Why Congressman Peter King is on a Crusade against Muslims

     You’re aware, of course, that Congressman Peter King (R-NY) has embarked on a crusade to investigate Muslims in America, supposedly to find out what motivates them to become "radicalized.” Millions of sensible Americans are scratching their heads, wondering why he"s doing this.

     According to a 2007 survey by Pew Research, American Muslims are about as radical as apple pie. (Source)

     Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky and Imam Jihad Turk  have an unconvincing explanation for King's crusade. They say that King is "making a mistake.”  (Source)  They rightly point out that King's witch hunt is more likely to stir up animosity against Muslims and perhaps serve to radicalize a few Muslims and more than a few non-Muslims.

     Excuse me, but a mistake is something that happens once, over a brief period of time. For example, if a beer-bellied man wore a tight-fitting, knit sport shirt, that would be a mistake. It would make him look like a product placement ad for Budweiser.

     I looked into Peter King's records and found more convincing explanations for the congressman's radical and un-American behavior.

     Like most politicians who began their adult lives as Vietnam draft dodgers (he cooled his heels in the National Guard until 1973), Peter King is gungho on America's wars of aggression and empire building. In his letters to constituents, he can be particularly harsh with constituents who try to reason with him.

     I realize that most politicians are far from smart, but stupidity alone doesn't explain King's witch hunt. After all, his campaign contributors didn’t get rich by being stupid.

     Who are his campaign contributors? Let's take a look at the 2010 campaign cycle.  (Source)

     Of the twenty top contributors to his 2010 re-election campaign, five of them are manufacturers of military weaponry. They are General Dynamics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Honeywell International, and United Technologies. Open Secrets.Org doesn't have a link for United Technologies. Here's a link for it:  

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7004833821877183483&postID=9143759782290515867

     In the 2010 election cycle, Congressman King received a total of $62,250 from PACs or individuals representing those few companies.

     A brief search turned up the fact that United Technologies, Boeing, and Raytheon are closely connected. Boeing and Raytheon have been manufacturers of the tomahawk missile—the missile that many researchers believe was used to attack the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Boeing and United Technologies are sister companies. Boeing and Honeywell have undertaken joint projects.

     During that same cycle, he received $11,000 from Goldman Sachs, which needs no introduction.

    If you’ve never heard of Park Strategies, don't feel embarrassed. I had to look it up myself. They are lobbyists for the military-industrial complex, the banksters, and "homeland security.” 

(Source) King received $11,550 from them.

     Of course, heavy-hitting campaign donors don't dish out that kind of dough just because they like a candidate. For them, it's an investment.

     Does it pay off? Well, let's take a look at which companies got the most federal taxpayer dollars for FY2010. I’ve placed in parentheses the amount they received in return for their campaign (ahem!) "contributions.” .(Source)

     Below each name, I've given the total amounts of money that their PACs or individuals gave to Congress (Source: Open Congres.org)

1. Lockheed Martin Corporation ($38,512,401,433.23)

Contributions 2010 cycle: $2,669,689

2. Boeing Company ($21,956,065,368.89)

Contributions 2010 cycle: $2,805,693

4. Raytheon Company ($16,106,903,431.28)

Contributions 2010 cycle: $2,172,978

22. Honeywell International Inc. ($2,938,415,700.74)

Contributions 2010 cycle: $3,861,235

     In case you’re wondering, what Goldman Sachs's PACs and perps did with the billions of dollars in bailout (read: embezzlement) money, they gave $5,868,239 to congressmen for the 2008 election cycle and $2,482,477 during the 2010 cycle.  Where else can you get a multibillion-dollar return on an eight-million-dollar investment?

     Never let anyone tell you that our congress critters are cheap crooks. As Pete King and his unindicted co-conspirators have shown us, they're some of the most expensive crooks that blood money can buy.

The Day the Gentle Sea Gypsies Defeated the Globalists

     During the Great Tsunami of December 26, 2004, the Moken people were directly in harms way. Unlike 150,000 other people living along the coasts of the Indian Ocean, however, they weren't killed. In the aftermath of the tsunami, when disaster capitalists swooped down like vultures, stealing the lands of survivors, the gentle Moken held onto their land.

    How they survived and how the Moken, unlike countless other peoples, avoided being victimized even after becoming victims holds lessons for all of us.

     I first learned of the Moken people a couple of years ago, when I was researching mermaids for a literature course I was teaching. They're often called the "sea gypsies." In the languages of Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, and Indonesia, they're called "sea people."

     The Moken are an Austronesian ethnic group living along the Andaman Sea. Many of them claim no nationality and live in small houseboats for most of the year, stepping onto the land only once in awhile. They know so much about the sea that marine biologists, climatologists, and other marine scientists are still learning from them.

     Often, their children learn to swim before they learn to walk. Making their living from the sea, they can hold their breaths underwater longer than almost any other ethnic group on Earth. They also have better underwater eyesight—even in salt sea water—than almost any other ethnic group on Earth.

     Many other Moken live along the shores of countries in the eastern Andaman Sea, either in villages on the coast or in villages positioned on stilts above the sea. Unlike most other Austronesians (such as the Polynesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Taiwan aborigines, and others), the Moken are shy about tourists.

     On the morning of December 26, 2004, the earthquake struck the region with a power equal to 23,000 Hiroshima bombs. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center would become aware of it eight minutes. By that time, the tsunami was only sixteen minutes from making landfall.

     All along the coasts of the Andaman Sea, the tide suddenly rushed outward, away from the land, leaving fish flopping on the shore. All along the Andaman coasts, people hurriedly scooped up fish by whatever means they could. Residents and tourists alike were thrilled by this curious event.

     The Moken—the sea people—saw this event in a more ominous light. They had heard the old stories. This phenomenon told them that the sea had not eaten in a long time, and it was hungry.

(video)

     Moken led the way to safety. People who followed them to higher ground survived. Those who didn't listen were killed.

     The Moken village in Thailand, like the villages of other peoples all along the Indian Ocean, were completely wiped out. National governments all along the coasts of the Indian Ocean promised disaster victims that they would eventually be allowed to return to their lands. In the meantime, they were instructed not to try to return.

     It was all a lie, and the Moken knew it. The truth is, all over the Indian Ocean, special concessions were given to land developers, and armed security guards were posted to prevent people from returning to their homes to rebuild. Just as the Moken survived because they knew the sea, the reclaimed their land because they knew the government.

     In her book The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Naomi Klein describes how the gentle Moken took matters in hand and saved the day:

     “They marched past the armed guards on the payroll of developers, tools in hand, and began marking off the sites where their old houses had been. In some cases, reconstruction began immediately... The most daring reinvasions were performed by Thailand's indigenous fishing peoples called the Moken, or "sea gypsies." After centuries of disenfranchisement, the Moken had no illusions that a benevolent state would give them a decent piece of land in exchange for the coastal properties that had been seized. So, in one dramatic case, the residents of the Ban Tung Wah Village in Phang Nga province 'gathered themselves together and marched right back home, where they encircled their wrecked village with rope, in a symbolic gesture to mark their land ownership,' explained a report by a Thai NGO. "'With the entire community camping out there, it became difficult for the authorities to chase them away, especially given the intense media attention being focused on tsunami rehabilitation.'  In the end, the villagers negotiated a deal with the government to give up part of the oceanfront property in exchange for legal security on the rest of their ancestral land." (link)

     Other disaster victims—those who trusted the government's promise of new homes—lost everything they had. This scenario was a template for Hurricane Katrina victims, victims of the Haiti earthquake, and even victims of the 2008 Financial Meltdown.

     The Moken showed us the way. There are almost seven billion people on this planet and a comparatively tiny minority of disaster capitalists, globalists, and other robber barons. We outnumber them by about a million to one. If we're united, they can't stop all of us.

How Disinformation Specialists Hijack Freedom Movements

     You may have had this experience: You receive a feel-good email message that expresses something you’ve been feeling for years. Sure, there are one or two points that don’t quite fit your beliefs, but a few points in a two- or three-page article may be overlooked. It’s the overall, feel-good message that counts. You forward it to others on your email list and forget all about it.

     But wait. What if you re-read the message before passing it on, only this time in a more critical frame of mind? On the second reading, you may realize that, in two or three pages, none of the feel-good passages say anything new. The only new material is in the one or two points that you found disagreeable.

     Welcome to the world of idea placement advertising. It’s kind of like product placement advertising, except that ideas rather than products are being peddled.

     Our minds have a guard at the gate. Each time a message comes to the gate, the guard decides whether the message is true. If it’s considered true, the message is allowed into the short-term memory and, with good behavior, it will be allowed into the long-term memory. At that point, it’ll be hard to erase.

     Try this experiment: Find someone whose name isn’t George and start calling him George. No matter how many times you call him George, the guard at his mental gate will reject the suggestion that that his name is really George.

     The guards at gates, however, can be fooled in a variety of ways. If the guard can be fooled into thinking that it’s not really a message—that it’s really entertainment—the message goes straight to the long-term memory where it becomes one of that person’s core beliefs.

     Remember also the Russian proverb, “The best place to conceal a knife is in plain sight, with a spoon and fork.” That’s one of the ways that the corporate media and other disinformation specialists slip their messages past our brains’ guards at the gate.

     To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Allow me one example: I recently read a feel-good article supposedly written to promote a sense of national unity among Americans but containing a hidden message to support the agenda of the global elite.

     In a recent article, neoconservative propagandist Michelle Malkin wrote an article called “We, the unhyphenated Americans: Meet my people.” Right away, the title of the article makes us feel good.

     From my own perspective, it was pleasing to know that the author is a native Filipina. I lived in the Philippines for four months and formed a fondness and admiration for Filipinos that has endured for 40 years. Many Filipinos attend my church. Thus, for me, Michelle Malkin’s heritage enhances the impressiveness of her article’s title.

     After the first few paragraphs, though, I got suspicious and did a quick Internet search of her professional credentials. Here are some comments I later made concerning what I had found in the article and the Internet search:

     “Michelle Malkin, the author of the...article falls into the same trap (or more likely sets the trap) as the people she derides. In the article, she pretends to be inclusive of all Americans, but "her people," as she calls them, are exclusively Republicans. Don't forget that the Dubya Bush administration and their co-conspirators gave us 9/11, the USA PATRIOT Act, TSA groping and high-tech voyeurism, the Department of Homeland Security, torture, the end of habeas corpus, the end of posse comitatus; and endless wars against literally millions of innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

     “Are those criminals "her people"? Apparently so, since she posits everyone who opposes these wars, abuses, and usurpations are people who have no argument beyond accusations of Islamophobia.

     “It's supposed to be an urban legend that people slip razor blades into Halloween candy, but Ms Malkin has given it a new twist and made it a fact. She's slipping poison into a highly agreeable concept.

     “That should not be surprising when you look at her career.

     “She worked in Washington, DC, as a journalism fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Never heard of it? They're funded by the Ford Motor Company Fund, CFR co-founder Exxon Mobile, CFR premium member Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation. The Earhart Foundation is noted for funding such neocon schemes as the American Enterprise Institute which, in turn, gave us the Project for the New American Century, which favored "a new Pearl Harbor" several months before 9/11.

     “She hasn't forgotten who has been feeding her all these years. During her career of barking for her supper, she has barked at the tables of MSNBC, the Boston Globe, and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel.

     “In 2004, when Vietnam War hero John Kerry was running for President against a selfish coward who had pulled strings and even broken a lawful contract to avoid the draft, Michelle Malkin derided Kerry for not being as big a war hero as Kerry had claimed. Through clever wording, she said that Kerry's "wounds were self inflicted." When asked by Chris Matthews whether Malkin's comment implied that Kerry had wounded himself to get a Purple Heart, she ducked the question but allowed the suggestion to stand.

     “Michelle Malkin is clearly a RINO neocon operative whose money trail leads back to the Rockefellers, Goldman Sachs, the disaster capitalists, and other threats to peace and freedom. Be very careful when--or if--you read one of her feel-good articles. Her candy is likely to be laced with arsenic or razor blades.”

     Michelle Malkin is only one of many Trojan horses in the freedom movement. I singled her out only because it was her article that was forwarded to me—not by a disinformation specialist or a paid Internet troll but by an innocent dupe. 

     Remember that the devil comes to us as an angel of light.  Pray for wisdom and freedom from manipulation; and read with care.

Are Major Polluters Bribing Environmental Watchdog Groups?

     I recently received an email and, no, it wasn’t a hoax. It was a thoroughly detailed and thoroughly documented writing that proved beyond doubt that oil companies and other such corporations routinely donate large sums of money to well-known environmental watchdog groups. These groups include Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

     If you’re a liberal, you may take this to mean that major polluters are bribing environmental watchdog groups to look the other way. If you’re a conservative, it could mean that environmental extremists have been extorting millions of dollars from honest businessmen.

     If the title of your doctoral dissertation in Business Administration was Monitoring Corporate Social Responsibility, it’s likely to mean neither. As it is, that really was the title of my doctoral dissertation.

     Those of us who are working to restore the American government to the American people have enemies besides the obvious enemies that threaten our way of life.

     We must jealously guard our credibility. We must also guard against time wasters. Getting into a lather because we’ve misread a situation undermines our credibility and causes us to spend time on non-issues instead of issues of real import.

     Corporate social responsibility (CSR) isn’t simply a matter of doing good works at the expense of profits and otherwise being a good person. Thinking that you’ll stay out of trouble just by being a good person is a recipe for a CSR disaster. You can be blindsided by anything that happens anywhere along your supply chain, and you can’t watch everything at once.

     We’re accustomed to the schema that corporations and watchdog groups are natural enemies. Depending on your perspective, corporate managers will try to get away with anything they can (such evil corporations as Monsanto come to mind) or watchdog groups are “gotcha brigades” just looking for honest businessmen to slip. In most cases, neither schema is accurate.

     Most watchdog groups want corporations to behave responsibly, and most corporate managers want to avoid being labeled as irresponsible. It’s in the interest of both sides to see to it that the corporation isn’t seen as socially irresponsible.

     As I’ve indicated, supply chains have become so long and complicated—many of them experiencing some changes from one batch to another—that it’s not possible for one CEO or one vice president in charge of CSR to watch every link in the chain at once. There are many ways for a company to monitor CSR, including several uses of information technology (IT) for monitoring CSR. Astute CEO’s make use of as many ways as they deem necessary.

     There is, however, no substitute for eyes on the ground; and there’s no substitute for an early warning system. Effective watchdog groups serve both purposes.

     Put yourself in the CEO’s place. Your company’s reputation and sales depends on the accuracy of reports that cross your desk. Suppose those reports were all you had to indicate that a supplier in the Andes Mountains was acting responsibly toward the rainforest and rainforest natives. Would those reports be enough to put your mind at ease? The late Peter Drucker, whose books (such as The Effective Executive) revolutionized business management, wrote, “An effective executive will go out and look.”

     That’s what watchdog groups do. For most corporations with long and complex supply chains, staying on good terms with watchdog groups is the most cost-effective way to go out and look.

     If it can be shown that environmental watchdog groups are giving major polluters a clean bill of health in exchange for hefty donations, then we’d have an issue. In fact, if the major polluters in question happen to be Chevron or BP, we’d have prima facie evidence of a corrupt bargain.
(Shown at right:: "Steven Donziger, shown above in Ecuador in 2003, was accused of doctoring evidence in the pollution suit."  Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395904576025912265522124.html

The Lion, the Witch, and the World Trade Center

     In the British movie The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, children are shown stepping into a wardrobe and magically finding themselves in a wondrous land called Narnia.

     In series of British movies, Harry Potter and his friends are shown walking through the wall of a train station, harming neither themselves nor the wall. Of course it was done through the magic of computer technology. They then find themselves at Hogwarts, a school for aspiring witches and wizards.

     What about Boeing 757's? Do you think that airplanes in real life can pass through walls that easily? I'll address that question later in this article.

     The most tenacious theory of events occurring on September 11, 2001, is the planes theory: the theory that commercial airliners struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This theory comes in two species. The first is the theory that novice pilots were flying some of the most sophisticated aircraft on Earth and flawlessly executed some highly difficult maneuvers. The second version is that the planes were navigated by remote control.

     A flaw in the second theory was revealed when three professional commercial airline pilots, using computer simulation, attempted to duplicate the official version of the strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in three was able to duplicate an attack on the World Trade Center. None of them were able to duplicate the attack on the Pentagon because it's impossible for a commercial airliner to fly 20 feet above the ground for over a mile at 530 miles per hour.

     What about the "ball" theory? At the moment that the second tower was struck, a news camera, shooting from a helicopter, on live television, showed what looked like a ball moving toward the South Tower. It was moving at a steep angle, and at a speed too slow to be a commercial airliner.

     No, I'm not going to tell you what the ball was. That's beyond my expertise.  Richard Hall, a former aerospace engineer with remarkable computer skills, has thoroughly examined the question and provided his answers. I, on the other hand, will for now stick to eliminating the impossible.

     My "eureka" moment came at the 3:26 mark of the second part of his video, "9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 2."  That's when I noticed something that Hall didn't seem to have noticed. In fact, I'm not aware that anyone has ever mentioned it.

     At that point, the video shows, in slow motion, the alleged footage of a commercial airliner passing into WTC 2. In this slow motion video, you can see that no glass shatters; no concrete pulverizes, and there are is no explosion. Even more surprising, both wings disappear into the building—supposedly crashing into steel-reinforced concrete at 590 miles per hour—without even slightly buckling. Take a look here.

     After all these years of wondering what happened to the planes—and being told by the 911 Commission that burning jet fuel (kerosene) had vaporized them—I can offer you a more reasonable conclusion: They safely landed at Hogwarts or in Narnia.

     Flight 77, which flew over—not into—the Pentagon, was not seen fading into a building. An unexpected and unrecorded tornado must have snatched it away to the land of Oz, where it suddenly landed on Nancy Pelosi's sister.

     But let's get back to the World Trade Center videos.

     At the 4:24 mark part 1 of the video ("9/11 - Fake Plane 3D Analysis Proof of an inside job - Pt 1,") Hall shows a side-by-side comparison of a live shot of the "ball" hitting WTC2 and an almost identical shot from the NBC Evening News. I say "almost" because, in the NBC footage, both the ball and the background are matted out; and the image of a commercial airliner is inserted.  (Link)

     There can be no mistake that the second video clip is a doctored version of the first.

     What about all the witnesses who claim they saw a plane crash into WTC 2?   Only 20% of the witnesses say they saw or heard a plane. Only 5% say they saw and heard a plane. In Les Miserables, Victor Hugo wrote that, if a crowd of people is told that such-and-such happened, you can always count on someone claiming that he saw it.

     Just to make sure that witnesses would claim they saw it, a D-list actor was hired for the job. He remembered his lines in spite of the unrealistic dialogue that was designed to promote the "official" version of events. (Link)

     Okay, so I've presented proof that two of the videos are fakes and that one of the witnesses is a fake. What about the others?  If the other videos and the other witnesses were legitimate, then there was no need to generate fakes—but they did generate fake videos and false witnesses. Since the powers that be saw a need to generate fake videos and false witnesses, then we must reject the theory that commercial airliners crashed into the World Trade Center.

In other articles, I presented abundant evidence against the theory that a commercial airliner had hit the Pentagon.

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/official-story-of-911-fairy-tale.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-records-that-guinness-never.html

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-easily-fooled-are-you.html

and

http://americanactionreport.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-happened-to-flight-77s-passengers.html

     In one of these articles, I asked, "What happened to Flight 77's Passengers?"  If no planes hit the World Trade Center, we should ask, "What happened to the passengers of Flights 11, 175, and 77?"

     Reports vary as to how many crew members and passengers were on each of the four planes. If we take the highest number, there were 266 total. That's 233 passengers, 25 flight attendants, and 8 pilots. (Link) 

     The seating capacity (not counting seats available for crew members) for Flight 93, the only one of the planes for which substantial wreckage was found, was 182. Wikipedia gave a higher figure: 289, which I doubt. In either case, I believe that 266 prisoners and Judas goats could have been transported by that one plane.

     In a previous article ("World Records that Guinness never Mentioned") I gave evidence that Flight 93 didn’t crash; it was shot down by a missile.

     Yes, I'm getting into the theory that the planes were switched. Actually, I don't have to go that far.  My theory is that the passengers were switched.

     I'm not going to make the mistake of trying to theorize just how the switch was made. If I did, the theory would become the issue. Any flaw in the theory would give the conspiracy deniers an excuse to draw attention away from the facts.

     Other researchers have offered copious facts supporting their theories, but they were still theories. No, instead of dwelling on theory, I'll simply state the facts.

     On March 13, 1962, the CIA presented then-President Kennedy with a proposal called Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a planned false flag operation designed to blame Cuba for terrorist acts against the United States, thus providing an excuse for an American invasion of Cuba.

     There are two points to consider here. The first is that the CIA had proposed false flags similar to 911 and for the same purpose as 911: to start a war to advance government policy.

     The second point is that Operation Northwoods envisioned the switching of planes to carry out some of the terrorist acts. It isn't necessary to prove that the CIA really could switch planes on 911; it's necessary only to show that the CIA seriously believed that they could switch planes and that they had the will to do so. (Link) 

     It's not likely that all the passengers were shot out of the sky. In a time of panic and confusion, some passengers would have been needed as Judas goats to herd the innocent passengers onto Flight 93.

     I've already provided compelling evidence that at least one September 11 passenger is still alive and living under another name. ("What Happened to Flight 77's Passengers?") If my theory is correct, there are likely others. Many researchers have noted that all four flights carried an unusual number of government and military insiders. Some of them may have been the Judas goats, and they may be alive somewhere.  Other researchers are already at work on this issue.

Our Valley of Decision

     In a separate article, I wrote that businesses, society, and the environment are mutually dependent. I argued from that that the most sustainable model for businesses as well as for society and environmentalists is one that recognizes this fact and seeks a dovetailing of interests.

     That’s the way things work for most businesses anyway. As long ago as 1776, Adam Smith wrote that, when businessmen and politicians converse, corporate social responsibility is the furthest thing from their minds.

     Our history books tell us that from 1869 until 1877, William Magear (“Boss”) Tweed and his cronies stole an estimated $200 million from the city of New York. In today’s dollars, that would be around $2.7 billion.

     Just think of how much they could have stolen if they’d been in control of something larger than a city—say, the United States Treasury. Hmm. Just how did they do it?

     Well, pretty much the same way that Dubya Bush did it, and Mr. Obama is doing it now. Bush, Cheney, Emanuel, and Obama didn’t invent such embezzlement schemes as bid-free contracts, or regulatory waivers that favor friends and shut out competition, nor did they invent economic blackmail. They did, however, perfect them and come up with a few ideas of their own.

     By comparison, Boss Tweed was practicing a life of austerity and self denial. The Bush-Obama Administration has stolen more than $14 trillion from America’s taxpayers, and there’s no end in sight.

     They get away with it because we let them. Oh, worse than that; we rewarded them after they had done it, thereby encouraging them to steal ever larger sums of money and further violate our liberties.

     In the year 2000, Bush stole the presidential election and employed fraud to launch—not just one, but two—wars that have been highly profitable for himself and his cronies. Some 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians were killed as a result, but what’s a couple of million Iraqis compared to trillions of dollars in stolen assets?

     Under the laws of every jurisdiction in the United States, it’s a capital crime to commit a felony that results in a death. Fraud is a felony in every jurisdiction in America, and thousands of Americans died as a result of that fraud.

     According to noted court attorney Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ ), any district attorney whose jurisdiction had been the home of a serviceman killed in Iraq can bring capital murder charges against George W. Bush.  In Texas, Bush’s home state, governors are especially fond of the death penalty.

     It would have been poetic justice for Bush and Cheney to suffer a lethal injection by means of a flu shot made by Baxter. http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket.html    Instead, the American people re-elected Bush President. 

     Bush and his cronies rewarded American gullibility by getting greedier and more brazen. In just one day in late 2008, they stole $1.2 trillion, with no accountability as to where the money went.

     As you will recall, it was informally called the Bankster Bailout Bill. The banksters had made home loans to people who they knew could not repay the loans, then they took their homes away from them, then the fraudsters cried poverty. Not one homeowner was saved by the Bankster Embezzlement Bill.

     Obama was elected on the promise of Hope and Change. What he delivered was a seamless transition. The only way you can tell the difference between Obama’s policies and Bush’s before him was by the date that the crimes were committed.

     I’ve recently learned that Obama’s embezzlement has gotten even greedier and more brazen than I could have previously imagined. Let me give you a preview:

     With no legal authority to do so, Obama has ordered standards that no coal-fired electrical plant in America could possibly meet. In the same act, he has given General Electric a waiver. One of the consequences of this deed is that the City of Austin, Texas, has to buy electricity from Mexico at premium prices. Who do you think owns that plant in Mexico? General Electric; that’s who.

Please take a look at the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3l4oPXiAw

     For a video that’s both entertaining and infuriating, see Max Keiser’s take on a wide range of embezzlement issues over the past ten years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i-B2V2l_6QE

     During the 1870’s, Boss Tweed and his cronies were limited to stealing everything they possibly could from one city: the City of New York. During our time, high-level gangsters are using national leaders to steal everything they can from all of America and many other nations.

     The Truth is a powerful weapon against these robbers and mass murderers. Boss Tweed and his cronies were ousted by an informed public. The Truth—reliable information—can save us in our time as well.

     Don’t expect that a change of political parties can save us. Only this month—February 2011—Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to extend the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, the measure that shredded the Bill of Rights and ushered in rendition and torture of political opponents, electronic strip searches at airports, warrantless wiretapping of our citizens, and too many other abuses and usurpations to count.

     How did your congressman (I won’t call them representatives) vote? Here’s a link to how they voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

     Americans who had already kept themselves informed didn’t believe for a minute that a change in party leadership in the House of Representatives would signal a return to liberty. For the banksters and their kleptocratic henchmen, it’s business as usual.  Remember that the election of Obama was largely a reaction against the robber Republicans, and that didn't work for us either.
     Don't expect any other quick fixes such as a constitutional amendment or a Constitutional Convention either.  There is no quick fix that will free us from the responsibility of safeguarding our liberties.

     To oust the kleptocrats and restore the Bill of Rights, we don’t have to go as far as Egypt and Tunisia did, nor must meekly submit to being herded to the FEMA camps. Peaceful resistance is still an option in most countries. There are countless reliable web sites informing us as to how we can protect ourselves and how we can restore our freedoms.

     Scroll to the top of this page and find the link for Recommended Web Sites. That’s a start. Find the Table of Contents at the top of this page and read other articles telling people how systems really work, as opposed to how most people think they work. Stop buying into the kleptocratic lies that divide Democrats against Republicans, conservatives against liberals, native-born against immigrants, straights against gays, blacks against whites, Christians against Muslims—well, you get the picture.
     There are 307 million of us in America (6.7 billion in the world) and only a few thousand of those gangsters. The criminal sociopaths at the top know that they can succeed only if they keep us divided against one another. If we stand united in passive non-cooperation, they are powerless against us.

     By all means, pray; but roll up your sleeves and pray on your feet.

Sustainable Fit for Business, Society, and the Environment

     Regardless of whether you consider yourself an environmentalist, almost every person has certain things in common with environmentalists.

We want our food, water, and air to be free of things that are likely to make us sick or kill us. However we understand the word likely, we agree that we want to be healthy. Many of us would like to enjoy optimum health.

     We also appreciate beauty, especially natural beauty. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to appreciate beautiful scenery, especially if it’s a vacation destination. No brochure for a travel agency or tourism bureau ever displayed a polluted pond full of dead fish.

     Environmentalists and other people are not divided by their differences in values or necessarily by matters of fact. They are divided by perceptions that are often mistaken by both sides of the debate.

     Many of the perceptions that divide us are mere shibboleths. A belief or disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with whether you want a clean environment. People on both sides of the debate want to be healthy, they appreciate natural beauty, and they want goods and services of reasonable price and quality.

     The latter point brings us to another thing that environmentalists have in common with almost everyone else. We’re often divided by the mistaken belief that there’s a conflict between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate profit. There isn’t. No matter how much people hate business, they still want jobs.

     Businesses, societies, and the environment have mutual needs. To whatever extent the needs and values of all three areas dovetail, the interests of all three are advanced.

     Thus, it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game in which each side benefits only to the degree that the others lose.

     That’s not to say that any business can locate wherever its managers please, then magically come up with a sustainable strategy. Sometimes the fit just isn’t there, and the business is not suitable for that particular society or environment. Australians, for example, would probably never consider starting a dingo farm next door to an infant daycare center.

     This farm (above) is located only a few meters from the wetlands outside the city of Taipei, Taiwan.  Clean water, of course, is vital for raising food crops.  A gray heron, one of many wetland birds, (at right) co-exists with human activities on this farm.

   

     The stream you see at left is waste water .  The  protected wetland helps to purify the water.  Because of the cleaner water, fishermen are able to make a living by catching fish that are safe to eat. (See below)

     A clear example of a win-win situation is the Golden Riverside Park in New Taipei City (formerly Taipei County), Taiwan.

     More than ten years ago, the Danshui River was horribly polluted, the ferry had been defunct since the Guandu Bridge was built, the fishing industry was ailing, and Danshui itself was a sleepy college town. It was such a sleepy town that, at night, motorcyclists could race along its major streets with little fear of hitting someone.

     Wetlands—the lungs and kidneys of Taiwan’s environment—were freely used as trash dumps by businesses and individuals. This was especially tragic, since only 20% of Taiwan’s wastewater is treated at waste treatment plants. Wetlands shoulder the burden of cleaning up the rest.

     Since the Guandu River Bridge was built during the 1980's people no longer need a ferry to cross the Danshui River.  Since the wetlands have been restored, and the water is much less polluted, the Guandu River Ferry has enjoyed a new career as a picturesque form of tourism.
 
     The lamentable economic and environmental situation changed when the Taipei County government laid plans to restore the wetlands. Restoration of the natural wetlands and the construction of other wetlands has improved water quality, attracted wildlife, attracted tourists, created businesses that rely on tourism, and improved the social and economic well being of the entire area. 

     The photos above and at left were taken at one of Danshui's tourist areas on a slow weekday.  On weekends, it's far too crowded for bicycling. 

      Just think of how many jobs are saved or created, and how many other human needs in the area are met by fully functioning wetlands.


     The video below shows a panoramic view of tourist-related businesses along the riverbank, bicyclists, the Guandu Ferry, the mountains, the wetlands, and the Guandu Bridge.

(For more information on the importance of wetlands, click the following URL:)
http://eng.sdec.tpc.edu.tw/bin/home.php 

     On the other hand, let’s suppose someone were irresponsible enough to allow the construction of a chemical plant along the wetlands. Let’s further suppose he were reckless enough to permit the dumping of toxins into the air and into the wetland’s water table, on the grounds that this measure would create jobs.

     It’s true that expanding a petrochemical plant into an ecosystem's lungs and kidneys could create some jobs. We can be sure that  jobs would be created for medical personnel specializing in the treatment of various cancers and respiratory ailments.  Furthermore, undertakers (illustrated above center) wouldn't have to wait as long for customers, nor would hospitals or medical schools have to wait as long to make claims on your organ donor card (illustrated above right). 
     Can we say, though, that the only jobs that matter are the ones created by businesses with pockets deep enough to contribute oceans of money to political campaigns?

     How many jobs would be lost? How many lives would be shortened due to cancer and respiratory illnesses? How much natural beauty would be destroyed? No, each person is valuable, as are each person’s health and general well being. Any business that is given privileges at the expense of society and the environment becomes a menace to society, the environment, and most other businesses.

     The value of a person’s job can’t be measured by how much it contributes to the GDP. GDP measures money spent, but it doesn’t measure value received.

     Look at a loaf of bread. The manufacture of a plastic bread wrapper contributes more to the GDP than the production of the wheat that goes into the bread. The wheat, on the other hand, contributes more value to the finished product. It’s the fit among all factors—the ingredients of the bread, the quality of the water used in growing the wheat, and social needs—that give bread its overall value.
     In the video below, you can see what happens at the end of the river.  At low tide, people forage for crabs and various other foods from the sea.  They, too, depend on relatively clean water for food safety, and GDP has nothing to do with it.  Each person has value that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

     Just as “jobs” is used as a rationale for corporate greed and depredation, certain giant corporations sometimes use “environmental protection” as a rationale for destroying their competitors. In such cases, environmental legislation is written to give favored businesses virtual monopolies.

     But that’s the subject of another article.