Tim McGraw-Grown Men Don’t Cry

Lynyrd Skynyrd The Last Rebel LIVE

There’s a grey horse standin’ still
As a soldier climbs in the saddle for one last ride
As the rain pours off his hat
You can see the shadows of the past written in his eyes

Now the cannons are silent
His friends are all gone
Gotta put it all behind him
If he ever wants to find his way home
He’s the last rebel on the road

Just a boy with his old guitar
Keeps to himself
but everybody takes him wrong
But he carries on
Got a dream that will never die
Can’t change him, no use in stayin’ where you don’t belong

Now he’s rollin’ down the highway
Gone too far too fast
No one will ever find him
he’ll never look back

Cause he’s the last rebel
And he’s all alone
He’s the last rebel
His friends are all gone
He’s the last rebel
The last rebel on the road

There’ll never be another like him
He’s the last of a dying breed
Ain’t no use in tryin’ to tame him

‘Cause he’s the last rebel
And he’s all alone
He’s the last rebel
His friends are all gone
He’s the last rebel
gotta carry on
He’s the last rebel
The last rebel on the road

ARLINGTON, VA – NOVEMBER 11:  U.S. Marine Sgt. Bryan Murry (R) is comforted by another Marine while kneeling at the grave site of his friend U.S. Marine Sgt. David Smith who was killed in Afghanistan, on November 11, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia. Smith died January 26, 2010 while serving during Operation Enduring Freedom. Families and friends visited Section 60 at Arlington Cemetery today to pay respects on Veterans day.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

ARLINGTON, VA – NOVEMBER 11:  U.S. Marine Sgt. Bryan Murry kneels at the grave site of his friend U.S. Marine Sgt. David Smith who was killed in Afghanistan, on November 11, 2010 in Arlington, Virginia. Smith died January 26, 2010 while serving during Operation Enduring Freedom. Families and friends visited Section 60 at Arlington Cemetery today to pay respects on Veterans day.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

A million old soldiers will fade away
But a dream goes on forever
I’m left standing here, I’ve got nothing to say
All is silent within my dream

A thousand true loves will live and die
But a dream lives on forever
The days and the years will go streaking by
But the time has stopped in my dream

We all have our everyday hopes and fears
And you’ll find no exception in me
But that doesn’t get me through a sea of tears
Over life’s biggest tragedy

You’re so long ago and so far away
But my dream lives on forever
I guess I believe that I’ll see you one day
For without it there is no dream

You’re so far away and so long ago
But my dream goes on forever
And how much I loved you you’ll never know
‘Til you join me within my dream

The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won’t release it.

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”

Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It’s time for the president who promised to create “a White House that’s more transparent and accountable than anything we’ve seen before” to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, “The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion.” And then there’s the fact that “a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department — rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example — had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,” he adds. “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?

Every normal man must be tempted,at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.
H. L. Mencken

http://colonel6.com/2011/07/23/weekly-economic-update/

COLONEL SIXX:  THE DEATH OF FIAT(PAPER) IS NIGH.  WHEN THIS GREECE DEAL GOES BUST AND WE FIND OUT HOW INVOLVED THE UNITED STATES IS INVOLVED WITH THE EUROPEAN BANKS, THERE IS GOING TO BE TROUBLE!

THE BANKS OF EUROPE ARE INSOLVENT-BROKE. THESE VIDEOS TELL THE WISE QUIET A BIT.  GET YOUR GOLD, IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO.  I AM ALL SILVER.  ONE MORE TRADE AND I AM OFF THE BOOKS.

THE IRAQI DINAR IS GOING TO BE GOLD BACKED.   WE WENT INTO IRAQI IN ORDER TO A FINANCIAL CENTER IN THE MIDDLE EAST.  THE KURDS IN THE NORTH ARE SELLING OIL TO TURKEY.  KFC, McDeath-formerly known as McDonalds-DEATH IN A BOX (JACK). IT IS THERE.

VICTORIA’S SECRET HAS BEEN TOLD TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE.  THEY ARE GOING TO BE THE FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.  WHY WOULD YOU NEED A WORLD TRADE CENTER IN A PLACE WHERE THERE WILL SOON BE NO WORLD TRADE?

So many ways to calculate!

You will often read how various experts in the financial press will say that the gold price “should be” about $2000/oz., to $3000/oz., or slightly higher.  But what they almost never say is how they arrived at their figures, and what assumptions they are making.

The reality is that the gold price, today, given today’s conditions, should be about what it is right now.

But conditions are likely to change, and change dramatically, and can change very quickly.  The conditions that are mostly like to change the most quickly are people’s perceptions and understanding of the reality of the dangers of theft due to inflation.

The US Federal Government is spending about $1.6 trillion more than they take in from taxes, which is $1600 billion, which is $1,600,000 million, which is $1,600,000,000,000 dollars.  The news on TV this morning said that the US national debt increased by $400 billion in the last 3 months, which confirms the numbers.  They are not able to fix this problem anytime soon.  This problem could not be fixed even if they taxed incomes at rates of 100% per year.  And they are mostly just printing this money, which creates inflation, which means that prices will go up, for everything, including, and especially, for silver and gold.

Today, very few people in the USA understand that they need silver and gold, and that is likely to change, and historically, those kinds of attitude changes happen very quickly, which result in dramatic and very sudden increases in the prices of silver and gold.

Today, in the USA, only about $3.5 billion is being spent annually on silver, (estimated at 100 million oz. x about $35/oz.) and only about $3.4 billion is being spent annually on physical gold (estimated at 2 million oz. at about $1700/oz.), for a total of only about $7 billion spent on precious metals to protect itself from inflation.

But the USA has about $18 trillion of cash, savings, and short term bonds in the banking system, which can also be expressed as $18,000 billion, $18,000,000 million, or $18,000,000,000,000 dollars.

So, mathematically the reality is that new money creation is about $1600 billion, out of $18,000 billion, which is an annual increase of nearly 9%, and yet only $7 billion out of $1600 billion of new money creation is being spent on precious metals, which is only 0.4%, or expressed another way, is only $1 out of every $229 dollars of newly created money being spent on silver and gold, and only $1 out of $2,571 of money in the banks is being spent on silver and gold, which is only 4% of 1%.

So, currently, this is next to nothing compared to the avalanche of money that is going to be spent on silver and gold.

So, we could ask ourselves the following questions:

1.  What is likely to happen to the gold price in the event that 1% of money in the USA were to be spent on gold and silver in a year.

2.  What if 10% of the money in the USA were spent on gold and silver in a year?

3.  “What if 10% of the money in the world were spent on gold and silver in a year?”

4. “What if 100% of all paper money had were to be spent on gold and silver in a year?”

5.  “What if 100% of US paper money had to be backed by all the official US gold?”

6.  “What if 100% of US paper money had to be backed by all the US gold that the US government is likely to have left?”

See, the gold price will be dramatically different, given the different assumptions, as follows.

First question. What if 1% of money in the USA were to be spent on gold and silver in a year?  Money in US banks is about $18 trillion.  1% is $180 billion.  This is 26 times what the USA currently spends on silver and gold, which is only $7 billion.  The entire world annual gold market production is about 75 million oz..  The USA buys only about 2 million oz. of that.  The USA spends about half on silver, and half on gold.  What if that continues?  Well, if the US spent $90 billion on gold, at $1700/oz., that would be 53 million ounces.  Clearly that kind of new demand would push up the price, probably to triple the current price, taking the gold price to $5100/oz.  For silver, $90 billion at $35/oz. would buy 2.6 billion ounces.  But here we have a major problem.  World silver production is only 0.7 billion ounces, or 700 million ounces.  Furthermore, there is no large above ground stockpile of silver, as most has been consumed by industry, and furthermore, most of the silver market is already being consumed by industry, leaving very little left over for investors to bid over, which is only about 150 million oz. left over for investors.  But let’s assume that industry gets squeezed out, leaving 300 million oz. available for investors who wish to spend $90 billion on silver.  This gives us an easy calculation for the price, which is $90 billion divided by 300 million, or .3 billion.  So, 90 / .3 = $300/oz. for silver.

But those numbers are extremely unrealistic.  Only 1% spending money on silver and gold?  Really?  Not likely, it’s likely to be far more.  Conditions of inflation are only likely to change when interest rates are as high as the annual increase in the silver and gold prices, which are above 20% per year.  After all, why earn 1% in bonds if you can earn 20% in gold?

Second question.  What if 10% of money in the USA were to be spent on gold and silver in a year?  This would be $1800 billion.  Half into gold would be $900 billion. With world annual production at 75 million oz.  If the USA bought half of world production, that would be only 37.5 million oz.  $900,000 million / 37.5 million oz. is $24,000/oz. for gold.  If $900 billion were to be spent on half of world annual silver production, that would be only 350 million oz., which would lead to a price of $2,571/oz. for silver.

Third question.  What if 10% of money in the world were to be spent on gold and silver in a year?  World money is about $60 trillion.  10% would be $6 trillion.  If half were to be spent on total world gold production, that would be $3 trillion spent on 75 million oz., which leads to a price of $40,000/oz. for gold.  If $3 trillion were spent on 700 million oz. of world annual silver production, that leads to a price of $4,286/oz. for silver.

Now, the interesting thing about rising prices, is that they tend to attract more money, because everyone wants in on it.  People today who think silver is expensive at $35, will be scrambling to buy silver as it just keeps relentlessly climbing.  For two reasons.  First, they will recognize that dollars are just used paper, like newsprint, and they will be fearful to hold them as their values just keep going down, and fast.  Second, they will want to become wealthy, and they will see that they only way to do that is through owning real wealth of silver and gold.  So, this leads us to the inevitable question, the 4th question, what happens when the entire US money supply is spent on silver and gold, over a nice, slow pace, of over an entire year.  Now, think about that again.  This is still well before hyperinflation really kicks in, well before people are spending their entire paychecks on silver and gold the instant that they get paid, and well before the government starts printing new money with several more zeroes at the end of it.

So, 4th question, what if 100% of US money is spent on silver and gold in a year?  $18 trillion, or $18,000 billion.  Half for gold is $9,000 billion, spent on, say 2/3rds of world gold production of 75 million oz., would be 50 million oz.  $9,000,000 million spent on 50 million oz. leads to a price of $180,000/oz. for gold.  And if $9,000 billion is spent on 2/3 of world annual silver production of 700 million oz., which is 467 million oz., that would be $19,272/oz. for silver.

But let’s assume that the US government tried to prevent that from happening.  Let’s assume that the government would be smart enough to back all US currency with the official US gold, at a rate that would give the dollar a 100% gold backing.  (I know, kind of a crazy assumption to assume that the government would be smart, but let’s assume anyway.)  The point of considering these numbers is that, in theory, the US government could stop runaway inflation with a 100% gold backing and a balanced budget, but given today’s political climate, that’s currently impossible.  But let’s say the Tea Party wins a full sweep of both houses of congress and we get Ron Paul as president, and let’s assume that instead of trying to return to the gold standard, he tries to simply prevent runaway inflation with full 100% gold backing all dollars in all US bank accounts.  It’s a very simple calculation  $18 trillion divided by 261 million oz. of official US gold = $68,966/oz.  Given the previous calculations, silver could hit a 10 to 1 ratio to gold, which would be about $7,000/oz.  This is what the gold and silver prices “should” be, given the givens of honesty, and living up to the basic pledge of FDIC “government” insurance on all bank accounts.

Ah, but finally, many people reasonably expect that the US has already sold off a lot of the official gold to protect and defend the dollar at current low gold prices, which is more consistent with government reality and stupidity and rising gold prices.  In that event, the dollar is like burnt toast, and there will be no stopping the coming runaway gold price increases.

The reality is that we live in an age of deception, because the dollar is a deception.  Over the entire last 12 years of the gold bull market,

Our prices for gold and silver have never been lower.  Our current low prices are limited to about the next $300,000 worth of customer orders, so get your order in quickly, before prices move back up.

See our new lower prices at www.jhmint.com . We are now selling bags of junk silver at 0.3% over spot!!!

Silver is a crucial component in the manufacture of so many things we depend upon in modern society, and as such, will be only minimally affected by a global economic slowdown.

With a growing industrial demand and the reality that the silver mining industry is not able to meet it, it seems obvious that silver prices are poised to go up…and yet no one in the mainstream wants to believe it!

The History of Silver Mining

Silver has been mined for over 25,000 years. Widespread soon after the Roman conquest of the first century AD, mining of silver was a driving force in the settlement of western North America. The first major silver ore deposits in the United States were discovered at the Comstock Lode in Virginia City, Nevada, in 1859.

The United States produced 1,200 metric tons of silver in 2007, 35% of the silver it used. The remaining 65% was imported from Mexico, Canada, Peru, and Chile.

Silver Mining Stocks

I believe strongly that silver mining stocks are not a good bet for most silver investors.

All newly-produced silver is already spoken for by industrial demand. Therefore, the only real silver available for new investors is the sale and resale of silver by existing silver investors.

Yes, it is true that mining stocks can potentially move up much higher, faster, and at greater percentages relative to the spot price of silver. But they can go the other way as well. And unless you have money that you can gamble with an afford to lose you must to consider the downside.

In addition to trying to meet an incredible demand, world silver miners are facing a rough road ahead. Entangled in the roots of financial mess, environmental impacts, and manipulated prices, many mining operations have already been or soon will be nationalized. This will be devastating for people who own stock.

But remember, futures, options and ETFs and mining stocks are much easier to buy and sell than real silver.

Since the big gains come with long-term positions, the fact that physical silver forces you, more than any other form of silver, to hold is a very good thing and why coins are essential.

The Reality

Gone are the days when there was universal talk of inexhaustible inventories of silver. The depletion of thousands of years of accumulated silver inventory has resulted in rarity and scarcity of above-ground silver available for small investors. We’ve had a consumption deficit lasting more than half a century.

We are in the midst of the perfect storm. With growing industrial demand, increased investment demand, a shortage of retail silver, and a serious financial crisis, the retail market for silver has tightened like never before.

The continued debasement of the dollar in a crumbling world financial situation is slowly turning the herd toward silver at a time when there has never been so little for investment!

My focus is on silver coin investing because it is the safest form of silver that you can own.

Get your silver coins now!

Click here to learn how to get started with silver coins today.

•  Mortgage giant execs charged with fraud

  •  Daniel Mudd and Richard Syron left their jobs after GFC
  •  Both companies had to be bailed out by government

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s suggestion that the end of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq is part of a U.S. military success story ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration and the U.S. military had planned to maintain a semi-permanent military presence in Iraq.

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmaneuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement.

A central element of the Maliki-Iran strategy was the common interest that Maliki, Iran and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr shared in ending the U.S. occupation, despite their differences over other issues.

Maliki needed Sadr’s support, which was initially based on Maliki’s commitment to obtain a time schedule for U.S. troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.

In early June 2006, a draft national reconciliation plan that circulated among Iraqi political groups included agreement on “a time schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq” along with the build-up of Iraqi military forces. But after a quick trip to Baghdad, Bush rejected the idea of a withdrawal timetable.

Maliki’s national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaei revealed in a Washington Post op-ed that Maliki wanted foreign troops reduced by more than 30,000 to under 100,000 by the end of 2006 and withdrawal of “most of the remaining troops” by end of the 2007.

When the full text of the reconciliation plan was published Jun. 25, 2006, however, the commitment to a withdrawal timetable was missing.

In June 2007, senior Bush administration officials began leaking to reporters plans for maintaining what The New York Times described as “a near-permanent presence” in Iraq, which would involve control of four major bases.

Maliki immediately sent Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari to Washington to dangle the bait of an agreement on troops before then Vice President Dick Cheney.

As recounted in Linda Robinson’s “Tell Me How This Ends”, Zebari urged Cheney to begin negotiating the U.S. military presence in order to reduce the odds of an abrupt withdrawal that would play into the hands of the Iranians.

In a meeting with then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in September 2007, National Security Adviser Rubaie said Maliki wanted a “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) that would allow U.S. forces to remain but would “eliminate the irritants that are apparent violations of Iraqi sovereignty”, according Bob Woodward’s “The War Within”.

Maliki’s national security adviser was also seeking to protect the Mahdi Army from U.S. military plans to target it for major attacks. Meeting Bush’s coordinator for the Iraq War, Douglas Lute, Rubaie said it was better for Iraqi security forces to take on Sadr’s militias than for U.S. Special Forces to do so.

He explained to the Baker-Hamilton Commission that Sadr’s use of military force was not a problem for Maliki, because Sadr was still part of the government.

Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”

Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.

But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.

A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.

In mid-March 2007, Maliki ignored pressure from a personal visit by Cheney to cooperate in taking down the Mahdi Army and instead abruptly vetoed U.S. military plans for a major operation against the Mahdi Army in Basra. Maliki ordered an Iraqi army assault on the dug-in Sadrist forces.

Predictably, the operation ran into trouble, and within days, Iraqi officials had asked General Suleimani to intervene and negotiate a cease fire with Sadr, who agreed, although his troops were far from defeated.

A few weeks later, Maliki again prevented the United States from launching its biggest campaign yet against the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. And again, Suleimani was brought in to work out a deal with Sadr allowing government troops to patrol in the former Mahdi Army stronghold.

There was subtext to Suleimani’s interventions. Just as Suleimani was negotiating the Basra cease fire with Sadr, a website associated with former IRGC Commander Mohsen Rezai said Iran opposed actions by “hard-line clans” that “only weaken the government and people of Iraq and give a pretext to its occupiers”.

In the days that followed that agreement, Iranian state news media portrayed the Iraqi crackdown in Basra as being against illegal and “criminal” forces.

The timing of each political diplomatic move by Maliki appears to have been determined in discussions between Maliki and top Iranian officials.

Just two days after returning from a visit to Tehran in June 2008, Maliki complained publicly about U.S. demands for indefinite access to military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private contractors.

In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.

The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.

In the end, however, Bush administration officials realized that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.

The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme, had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.

(Inter Press Service)

Read more by Gareth Porter

• Rejecting Apology, U.S. May Hasten End of Pakistan as Client – December 3rd, 2011
• Pak Border Post Attack a Big Loss for US War Policy – November 30th, 2011
• Ex-Inspector Rejects IAEA Iran Bomb-Test-Chamber Claim – November 20th, 2011
• IAEA’s ‘Soviet Nuclear Scientist’ Never Worked on Weapons – November 9th, 2011
• Debunking the Iran ‘Terror Plot’ – November 4th, 2011

There’s plenty of concern about what the future will bring for Iraq, but after nine years of occupation there is also an overwhelming sense of relief as the last of the US occupation forces finally leave the country. With a death toll conservatively in the several hundreds of thousands and a crumbling infrastructure, the situation is grim, and questions about the Maliki government’s plans for the future could make it even moreso. Still and all, the exit appears to enjoy broad support.

Click here to read more at al-Jazeera

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

• Former DM: Iran Would Down More Spy Drones – December 16th, 2011
• Assange Appeal to Get UK Supreme Court Hearing – December 16th, 2011
• David Hickman: America’s ‘Last Casualty’ in Iraq – December 16th, 2011
• America’s Mini-City on the Tigris – December 16th, 2011
• State Dept Promises ‘Credible’ Probe Into Pakistan Killings – December 16th, 2011

http://www.ANobleLie.com – The 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City was a direct blow to the heart of America. 168 people were killed, including nineteen children. For those watching the nightly news, terrorism had come home. For years following the bombing, countless victims’ family members, survivors, rescuers, and ordinary Americans, have questioned the official accounts about that fateful day.

Hoping to shed light on answers long ignored and censored, both by prominent media outlets and the U.S. government, A Noble Lie peels back what we thought we knew about the bombing and it’s perpetrators. This film exposes information never before examined or brought to the attention of the American public.

A Noble Lie is the culmination of years of research and documentation conducted by independent journalists, scholars, and ordinary citizens. Often risking their personal safely and sanity, they have gathered evidence which threatens to expose the startling reality of what exactly occurred at 9:02 am on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City.

Utilizing footage and eyewitness testimony, previously unseen, A Noble Lie will change forever the way you look at the true nature of terrorism

For American troops leaving Iraq this month, there is a sense of relief but also worry about returning to civilian life and searching for jobs in a weak U.S. economy. U.S. troops along the Iraq-Kuwait border, where thousands have been transiting on their way home are wondering about their future.

http://colonel6.com/2011/12/15/after-220-years-the-bill-of-rights-is-no-more/

Was the timing merely serendipitous or is something else at play? Yesterday was the “birthday” of the United States Bill of Rights, which our forefathers ratified exactly 220 years ago. The same people who believe the constitution is a living, breathing document just put it on a respirator, metaphorically speaking, by passing the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA).  Obama has declared his intent to sign the legislation, despite initial indications from the White House of a veto (more on that dog-and-pony show later in this writing).

NDAA: The 2012 version

Every year, a new version of the defense authorization bill is crafted and ultimately enacted into law. It is an extensive piece of legislation that appropriates funds to defense projects. The current bill provides for a $662 billion defense budget and places the chief of the National Guard Bureau on the Joint Chiefs of Staff despite strong opposition of some military leaders. The massive budget allocation and the creation of a cabinet position for the chief of the U.S. National Guard is not at issue, however. The somewhat muted public frenzy over this bill stems from controversial and seemingly contradictory language that will have an impact on all United States citizens.

The language of the bill is readily available on numerous open source government sites, so it will not be included here. It was detailed in my previous article titled Connecting the dots of the National Defense Authorization Act, and its implications discussed in Judi McLeod’s article “Disappearing dissenters in Obama’s new Amerika.” Yet, there seems to be a full frontal assault by Democrats and Republicans alike to whitewash the bill’s actual ability and intent.

Clearing the controversy

While one section of the bill seems to exclude U.S. citizens from all aspects of this legislation, the key lies in the placement of discretion of exactly who fits the broad definition of a “terrorist” or broader still, someone who has engaged in a “belligerent act.” The bottom line is that the NDAA bill contains language that will codify, or make into law, the much debated act of defining U.S. citizens as enemy combatants. It will leave that discretionary power to the executive branch.

While many readers have contended that nothing in this bill applies to U.S. citizens, Senator Carl Levin, the bill’s sponsor, explicitly disagrees. Even more alarming, it was Senator Levin who announced in Senate chambers that it was Barack Obama himself who demanded the verbiage that includes U.S. citizens as fair game by our own military on U.S. soil. This followed Senator Lindsey Graham’s gleeful announcement that through the passage of this draconian legislation, the whole of America is now a battlefield and a venue in which the U.S. military may operate against its own.

Even in the face of such official pronouncements, there are many legislators who insist that this bit of lawyer-speak does not apply to citizens, and to think it does is just plain silly. Republican Congressman Tim Griffin, for example, has dedicated a Face Book site to decry the myths of the NDAA, showing readers in that venue where he is correct and others are not. Griffin is just one of many attempting to convince an unsuspecting public to relax, continue shopping and allow the government to handle such matters.

Coordinated confusion

Don’t be fooled into thinking that what is taking place in Washington is without purpose. The contradictory language, the circular arguments, and the much publicized threats of veto by this administration are intended as smokescreens as the collective attention of a nation is diverted as America prepares to “shut down” for the Christmas holiday. The bipartisan support for this bill adds to this confusion by convincing the American people that their Tea Party Republicans or their civil rights watchdogs would never betray the trust of the people. Unfortunately, they have. But few are asking the most important question of them all: why?

Information from intelligence sources: Follow the money

Within the last five weeks, I’ve been in contact with highly placed sources, their staffers and associates who work inside of the beltway. I’ve also engaged in dialogue with top security officials, all who state that this legislation is not about the security of our nation, but the ultimate control of the American people. According to these sources, the administration and congress are anticipating an apocalyptic scenario in the not-too-distant future.

While all eyes are on some type of unspeakable nuclear, biological or chemical event at the hands of “homegrown terrorists,” the real event is already in progress, although America has not yet experienced the full fallout from what is taking place. The terrorists are indeed homegrown actors, and they are engaged in actively destroying the United States, but not with bullets or bombs. Bullets and bombs are effective, but do not have the long-term capacity to effect every citizen from shore to shore. Additionally, such non-state terrorists don’t have the capacity to so effectively infiltrate the administration, the majority of congress, as well as the various regulatory agencies that exist in the U.S.

Driven not by a third world theology, the true terrorists are those whose god is greed, power and control, and who have effectively destroyed our monetary and economic system. For years they have been facilitated by all three branches of the American government, although they have been empowered by this administration in particular. Perhaps that’s why we have a man in the Oval Office who lacks the bona-fides of his predecessors, and why those in power refuse to address the lack of due diligence in that venue.

Who benefits?

After all, it is Obama and his closest political supporters who have been the largest financial benefactor of the incestuous Goldman Sachs-Federal Reserve-U.S. Treasury-IMF-World Bank Ponzi scheme, and it is Eric Holder, as attorney general, who has declined to prosecute the criminal behavior of the money changers. One has to look no farther than the MF Global rape of American citizens, where upwards of $1.2 billion turned up “missing” from customer accounts under the leadership of Obama administration confidant and Goldman Sachs alumni Jon Corzine. Testifying before congress, Corzine was stricken with a case of idiocy when questioned about where the money went.

The most telling part of those hearings was not Corzine’s display of hubris through amnesia, but statements made by the panel charged with the inquiry. Instead of ordering Corzine into custody to allow his memory to revive, the congressional panel spoke of “learning from mistakes” and “moving forward.” That’s akin to asking a masked bank robber about the location of stolen money, and when he fails to tell his questioners, they look at the bank to determine what steps could have been taken to prevent the robbery.

The MF Global and the Jon Corzines of the world are the mere tip of the iceberg. Money is being systematically stolen from each and every American at wholesale levels while this administration and this congress sits by, themselves the benefactors of the actions of the global banking takeover of our country and the world.

As the majority of American people are told by the nightly news that things are improving in Camelot and consequently continue their needless shopping at big box stores for items they don’t need and can’t afford, they are oblivious to what is coming. When the inevitable happens, they will be surprised, shocked and outraged.

Of course, that’s all hyperbole, according to the very people who created and perpetuate this madness.  And if it were true, wouldn’t the GOP nominees be talking about this in their debates? Oh, wait, considering who’s asking and answering the carefully scripted questions, why would they?

As watchmen begin to expose the people, companies and even lawmakers behind this money and power grab, they could be considered dangers to the “security” of the United States, or engaging in “belligerent acts.” So too could the people who will protest in anger about the bank holidays, the overnight evaporation of their retirement accounts, and even the fire sale of national assets to manage the unmanageable and unsustainable debt. Their anger must be controlled in the name of national security.

To be certain, their warnings will not be heard nor will protests be allowed from a detention facility.

You know, the facilities that don’t exist?

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 16, 2011

Following Ron Paul’s clash with Michele Bachmann over foreign policy during last night’s Republican debate in Iowa, the establishment media characterized Paul’s views as an “outburst” that could cost him votes, when in reality the majority of Republican voters now want U.S. troops brought home, troops who themselves support Paul over every other GOP candidate.

Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.

“Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,” confirms Politifact.

In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000). In comparison, Michele Bachmann received just $2,250.

“We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our friend Israel off the map, and they would use it against the United States of America,” said Bachmann during last night’s debate, presumably unaware of the fact that Israel has as many as 400 nuclear weapons, backed by the United States which maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads, and could turn Iran into a parking lot overnight.

Bachmann then labeled Paul’s refusal to back an unconstitutional pre-emptive strike on Iran as “dangerous for American security”.

Bachmann’s characterization of Ron Paul’s constitutional, non-interventionist, founding father-inspired foreign policy as “dangerous” is not a view shared by active duty U.S. troops, because as Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton points out, “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”

To cast Paul’s opposition to neo-liberal interventionist wars which have intensified under Barack Obama as somehow unconservative represents more dirty tricks on behalf of the establishment press. The Texan Congressman’s views are completely in line with the founding fathers, who also advocated non-interventionism.

“It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists,” Paul explains in his article I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would. “The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.”

Not only is Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance backed by U.S. troops and other military workers, aspects of it also shared by the majority of Republican voters.

After Obama rapidly accelerated an interventionist foreign policy, with more troops deployed than at any time under Bush (Bachmann should love Obama), Republicans quickly began to lose their appetite for war.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that a slim majority of Republican voters now support pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. In addition, the survey found that just 13 per cent of Republicans supported U.S. military action in Libya.

Perhaps Michele Bachmann should try asking active duty U.S. troops if they think Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are “dangerous”. Judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.

COLONEL SIXX:  GUNNY STAHL IS MERELY TRYING TO MAKE O.C.GOOD GET IN TOUCH WITH HIS “INNER SELF”.

AT TIMES THE ANGLE FROM WHICH A PICTURE WAS TAKEN FROM MAY GIVE A DIFFERENT IMPRESSION. I AM SURE THAT GUNNY STAHL WORKED OVERTIME THAT DAY TO WORK WITH GOOD, AND THAT GOOD FELT BETTER ABOUT HIMSELF. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE HELPING A YOUNG MARINE GET THE VERY BEST FROM HIMSELF.  HE WILL NEVER FORGET THIS CONVERSATION.

YOU KNOW,  I REMEMBER CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS THAT I HAD WITH GUNNY GLENN.  HE WAS FINE MAN.  I KNOW THAT NOW THAT I HAVE MATURED AND I AM ABLE TO ENJOY THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

YES, LIFE IN THE MILITARY IS FULL OF NEW AND EXCITING THINGS.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

WANT A BRIDGE?

NEWPORT, R.I. (Oct. 29, 2010) Gunnery Sgt. Robert Stahl encourages officer candidate Jared Good, from Towanda, Pa., during the first week of the 12-week Officer Candidate School at Naval Station Newport. (U. S. Navy photo by Scott A. Thornbloom/Released)

NEWPORT, R.I. (Oct. 29, 2010) Officer candidates perform calisthenics in the sand along Narragansett Bay during the first week of the 12-week Officer Candidate School at Naval Station Newport. (U. S. Navy photo by Scott A. Thornbloom/Released)

With Dakota Meyer standing at attention in his dress uniform, sweat glistening on his forehead under the television lights, President Barack Obama extolled the former Marine corporal for the “extraordinary actions” that had earned him the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor.

Obama told the audience in the White House East Room on Sept. 15 that Meyer had driven into the heart of a savage ambush in eastern Afghanistan against orders. He’d killed insurgents at near-point-blank range, twice leapt from his gun turret to rescue two dozen Afghan soldiers and saved the lives of 13 U.S. service members as he fought to recover the bodies of four comrades, the president said.

But there’s a problem with this account: Crucial parts that the Marine Corps publicized and Obama described are untrue, unsubstantiated or exaggerated, according to dozens of military documents McClatchy examined.

HOWEVER,  IF THE PEOPLE I SENT YOU TO WITH THE MESSAGE DO NOT HEED IT,  YOUR PROBLEM IS NOT THEM.  IT IS ME.

By RICK GLADSTONE

Published: December 15, 2011