By Don Rowan
| Saturday, June 12th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
A stock analyst says Obama IS NOT trying to stop the oil flow and IS trying to mislead the public. Writing in The Market Oracle, United Kingdom market forecaster F. William Engdahl makes the following observations:
The Obama Administration and senior BP officials are frantically working not to stop the world’s worst oil disaster, but to hide the true extent of the actual ecological catastrophe….
Only after the magnitude of the disaster became evident did Obama order Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano to declare the oil disaster a “national security issue.” Although the Coast Guard and FEMA are part of her department, Napolitano’s actual reasoning for invoking national security … was merely to block media coverage of the immensity of the disaster that is unfolding for the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Ocean and their coastlines….
When the Army Corps of Engineers first attempted to obtain NASA imagery of the Gulf oil slick, which is larger than is being reported by the media, it was reportedly denied the access. By chance, National Geographic managed to obtain satellite imagery shots of the extent of the disaster and posted them on their web site. Other satellite imagery reportedly being withheld by the Obama administration, shows that what lies under the gaping chasm spewing oil at an ever-alarming rate is a cavern estimated to be the size of Mount Everest. This information has been given an almost national security-level classification to keep it from the public….
…actions … from the Obama White House to date or from BP can only lead to the conclusion that some very powerful people want this debacle to continue….
Such an accusation is hard to prove definitively, but it is not inconsistent with the Cloward Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis for extablishing socialism. This two-step method comprises (1) creating a disaster and (2) inflicting draconian loss of individual freedoms as an ostensible emergency measure to cope with the crisis. The resilient Tea Party inspired public resisted the H1N1 pandemic scare and the potential economic collapse of our economy. Perhaps a more terrifying threat was needed — ecological destruction of life on earth as we know it.
By Nancy K. Matthis
| Thursday, February 4th, 2010 at 7:55 pm
Obama has apparently violated an FBI ban on release of security information to save his own face. He lost a ton of credibility when the Christmas bomber was mirandized in the middle of a valuable information dump and clammed up.
Later, the FBI got the fellow talking again, revealing the details of upcoming attacks on US targets in country and abroad. But the fact that the terrorist was once more spilling his guts was supposed to be kept under wraps, at the specific mandate of the FBI director (and, we should add, as standard operating procedure).
But the Obama team released that information to reporters. It looks like an intentional and knowing breach of security intended to help the President save face for his earlier blunder. As in, OK, so he made a big mistake, but in the long run it didn’t make any difference.
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), Vice Chairman of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, fired off a letter to Obama today:
….In the realm of national security, sometimes it is necessary to withhold critical information from the public that may be used by our enemies to harm the American people.
Accordingly, I am deeply disturbed with the official handling of vital national security information regarding the recent cooperation by the Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab. On Monday afternoon, the leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee received notification from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning Abdulmutallab’s recent willingness to provide critical information. FBI officials stressed the importance of not disclosing the fact of his cooperation in order to protect on-going and follow-on operations to neutralize additional threats to the American public; FBI Director Bob Mueller personally stressed to me that keeping the fact of his cooperation quiet was vital to preventing future attacks against the United States. Handling this information in such a sensitive manner struck me as entirely appropriate.
Twenty-four hours later, however, White House staff assembled members of the media to announce Abdulmutallab’s cooperation and to laud the events that led to his decision to cooperate with law enforcement personnel. This information immediately hit the air waves globally and, no doubt, reached the ears of our enemies abroad.
At the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Annual World Wide Threats Hearing Tuesday, the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI Director, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency all stated they believe terrorists will attempt another attack on America within the next few months. I cannot understand, Mr. President, why the sudden cooperation by Abdulmutallab would be broadcast publicly to the media in detail when your intelligence chiefs are unanimously warning that another attack on our country is imminent. The release of this sensitive information has no doubt been helpful to his terrorist cohorts around the world.
It is deeply disturbing to me that the Intelligence Committee would be advised of sensitive information, and told of the vital imperative to keep such information secret for the sake of national security, only to see this information – less than twenty-four hours later –broadcast to the world from the White House. This distortion of the congressional notification process suggests that other considerations are taking precedence over keeping timely and sensitive information away from our enemies….
Robert Gibbs admitted bending the rules, but averred that this was done to “contextualize” the issue for reporters:
On Tuesday, the Senate intelligence panel hosted Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, CIA Director Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, among others, on current and projected threats on the United States that included a discussion of the decision to give Miranda rights to Abdulmutallab. In the conversation, it was revealed that he was now talking.
Afterward, administration officials briefed reporters about cooperation by Abdulmutallab, who was read Miranda rights after just 50 minutes of interrogation about his attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas.
Gibbs said that briefing — and no other held by administration officials — uses information that shouldn’t be released. However, he conceded that the briefing to reporters on Tuesday was called in order to “contextualize” information released during the Senate hearing that Abdulmutallab was talking again to interrogators.
If an ordinary citizen spilled such beans, he or she would likely go to jail. But this president thinks he is above such rules, and can do this with impunity. Worse, he cares more about his image with reporters than the security of our country.
Note the underlying logic of this calculated decision to expose security info to reporters — that the president’s first mistake doesn’t matter because things came out all right in the end. Excusing mistakes that can be cosmetically covered is a Democratic thought pattern. Democrats care only about how things look and what they can get away with. That may sometimes be a strategy for short term success, but never holds up over the long haul.
On the other hand, Republicans are more data driven — they care how things really are in addition to some concern about appearances. They may be pragmatic, but they are more principled. That is a better strategy for shaping governance over the long term.
While the current flap between Kit Bond and Robert Gibbs is seen by many in terms of what happened — security briefing and security breach — the important lesson is the difference between the ideas and ethics that drive the two sides, and the effects those values can have on our country long-term.
NRO: The Corner — The Saga of Abdulmutallab, Underwear Bomber:
It is bad practice to tell the world that a terrorist has agreed to spill the beans on his fellow terrorists who are still walking around free overseas. That is, of course, unless the principal motivation is to try to save political hides at home, even at the expense of actually finding the terrorists Abdulmutallab worked with.
Nancy Matthis is the publisher and executive editor of the weblog format news magazine and multimedia outlet American Daughter Media Center.
By Payne Williams
| Saturday, January 16th, 2010 at 2:38 pm
…to a Blog near you…Cognitive Infiltration. Just the next step in black information or MSM (LSM) biased reporting. Been going on for ages. Pretty good euphemism though….
From Salon — Obama confidant’s spine-chilling proposal:
Cass Sunstein wants the government to “cognitively infiltrate” anti-government groups
Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.” In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists….
Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”….
…Sunstein’s closeness to the President, as well as the highly influential position he occupies, merits an examination of the mentality behind what he wrote. This isn’t an instance where some government official wrote a bizarre paper in college 30 years ago about matters unrelated to his official powers; this was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein’s close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees….
From The Rag Blog — Got Fascism? : Obama Advisor Promotes ‘Cognitive Infiltration’ :
Your government appointees at work: Cass Sunstein seeks ‘cognitive’ provocateurs
Cass Sunstein is President Obama’s Harvard Law School friend, and recently appointed Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
In a recent scholarly article, he and coauthor Adrian Vermeule take up the question of “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” … This is a man with the president’s ear. This is a man who would process information and regulate things. What does he here propose?….
Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy….
It’s easy to destroy groups with “cognitive diversity.” You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don’t come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues….
We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI. There the agents are called “provocateurs” — even if only “cognitive.” One learns to smell or deal with them in a group, or recognize trolling online….
And are we now expected to applaud such tactics frankly proposed in a scholarly journal by a high-level presidential advisor?….
The original paper is available here — Conspiracy Theories by Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule
By Jerry A. Kane
| Monday, April 13th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Our government will control everything on the Internet, under the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe. If enacted, this “big brother” law would allow government scrutiny over everything posted to the Internet, while granting the White House “unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services” and powers “to access private online data, regulate the cyber security industry and even shut down Internet traffic.”
Under the guise of safety, the bill would grant a White House appointed cybersecurity “czar” unprecedented authority to shut down private domestic networks or limit Internet traffic in a “critical” information network during a cybersecurity emergency. What distinguishes a critical information network or constitutes a cybersecurity emergency would be determined by the president. The act would also impart authority to the Commerce Department to track cybersecurity threats and override any existing laws, regulations, rules, or policies restricting access to security data from private networks.
The bill would not only make the president more powerful, but it would also allow the Secretary of Commerce access to all information on a network, which could make the network less safe and more vulnerable to intruders or terrorists. Yet the senators remain resolute to remedy their perceived crisis. Rockefeller insists on protecting “critical infrastructure at all costs” and Snowe demands swift action to avoid “a cyber-Katrina.” Their rhetoric of a looming crisis matches the fearmongering manufactured for the bailout and stimulus bills, given that the bills required drastic intervention and immediate action with little or no consideration for a downside or potential harm.
The proposed legislation “would empower the government to set and enforce security standards for private industry for the first time.” The president could use the authority granted in the proposed law to suspend the effective use of the Internet to circulate information or coordinate activities outside mainstream media outlets or government-approved channels. Such a law could lead to a network police force that would levy fines and shut down private Web sites that government officials determine inappropriate or offensive. The act could also open the door for more Internet censorship legislation, and follow the path taken by Australia and China.
In November, more than half of America’s electorate handed Barack Obama and the progressives carte blanche power to rule over the lives of all Americans, and now they are using that power by attempting to manage and control the flow of information through the only remaining medium capable of resuscitating personal freedom and individual liberty. The Americans who voted for the progressives have put the lives of all Americans in the steely grip of Leviathan, and no Chicago Tea Party, 9-12 Project, or surge in talk radio listeners will prevent the government from wielding its power.
Once again, a host Republican has engaged in parasitism to sacrifice her party for a perceived symbiotic relationship that in fact benefits only the Democrat Party. Snowe and her progressive colleagues in the Republican Party have transformed the party into a sacrificial organism to nourish and support extreme socialist objectives. And the corporate magpies on TV and talk radio seem to be too preoccupied with hawking books, espousing inane, meaningless platitudes, bathing in laudatory praises from fawning sycophants, and acting magnanimous in damning both political parties, to make their listeners aware of this transformation.
Ronald Reagan, Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Paine understood that a government works best only when it governs least, and that big government inevitably increases servitude, restrains liberty, and destroys freedom. While the Republican Party languishes, the approaching tyranny is poised to lead humanity headlong into what will become a deeply bloodstained century. Yet, there is no outcry from the fourth estate, which was traditionally the guardian of liberty, in opposition to the introduction of the Cybersecurity Law.
Will the media raise its collective voice against this new Orwellian power play as it did when the progressives touted the new Fairness Doctrine and advocated enforced localism? Not likely, because progressives’ outrage reaches a resounding crescendo only when the buttering of their bread is involved.
Open Congress, a project of the Sunlight Foundation, has posted the full text of this bill here. On their website, you can comment on this legislation by line item. You can fight this impending police state control by writing, faxing, emailing, and calling your Senators. Tell them to oppose S.773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009.
By Antonio Sosa
| Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 am
During the last presidential campaign in Ecuador, Rafael Correa used the media to discredit the opposition and brainwash voters to vote for him. Once in power, Correa became a dictator. He is working with Hugo Chavez, imposing “socialismo del siglo XXI” (Marxism) in Ecuador and collaborating with Islamic terrorists. Informed Ecuadorians could not understand how the media could be so biased in favor of the leftist candidate Correa.
Many believe the media became corrupt because Hugo Chavez not only funded Correa’s multi-million presidential campaign, but also paid the media. Anyone trying to inform Ecuadorians regarding the real Rafael Correa was ridiculed, discredited, vilified, sued, accused of infractions or crimes, and finally silenced. As it happened in Ecuador, the mainstream media in the United States has also demonstrated unethical and unrestricted support for the leftist candidate, in this case, Barack Obama.
On the one hand, they have refused to report on important and relevant topics that reflect negatively on Obama. On the other hand, they have focused on trying to destroy Presidential candidate John McCain and Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. While most news reports about Obama are positive, most news reports about McCain are negative. And ever since Sarah Palin was nominated as the Vice Presidential candidate, the media have gone wild criticizing, ridiculing and insulting her at every turn. Most of those attacks have been factually wrong and intellectually dishonest.
In addition to attacking McCain and Palin, the mainstream media is also attacking anyone who tries to show Americans the real Obama. Even Joe the Plumber has been vilified for asking a question that prompted Obama to uncover his plan to “redistribute the wealth.”
The Mainstream Media and Jerome Corsi
The smear campaign against Jerome Corsi is a case in point. Dr. Corsi (PhD Harvard) is a senior staff reporter of World Net Daily (WND) and the author of the New York Times No. 1 best-selling book, The Obama Nation. An independent and courageous journalist, Corsi put his life and well-being at risk to travel to Kenya to dig up the truth about presidential candidate Obama. Corsi was rightfully concerned, as any thinking American should be, about Obama’s connections to Kenya’s thug Raila Odinga.
CNN attacked Corsi and defended Obama. “Book on Obama blasted for ‘vicious innuendo’” wrote the title of a CNN article. “There’s a new book out about Barack Obama that some say is riddled with pretty much every unsubstantiated rumor you’ve ever heard about the Illinois senator.” CNN continued with negative comments against Corsi from the Obama camp, but it never bothered to cover the most important issue for Americans, the issue presented in Corsi’s book: the connection between Obama and his Marxist relative Odinga. (Source: CNN Politics — Book on Obama blasted for ‘vicious innuendo’.)
The New York Times also focused on attacking Corsi’s credibility calling him a “gadfly.” ”In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of “Unfit for Command,” began the New York Times article. (Source: New York Times, Politics — Book Attacking Obama Hopes to Repeat ’04 Anti-Kerry Feat.)
Showing complete lack of ethics, the mainstream media has failed to properly inform Americans about what Obama did in Kenya. They have justified ignoring this story based on comments from the Obama camp and details that perhaps need to be confirmed. However, the underlying (more important issues) are verifiably true. In August and September 2006, Senator Barack Obama traveled to South Africa, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya. While in Kenya, Obama consistently appeared at the side of fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change”), who was running for President.
Obama’s partisan support for Odinga was so transparent, that the Kenyan Government spokesman, Alfred Matua, complained of political posturing to aid Odinga’s election chances: “It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics.” (Source — Walking The World Stage, Newsweek 9/11/06.) Obama used his elected office — and taxpayers’ dollars — to support Kenya’s Odinga, a violent Marxist thug who made a pact with the Muslims to institute Sharia (Islamic law) although only 10 percent of Kenyans are Muslim.
Odinga’s followers killed some 1000 people and burned 800 Christian churches, including one with 50 people, many of them children, inside. During a KTN interview in Kenya, Odinga admitted signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Muslims, but said the MOU did not include anything regarding Sharia because he’s an Anglican. Listen to him… Raila Odinga’s KTN Interview – 15/11/2009
However, Odinga LIED. In the MOU Odinga signed, he promised to “within 1 year facilitate the establishment of a Sharia court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters, to order primary schools to conduct daily Madrassa classes, to impose a total ban on open-air gospel crusades…” Read the MOU… Memorandum of Understanding Between Hon. Raila Amolo Odinga Representing the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF).
Why is the U.S. media so desperate to support Obama as to hide important information Americans have the right to know? In their efforts to keep Americans ignorant of negative information about Obama, the U.S. mainstream media has lost all credibility.