig von Mises, to people who read books critical of the Bush administration.
Basically, any idea or opinion Bedell ever had was suddenly used as grist for political demonization of a whole smattering of groups seen as a thorn in the side of the establishment. This pathetic feeding frenzy is now routine in a climate where the public is brainwashed that any dissent against the government is indicative of “dangerous extremism” and should be frowned upon.
This also has the effect of circling the wagons and inculcating within police the idea that protesters and 9/11 truthers represent a physical threat.
Could the shooting be yet another example of false flag terrorism or did Bedell just go nuts? What we do know for sure is that the only other two occasions on which 9/11 truthers were accused of being violent or planning terrorism were both completely fraudulent set-ups that were artificially contrived in an effort to demonize people who ask questions about 9/11.
The first occurred when 9/11 truth activist Gary Talis was accused of assaulting a disabled girl in a wheelchair outside a Laura Bush speaking event. Talis was later acquitted by a New York jury despite New York police officers and one Secret Service agent lying in claiming Talis had assaulted the girl when in fact he was the one being assaulted by the girl’s father.
The second incident involved We Are Change New York, who were protesting Larry Silverstein when one of Silverstein’s security guards called in a hoax bomb threat to the police, claiming that Luke Rudkowski was carrying an explosive device in his backpack.
Since on both these occasions, 9/11 truthers were the victims of an orchestrated set-up to portray them as violent criminals or terrorists, how can we be confident that we have been told the whole story about the Pentagon incident?
The fact that Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and others are constantly hyping the inevitability of anti-government individuals going postal and killing people undoubtedly makes already unstable individuals more likely to commit such acts.
Whether Bedell was influenced by his political grievances, media talking points, or he just snapped is largely inconsequential to the fact that this will be exploited to the full by shameful hacks who are eager to silence their opposition by demonizing anyone who so much as utters a word against the government as a violent extremist and in doing so, preparing the groundwork for measures to censor free speech and the Internet.
It’s not good enough for them to have raped Americans for trillions of dollars, destroyed the economy, turned the police against us, and eviscerated our standard of living, they now want to blackball anyone who so much as raises a whimper in protest as an extremist and a potential terrorist.
on Shooting: Now Everyone’s a Terrorist
Birther, truther, drug war critic, tea partier, libertarian, liberal – any and all dissent is “violent extremism”
If someone tripled the fire insurance on their house and then it was burned to the ground days later, would you be suspicious? A similar comparison can be made to last night’s shooting at the Pentagon, which was preceded by weeks of hype from both the establishment left and right about the inevitability of 9/11 truthers going postal.
The media’s almost instantaneous explanation for the motive behind the shooting that injured two police officers was assailant John Patrick Bedell’s sense of injustice surrounding 9/11 truth.
Quite how Bedell planned to take on the hub of the military-industrial complex on his own with a couple of guns defies logic and renders the claim that Bedell was acting on his political angst ludicrous.
But the most disturbing aspect surrounding yesterday’s incident is the fact that people like Glenn Beck on the establishment right and establishment liberal media outlets like CNN and MSNBC on the left have been aggressively promoting for months the notion that people who express dissent against the government are intent on killing people.
It’s no coincidence that the last two targets of low-level domestic terrorism were the IRS and the Pentagon, and in both cases the propaganda victory enjoyed in the aftermath by the same establishment registered a far greater impact than the actual attacks.
The Pentagon shooting has been seized upon as a way to demonize 9/11 truthers, Tea Party members, drug war opponents, libertarians, and just about anyone with a political opinion.
The Media Elites website feverishly set about using Bedell’s actions as a stick with which to smear anyone and everyone from supporters of former Democratic candidate Mike Gravel, to “teabaggers,” to marijuana decriminalization advocates, to adherents of the economic philosophy of Ludwig von Mises, to people who read books critical of the Bush administration.
Basically, any idea or opinion Bedell ever had was suddenly used as grist for political demonization of a whole smattering of groups seen as a thorn in the side of the establishment. This pathetic feeding frenzy is now routine in a climate where the public is brainwashed that any dissent against the government is indicative of “dangerous extremism” and should be frowned upon.
This also has the effect of circling the wagons and inculcating within police the idea that protesters and 9/11 truthers represent a physical threat.
Could the shooting be yet another example of false flag terrorism or did Bedell just go nuts? What we do know for sure is that the only other two occasions on which 9/11 truthers were accused of being violent or planning terrorism were both completely fraudulent set-ups that were artificially contrived in an effort to demonize people who ask questions about 9/11.
The first occurred when 9/11 truth activist Gary Talis was accused of assaulting a disabled girl in a wheelchair outside a Laura Bush speaking event. Talis was later acquitted by a New York jury despite New York police officers and one Secret Service agent lying in claiming Talis had assaulted the girl when in fact he was the one being assaulted by the girl’s father.
The second incident involved We Are Change New York, who were protesting Larry Silverstein when one of Silverstein’s security guards called in a hoax bomb threat to the police, claiming that Luke Rudkowski was carrying an explosive device in his backpack.
Since on both these occasions, 9/11 truthers were the victims of an orchestrated set-up to portray them as violent criminals or terrorists, how can we be confident that we have been told the whole story about the Pentagon incident?
The fact that Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and others are constantly hyping the inevitability of anti-government individuals going postal and killing people undoubtedly makes already unstable individuals more likely to commit such acts.
Whether Bedell was influenced by his political grievances, media talking points, or he just snapped is largely inconsequential to the fact that this will be exploited to the full by shameful hacks who are eager to silence their opposition by demonizing anyone who so much as utters a word against the government as a violent extremist and in doing so, preparing the groundwork for measures to censor free speech and the Internet.
It’s not good enough for them to have raped Americans for trillions of dollars, destroyed the economy, turned the police against us, and eviscerated our standard of living, they now want to blackball anyone who so much as raises a whimper in protest as an extremist and a potential terrorist.
March 4, 2010 | 6:18 p.m.
Reporting from Washington - Despite steep odds, the White House has discussed prospects for reviving a major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, a commitment that President Obama has postponed once already.
Obama took up the issue privately with his staff Monday in a bid to advance a bill through Congress before lawmakers become too distracted by approaching midterm elections.
In the session, Obama and members of his Domestic Policy Council outlined ways to resuscitate the effort in a White House meeting with two senators -- Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina -- who have spent months trying to craft a bill.
According to a person familiar with the meeting, the White House may ask Schumer and Graham to at least produce a blueprint that could be turned into legislative language.
The basis of a bill would include a path toward citizenship for the 10.8 million people living in the U.S. illegally. Citizenship would not be granted lightly, the White House said. Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law. Failure to comply might result in deportation.
Nick Shapiro, a White House spokesman, said the president's support for an immigration bill, which would also include improved border security, was "unwavering."
Participants in the White House gathering also pointed to an immigration rally set for March 21 in Washington as a way to spotlight the issue and build needed momentum.
Though proponents of an immigration overhaul were pleased that the White House wasn't abandoning the effort, they also wanted Obama to take on a more assertive role, rather than leave it to Congress to work out a compromise.
Immigration is a delicate issue for the White House. After promising to revamp in his first year of office what many see as a fractured system, Obama risks angering a growing, politically potent Latino constituency if he defers the goal until 2011.
But with the healthcare debate still unresolved, Democrats are wary of plunging into another polarizing issue.
"Right now we have a little problem with the 'Chicken Little' mentality: The sky is falling and consequently we can't do anything," Rep. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said in an interview.
Republicans are unlikely to cooperate. On Capitol Hill, Republicans said that partisan tensions had only gotten worse since Obama signaled this week that he would push forward with a healthcare bill, whether he could get GOP votes or not.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said in an interview, "The things you hear from the administration won't be well received."
Schumer, speaking as he walked quickly through the Capitol, said he was having trouble rounding up Republican supporters apart from Graham. "It's tough finding someone, but we're trying," Schumer said.
On Thursday, Schumer met with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversees the government's immigration efforts, to strategize over potential Republican co-sponsors.
"We're very hopeful we can get a bill done. We have all the pieces in place. We just need a second Republican," Schumer said in a statement.
Among proponents, there is a consensus that a proposal must move by April or early May to have a realistic chance of passing this year. If that deadline slips, Congress' focus is likely to shift to the November elections, making it impossible to take up major legislation.
"There's no question that this is a heavy lift and the window is narrowing," said Janet Murguia, president and chief executive of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group.
When it comes to immigration, Obama's strategy echoes that of healthcare. He has deferred heavily to Congress, leaving it up to Schumer and Graham to reach a breakthrough with the idea that he would put his weight behind the resulting compromise.
In light of Pentagon shooting, recent history proves that domestic terror is a government specialty
Conspiracy Fact: Every Major Terror Plot In U.S. Was Contrived
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The highly suspicious Pentagon shooting, which has been used as grist for the establishment’s aggressive smear campaign to portray dissent against government as violent extremism, is beginning to bear the hallmarks of almost every other major case we have studied where the authorities have not only had prior knowledge of the plot but have in fact facilitated it from beginning to end.
The revelation that shooter John Patrick Bedell’s parents warned authorities that their son was missing, armed, and dangerous, echoes similar warnings that were given to officials prior to the Christmas Day underwear bomber attack, which is just one indication amongst a plethora that the Delta 253 incident was a false flag set-up.
Just a brief reprisal of the last handful of major terror cases in the United States instantly reminds us that in every single instance the plot was artificially engineered by the federal government and then later seized upon, with the enthusiastic support of the corporate media, as justification for more funding, more power, and more authority to denounce critics of the war on terror and dissent against the state in general
On January 27, the Detroit News reported how the State Department refused to revoke Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and allowed him to board the plane, allegedly in order to avoid tipping off a wider investigation.
After weeks of stonewalling, authorities quietly reversed the official story behind the aborted attack and acknowledged that an accomplice was involved, despite weeks of denial and derision of eyewitness Kurt Haskell’s description of a sharp-dressed man who helped Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab board Flight 253 in Amsterdam.
Detroit lawyer Kurt Haskell maintained from the beginning that he saw a well-dressed Indian man aid the accused bomber to board the plane despite the fact that he had no passport and was on a terror watch list.
“While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit, Haskell said. He says the suited man asked ticket agents whether Mutallab could board without a passport. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time,’” reported the Michigan Live news website.
FBI agents interviewed Haskell and he told them about the sharp-dressed man but officials refused to admit that a wider conspiracy was at hand, stoically maintaining the official story that Abdulmutallab had acted alone. Authorities claimed that videotapes did not show a second man accompanying Abdulmutallab and yet they refused to release any footage of the alleged bomber.
There seems little doubt that Abdulmutallab had at least one accomplice if not more. Authorities have remained silent on other eyewitness reports which described a man intently filming the alleged terrorist throughout the whole flight, a connection that strongly suggests the attempted bomber was involved in some kind of drill and that his strings were being pulled by people in more senior positions.
The Delta 253 incident was just one of the dozens of terror busts and stings since 9/11 to have been orchestrated by handlers aiding the accused terrorists at every turn. We have never come across a major case where the terrorists involved in a plot were not being prodded by the FBI and federal informants, or where clear prior knowledge and forewarning was not evident.
Take the case of Fort Hood shooter Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who repeatedly communicated with alleged Al-Qaeda leaders for nearly a year before his rampage. The FBI knew Hasan was sending emails to terrorists, but they did nothing, allowed him to remain on a U.S. Army base, and even invited him to participate in Homeland Security exercises.
Hasan, “Sent 10 to 20 e-mails to several terror-related Islamic figures, including Anwar Aulaqi, a radical imam from Virginia who has been openly propagandizing for al Qaeda in Yemen and who had ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers,” reported the New York Post.
As Webster Tarpley reported, Aulaqi is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”
Tarpley points to Aulaqi’s role in the Toronto and Fort Dix, New Jersey, terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Aulaqi’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.
Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.
Similarly, the “Toronto 18″ terrorists turned out to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.
Hasan’s direct relationship with FBI operative and ace patsy-minder Aulaqi provides strong evidence that the Fort Hood shooter was being watched very carefully long before he went on his tragic rampage.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Conspiracy Fact: Every Major Terror Plot In U.S. Was Contrived 190110banner4
Hundreds of terror suspects (read: patsies and mental deficients) have been convicted in civilian federal courts, including convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid who attended the Finsbury Park Mosque in North London. The Finsbury imam at the time was Abu Hamza al-Masri who began working with British Security Services in 1997. A large number of the supposed terrorists convicted in American courts were entrapped by the FBI in classic COINTELPRO fashion and did not have links to the CIA-created al-Qaeda. The entrapped were often fuzzy on al-Qaeda or what it represents.
In the media-lauded Miami terror case in 2007, the supposed ringleader Narseal “Prince Marina” Batiste “had heard of Al-Qaeda, but wasn’t sure what it stood for. The FBI instigators made Batiste swear loyalty to al-Qaida; then had him call on his local buddies to form an ‘Islamic army’ in Miami. None had military training. Some could barely read. But Batiste assured the group in the midst of its collective marijuana buzz of greatness ahead,” wrote Saul Landau.
These were the men who comedian John Stewart referred to as “seven dipshits in a warehouse” after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had ludicrously told the press that the group of semi-retarded gang-bangers had planned to “wage a ground war against America”.
One of the more recent examples was the case of the so-called Muslim terrorists busted in New York, who supposedly wanted to blow up synagogues in the Bronx and shoot down military airplanes flying out of the New York Air National Guard base. The men were provided with fake explosives and inactive missiles by an FBI informant, reported the Christian Science Monitor. Two of the ringleaders of the “deadly” plot which was endlessly hyped by the media turned out to be semi-retarded potheads, exactly as we had predicted would be the case due to the innumerable past cases with the exact same modus operandi.
Does this all mean that John Patrick Bedell’s shooting spree was prompted by the feds? Not necessarily, he could just as easily have been a nutcase who went over the edge. However, the aggressive pre-scripting on behalf of the media that anti-government extremists and 9/11 truthers were intent on violence was so transparent that we were able to predict two days before it happened that a violent attack would take place and that it would be blamed on people with anti-government sentiments, which is precisely what happened.
The federal authorities seem none too concerned about stopping any real terrorists and are instead obsessed with manufacturing patsies, bankrolling, radicalizing and prodding rag-tag groups to attempt attacks so that the massive slush fund that is the “war on terror” can be prolonged, while the corporate media relishes each opportunity to politicize such events to demonize peaceful resistance to big government as “violent extremism”.
With this insidious partnership now colluding to produce a constant supply of Abdul Mutallabs and John Patrick Bedells on an almost monthly basis, we can expect to see many more domestic terror attacks, be they genuine, provocateured, or outright staged, and with each one the calls to crush free speech and censor the right to express dissent on the Internet will build to a crescendo, with little or no investigation on behalf of the mainstream media as to how such attacks came about in the first place, and who was really behind them.
Exclusive
U.S. czar in Cold War: Smack in the USSR
Obama chief part of group whose founders allegedly helped Soviets build atomic bomb
Posted: March 04, 2010
11:25 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
John Holdren, President Obama's "science" czar, visited the Soviet Union during the Cold War as vice
chairman of a group whose founder was accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the
Soviets build an atom bomb, WND has learned.
The original leaders of the group, the Federation of American Scientists, also served on the board
of a magazine whose personnel were accused of passing crucial nuclear information to the Soviets.
Holdren served on the board of directors of that magazine, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Just after President Reagan's March 1983 "Star Wars" speech in which he proposed a missile-defense shield to protect the U.S. home front, a group of Soviet academicians sent a letter to the U.S. scientific community asking about the feasibility of such a shield.
The only group that responded directly to the Soviet scientists was the Federation of American Scientists, or FAS, leading to an invitation to visit from Evgeny Velikov, director of the Soviet Kurchatov Institute of Science.
Physicist David W. Hafemeister relates in his book, "Physics and Nuclear Arms Today," how he was part of the FAS delegation to the USSR along with Holdren, who at the time was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
Here's the full report on what's happening in Washington and who actually is running the show, the Whistleblower issue on "Shadow Government: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars"
The FAS is non-profit organization formed in 1945 by scientists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb. The FAS has long petitioned for nuclear disarmament.
Scientist Leo Szilard, a member of the Manhattan Project, was a principal founder of the FAS. Szilard also was accused of providing vital information to the Soviets that helped them build an atomic bomb.
In 1994, Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, named Szilard as a key source of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.
"The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard," wrote Sudoplatov.
Founders of the FAS also were board members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a journal that argued for the U.S. to hand its nuclear weapons to an international organization. It began publishing regularly in 1945.
Szilard founded the Bulletin along with Oppenheimer, who was long accused of spying for the Soviets and passing along vital nuclear secrets.
WND found other FAS founders that served on the Bulletin board, including nuclear physicists Eugene Rubinowitch, Hans Bethe and V. F. Weisskopf
Sudoplatov wrote the Soviet Union "received reports on the progress of the Manhattan Project from Oppenheimer and his friends in oral form, through comments and asides, and from documents transferred through clandestine methods with their full knowledge that the information they were sharing would be passed on."
Indeed, Oppenheimer was accused in Senate hearings of bringing communists into the Manhattan Project. He brought his brother Frank and three former graduate students into the project, all of whom, according to Senate hearings, were well known to him to be "members of the Communist Party or closely associated with activities of the Communist Party."
Oppenheimer admitted he knew by August 1943 that two of the scientists working under him were Communist Party members. Three of five scientists under Oppenheimer's direct supervision were accused of leaking secret information about the atomic bomb to the Soviets.
On Oct. 25, 1945, Oppenheimer met with President Truman at the White House, urging him to surrender the U.S. nuclear monopoly to international control. Truman was outraged, reportedly telling Secretary of State Dean Acheson, "I don't want to see that son-of-a-b*tch in this office ever again."
Magazine used for 'Soviet propaganda'
Oppenheimer and Szilard were stripped of their work in the Manhattan Project, but they continued to use the Bulletin to petition for the U.S. to surrender its nuclear arsenal to international control. According to Sudoplatov, this kind of work was for the benefit of the Soviets.
"[Soviet politician and security chief Lavrentiy] Beria said we should think how to use Oppenheimer, Szilard and others around them in the peace campaign against nuclear armament. Disarmament and the inability to impose nuclear blackmail would deprive the United States of its advantage," wrote Sudoplatov.
Sudoplatov said his spymasters knew the lobby efforts of the Bulletin editors would be a "crucial factor in establishing the new world order after the war, and we took advantage of this."
Another Bulletin founding sponsor, Edward U. Condon, was mentioned by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in a May 1947 letter as having contact with an alleged spy who had passed information to the Soviets from 1941 to 1944.
Holdren worked alongside communist sympathizers
The New Zeal blog first reported Holdren worked on the Bulletin in 1984. At the time, communist and socialist sympathizers still occupied the magazine's masthead.
The Bulletin's board of directors in 1984, New Zeal reported, included:
* Board chairman Aaron Adler, who also served on the board of the Chicago Center for U.S./USSR Relations and Exchanges, alongside Larry McGurty of the Communist Party USA.
Adler was also a member of what New Zeal labels a Communist Party front, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights. He was also involved in a committee to celebrate the 100th birthday of Communist Party member Paul Robeson.
* Bernard Weissbourd, a former Manhattan Project scientist who later served on the transition oversight committee for incoming Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, who was active in Communist Party fronts.
Weissbourds' son, Robert M. Weissbourd, later served as chairman of the Obama for America Campaign Urban and Metropolitan Policy Committee and on the Obama Transition Housing and Urban Development Agency Review Team in 2008.
* Ruth Adams, Bulletin editor, who served in the 1960s on the Advisory Committee of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center. Other Center members included lifelong communist front activist Robert Havighurst, communist activist and radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and Quentin Young, an avowed communist who has advised Obama on health care.
Surrender to planetary regime
Holdren, meanwhile, has been a longtime climate-change alarmist who has advocated ideas such as enforcing limits to world population growth.
Holdren's name was in the e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K., which show that some climate researchers declined to share their data with fellow scientists, conspired to rig data and sought to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.
FrontPageMag.com noted Holdren has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a world army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits.
Holdren collaborated with conspiracy theorist Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" in which it was proclaimed: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
WND previously reported Holdren also predicted 1 billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide-induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.
Holdren based his prediction on a theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe causing global cooling, with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.
But Holdren also argued "global warming" might cancel global cooling. In their 1970s textbook "Ecoscience: Population, Resources and Environment," last revised in 1977, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich argued on page 687 that "a man-made warming trend might cancel out a natural cooling trend."
With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Navy chopper with armed troops conducts surveillance in south Texas border town, authorities couldn’t care less
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, March 12, 2010
While the U.S. government and federal authorities busy themselves targeting American citizens as domestic terrorists, it seems they couldn’t care less about the fact that the military of a foreign power is flying around American airspace with wanton abandon.
Residents of Falcon Heights, a south Texas border town, saw a Mexican helicopter hovering over a house shortly after 6pm on Tuesday night. The chopper conducted surveillance for about 15 minutes before flying back to Mexico.
“They had armored individuals in the chopper, open ramp, very military looking, in style and preparation,” said Zapata County Sheriff Sigifredo Gonzalez Jr.
“It’s proof the Mexican military sees no boundaries,” reported local KRGV News’ Stephanie Stone, adding that the incident wasn’t the first of its kind and wouldn’t be the last.
“The markings I understand read ‘La Marina’ which is equivalent to the Mexican Navy,” said Gonzalez.
Local residents who saw the chopper refused to talk about it on camera, but the news report showed images of the helicopter.
KRGV contacted nearly a dozen government agencies in an attempt to get answers. After contacting the the FAA about the chopper, KRGV were told to talk to the Customs and Border Protection, who said they knew about the incursion but were apparently unconcerned.
State and local authorities refused to return phone calls about the incident after they were also contacted by KRGV.
“A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman says that a Mexican military helicopter crossed the border into south Texas late Wednesday afternoon before returning to Mexico without landing,” reported the Associated Press.
“Richard Pauza said Thursday that customs officers had spotted the helicopter over U.S. territory near the Falcon Dam in Zapata County sometime after 5 p.m. Pauza said he had no other information.”
While Government Treats Citizens As Terrorists, Mexican Military Invades U.S. 110310banner1
While the government trains federal authorities and law enforcement personnel that U.S. citizens are the biggest threat, they couldn’t give a damn about the fact that the military of a foreign government is violating U.S. airspace when it pleases.
Imagine if Soviet bombers or Iranian fighter jets were caught cruising around Los Angeles or Washington D.C. Would the government be at all concerned? Or are they too busy worrying about gun owners, Tea Party activists and Ron Paul supporters?
Indeed, this only helps the process of acclimating the American people to accept the sight of foreign troops on U.S. soil, a danger Congressman Ron Paul has characterized as a “horrible precedent” which is part of the “NAFTA scheme and globalization and world government.”
Mexican troops have been routinely caught entering U.S. soil and firing on U.S. border patrol agents as well as civilian border patrol groups.
In December 2003, Jack Foote, national spokesman for property protection group Ranch Rescue, told NewsMax how “two armed Mexican soldiers wearing green combat fatigues and Kevlar helmets” violated U.S. territory before opening fire on a position only moments after it was vacated by the border group.
An August 2008 CNN report found that Mexican troops and law enforcement had illegally crossed the border no less than 42 times just since the previous October, relating another case of how Mexican troops had crossed the border and pointed rifles at a U.S. border patrol agent.
In October 2007, Mexican soldiers engaged in an armed standoff with nearly 30 American law enforcement officials on the southern U.S. border.
“At a spot more than 200 yards inside the U.S., Mexican Army troops set up several mounted machine guns when U.S. Border Patrol agents called for backup,” reported the Inland Valley
Beware Democrats: If you pass ObamaCare, a constitutional hurricane is headed right for you.
March 20, 2010 - by Larrey Anderson
If the president signs H.R. 3590 (whether or not the bill is reconciled, “slaughter ruled,” and/or deemed in its passage), the legislation will be challenged on constitutional grounds. Let’s look at a few of the ways that federal control of health care, and H.R. 3590 in particular, is unconstitutional.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was asked where in the Constitution Congress was granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy. His answer:
Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.
The “general welfare” clause Hoyer was referring to is in the first line of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. This section specifically enumerates the powers of Congress. (The list is very short. Congress has 17 listed, or “enumerated,” powers. Health care isn’t one of them.)
The first line of Article I, Section 8 states, in part:
The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the … general Welfare of the United States … [Emphasis added.]
Notice that this first sentence does not say, “The Congress shall have the Power to provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States.”
Every time the phrase “United States” is used in the Constitution, it denotes the federal (or central) government. This is clearly seen in Tenth Amendment where the “United States,” the “states,” and “the people” are three distinct concepts:
Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Emphasis added.]
It follows that the power to provide for the “general Welfare of the United States” only applies to the day-to-day operations of the federal government (e.g., Hoyer’s paycheck, hiring congressional staff, providing office furniture, etc.). The “general welfare” clause has nothing to do with the citizens of the United States. If it did, the list of enumerated powers that follow the clause, in Article I, Section 8, would have been redundant — since Congress would already have, from the “general welfare” clause, the power to do whatever it wanted to do to promote the welfare of the citizens of the United States. This is Hoyer’s claim.
Health care is reserved, according to the Constitution (especially given the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments), to the individual states and/or to the people.
But the words of the Constitution don’t seem to matter much to this Congress.
When Nancy Pelosi was asked, “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Pelosi may not think the Constitution is a serious matter, but some people do. The governor of the state of Idaho this week signed into law House Bill 391 — the “Idaho Health Freedom Act.” According to the AP, more than 35 other states are considering similar legislation.
Section 39-9003 of Idaho law now reads:
The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services.
It is hereby declared that the public policy of the state of Idaho, consistent with our constitutionally recognized and inalienable rights of liberty, is that every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty.
There’s a constitutional problem for you.
The Washington Post has reported that under the final version of the national health care bill, “all Americans would be required for the first time to obtain insurance or face an annual penalty of $695; employers could face penalties of $2,000 per worker for not offering affordable coverage.”
Not in Idaho they won’t. The attorney general of the state of Idaho (and attorneys general in the other states rushing to pass similar legislation) is, no doubt, working right now on a lawsuit to defend his state’s law and to challenge the constitutionality of ObamCare.
There are a number of other possible constitutional challenges if the national health care legislation becomes the law of the land. Look for private citizens and employers who are fined under the new law to sue under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
Challenges may come under the First Amendment for religious reasons. Exemptions in the bill aside, there will be members of some religion that hasn’t been exempted and those members will sue.
Suits under the Fourth Amendment will be filed when the IRS seizes some working gal’s wages as a “fine” for not having health care. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
These same citizens will sue under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments for similar reasons. It is difficult to sue the federal government (especially the IRS). But it is precisely the IRS, under ObamaCare, that will enforce and collect fines without the access of the citizens to either due process (Fifth Amendment) or a jury trial (Sixth Amendment).
Constitutional lawsuits may also be brought by private citizens under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for reasons given above.
Depending on the last-minute shenanigans, members of the Congress who oppose the measure may also have standing to sue under Article I, Section 5 (if the rules of either the House or Senate are violated or disregarded) and/or under Article I, Section 7. (Article 7 states: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”)
And that is the short list of possible constitutional challenges. Beware Democrats: if you pass ObamaCare, a constitutional hurricane is headed right for you.
By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, March 24th, 2010 -- 1:03 pm
lindsey graham1 Rights groups fear Graham
bill will sanction indefinite detention
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is
negotiating with the White House on
legislation to create a framework for handling
terrorism detainees has some civil rights groups
alarmed at the prospect of indefinite detention
without trial being encoded into US law. Lindsey Graham
The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut reported Wednesday that Graham, who sits on the Senate's Armed Services, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees, "has submitted draft legislation to the White House in an effort to create a broad framework for handling terrorism suspects, mapping out proposals that appeal to the administration and others that do not."
The legislation is reportedly an attempt to seal a deal between the White House and congressional Republicans on a way to move forward on the detention of terrorism detainees. The deal that would see Republicans support President Obama's plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention center, in exchange for the president's support of new terrorism detention laws.
Kornblut reported that some issues in the proposed legislation, "particularly rules governing the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, are more complicated and might not get resolved immediately."
While that suggested some White House opposition to the idea, rights groups and bloggers went on the offensive, warning the Obama administration not to agree to any measures that would see some terrorism suspects denied access to courts, whether civilian or military.
Story continues below...
Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent notes that Graham has recently voiced support for just such a legal mechanism.
“There has to be some type of statute -- and he’s been clear on that -- for indefinite detention,†Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said, as quoted by Ackerman. Some terrorism suspects are "too dangerous to release; but we also aren’t going to try them in either a military or a civilian court. So there has to be a system for that, and that’s why Senator Graham is looking for a legal framework."
The idea of detention without trial is "un-American and violates our commitment to due process and the rule of law," the ACLU said in a statement.
"Even during years immediately following 9/11, Congress never took the unprecedented step of passing an indefinite detention statute," said Laura W. Murphy, head of the ACLU's Washington legislative office. "Now that there is a president and Congress who have stated a commitment to the rule of law, it would be a terrible irony to have this kind of legislation seriously considered. We urge both the White House and Congress to reject any indefinite detention proposal.â€
Although details of the bill are vague, it doesn't appear that Graham's proposals will be as radical as those proposed recently by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ).
Under their proposal, anyone suspected of terrorist activities or supporting terrorism would by law have to be detained by the military and "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States."
That proposal has been slammed by civil libertarians as opening the door to a military dictatorship in the US.
"It's probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades," wrote Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald of the Liberman-McCain proposal. "It literally empowers the president to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a terrorist suspect -- including American citizens arrested on US soil."
While it's unlikely that President Obama will sign that bill into law, the Graham proposal is being taken much more seriously. Some elements of the bill are reportedly less controversial than the indefinite detention element.
The Post's Kornblut reports that "certain ideas under discussion appear likely to yield a compromise ... One promising area involves creating standard procedures for addressing detainees' petitions for habeas corpus, which force the government to make its case for continued detention, rather than leaving those decisions up to individual judges."
Kornblut notes that the White House is opposed to another proposal in the bill, which would see the US set up a "national security court" to hear cases involving terror suspects.
William Grigg
LRC Blog
April 1, 2010
Police in Franklin Township, New Jersey recently announced an innovative
program “designed to improve the safety of senior citizens,” reported WCBS-
TV.
Through “Operation Blue Angel,” elderly residents would leave a key to their
front doors in a lockbox accessible by a combination known to police. Police
doing “safety checks” of the homes would knock on the door and, if nobody
responds, would use the keys to enter.
What could possibly go wrong? What does anybody have to fear from angelic armed strangers sent to check on their “welfare”?
One possible problem is demonstrated by the shooting death of a 47-year-old Prairie Village, Kansas woman this morning (March 31).
Police were sent to her apartment to conduct a “welfare check.” For some reason, the woman didn’t want to be “helped” by the friendly state functionaries with guns.
Oh, but we insist, replied the “Blue Angels,” as they summoned their khaki-clad comrades from the Tactical Squad. Eventually, because of “threats” she supposedly made against the stormtroopers, the police (in the words of a local TV reporter) “were forced to shoot her.”
Resistnwo-News-2
Resistnwo-news20
