Author Topic: Pentagon: We swear, he is really dead this time, those other 20 times were fake  (Read 15568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Remember this guy?...

So this is the guy blamed for every terrorist act since Nero set fire to Rome. The Soetoro puppet has given all covert ops shoot to kill orders so that the guy cannot blow the whistle.

Well guess what...Yemen is going to try him themselves (which is what Afghanistan should have done with Bin Laden). And when they try him, (if he shows up - right now he is being tried in absentia) just think of the whistles he could blow.



Yemen charges US-born radical cleric al-Awlaki
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/yemen-charges-usborn-radical-cleric-alawlaki/
By The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010 -- 10:03 am

Yemen puts US-born radical cleric al-Awlaki on trial in absentia with 2 other men. Yemen put a U.S.-born radical cleric on trial in absentia Tuesday, accusing him and two other men of plotting to kill foreigners and being members of al-Qaida. It was the first formal legal action by Yemen against Anwar al-Awlaki, and came as the country faces heavy pressure to crack down on the terror network following the interception of two mail bombs intercepted in Dubai and Britain last week. Yemen's move isn't likely to affect a possible U.S. decision to itself charge the cleric, since Washington doesn't believe Yemen is reliable at holding its prisoners, especially after a number of high profile defendants were released into the custody of their tribes. Prosecutor Ali al-Saneaa announced the charges against al-Awlaki as part of a trial against another man, Hisham Assem, who has been accused of killing a Frenchman in an Oct. 6 attack at an oil firm's compound where he worked as a security guard. Assem, 19, was present in court, but al-Awlaki and a third suspect, Osman al-Awlaki, were charged in absentia. The hearing was held amid tight security measures at a courthouse in downtown San'a.

----------------------------------------
News Alert: U.S.-born cleric and al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi killed, Yemen says
September 30, 2011 5:49:25 AM
----------------------------------------

Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, killed, Yemen says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html?wpisrc=al_national

SANAA, Yemen — Anwar al-Aulaqi, the radical Yemeni-American cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda operatives wanted by the United States, has been killed in northern Yemen, Yemen’s Defense Ministry said Friday morning.

The ministry, in a text message sent to journalists, said “the terrorist Anwar al- Aulaqi has been killed along with some of his companions,” but did not provide further details. The report could not be independently verified; Aulaqi has been falsely reported killed before.

In a separate e-mailed statement, the Yemeni government said that Aulaqi was “targeted and killed” five miles from the town of Kashef in Yemen’s northern Jawf province, 87 miles east of the capital Sanaa. The attack, the statement said, was launched at 9.55 am, local time.

While the Defense Ministry said Aulaqi was killed in Marib province, other government sources said he was killed in neighboring Jawf province.

A Yemeni security source, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said Aulaqi was killed in an air strike, possibly by an unmanned American drone. The Obama administration in recent months have escalated the use of drones to target al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen and Somalia. U.S. officials could not be reached for comment.

If true, Aulaqi’s death would be considered a significant victory in the U.S. war against global terrorism. Believed to be 39 or 40-years old, the New Mexico-born cleric has been implicated in several attacks on U.S. soil, including the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas; an attempt later that year to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner; and an attempt in 2010 to send parcel bombs on cargo plans bound for the United States.

In April 2010, the Obama administration authorized his targeted killing. U.S. officials alleged that he is a top leader in al-Qaeda’s Yemen wing, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Aulaqi, who lived in Virginia and was the imam of a mosque in Falls Church, left the United States in 2002. He was detained in Yemen in 2006 at the request of the United States but was released later that year. His lectures in English on Islamic scripture have drawn in countless followers online.

Earlier this year, Michael Leiter, the U.S. official in charge of analyzing terrorism threats, told a congressional committee that Aulaqi and AQAP probably posed “the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.”
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Banker Bob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,244
  • ANKH is real
Al-CIA-Duh boogie Man Anwar al-Awlaki Killed... AGAIN!
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2011, 05:52:41 am »
Terror mastermind and senior Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed, a senior U.S. official confirms.

The Yemeni government has released an official statement saying the U.S.-born Al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed.

The government of the Republic of Yemen said Awlaki was targeted and killed about five miles from the town of Khashef in the Province of Jawf.

The operation was launched earlier today at around 9:55 am, local time.

Yemeni security and tribal officials said an airstrike is thought to have been carried out by U.S. aircraft on Friday targeting a convoy of cars traveling in the eastern province of Marib.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/

You can't make up this SH*T!!

Offline Banker Bob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,244
  • ANKH is real
Re: Terror Boss Anwar al-Awlaki Killed
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2011, 06:10:02 am »

Anwar al-Awlaki was reported killed in an air raid today, said a security source on Friday.
The source said that Awlaki that is a leader at al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula was killed along with other al-Qaeda fighters in Shawbah.
Tribal sources said that Awlaki was killed along with other fighters in an airstrike targeted two cars carrying al-Awlaki and some other al-Qaeda fighters in Shabwah province.
It is not clear yet whether the airstrike was by Yemeni air force or by US drone.

http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10021470.html
You can't make up this SH*T!!

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Dead Again: "U.S.-born cleric and al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi killed"
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2011, 06:37:47 am »


  So now the US Navy will take his body out to the Indian Ocean and "bury" him.  Chuckle, chuckle.

  Show us the body this time CIA.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline ScipioAfricanus

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
Re: Terror Boss Anwar al-Awlaki Killed
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2011, 06:53:17 am »
dead men tell no tales. the establishment knew that he was a weak link in their movement, since Alex Jones had jumped on Al Walaki dining at the pentagon.

Offline 2Revolutions

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,761
  • For we wrestle not with flesh and blood
Re: Dead Again: "U.S.-born cleric and al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Aulaqi killed"
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2011, 07:16:44 am »
Where is the photo op of our dear leaders watching the drone strike in real time?

Those who wish to remain ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, want what never was and what never will be.  - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Banker Bob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,244
  • ANKH is real
Re: Terror Boss Anwar al-Awlaki Killed
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2011, 07:52:22 am »
OK I have to admit it is not so obvious at first glance to the naked eye but let me point it out;

FOX: The government of the Republic of Yemen said Awlaki was targeted and killed about five miles from the town of Khashef in the Province of Jawf.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz1ZRCUwtxD

UK Telegraph: Yemeni security forces said they had conducted an operation to target Awlaki and his bodyguards in Marib province.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8798599/Radical-US-born-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki-killed.html

Local "Yemen Observer": "Al-Qaeda leader Awlaki killed in an air strike in south Yemen" Tribal sources said that Awlaki was killed along with other fighters in an airstrike targeted two cars carrying al-Awlaki and some other al-Qaeda fighters in Shabwah province.
http://www.yobserver.com/front-page/10021470.html

Anyone wanna take a bet? $1000 says that there is no body of him and any of his buddies. I say at best it was 2 villagers and a donkey.

You can't make up this SH*T!!

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Re: Al-CIA-Duh boogie Man Anwar al-Awlaki Killed... AGAIN!
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2011, 08:48:56 am »
How many lives does a supposedly dead corpse have?

FLASHBACK

Latest Al Qaeda Boogie Man Was “Killed” 11 Months Ago

http://www.prisonplanet.com/latest-al-qaeda-boogie-man-was-killed-11-months-ago.html



Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Nov 5th, 2010

Latest Al Qaeda Boogie Man Was Killed 11 Months Ago 261010top Anwar al-Awlaki, the Al-Qaeda leader who supposedly masterminded last month’s plane bomb plot is the latest terrorist boogie man to have risen from the grave to exact his revenge.

As reported by the London Guardian, Awlaki is considered the “prime suspect” in the cargo plane bomb plot. He was also fingered as the mastermind by BBC News, and the London Telegraph amongst others.

The man who allegedly made the ink toner cartridges that were later claimed to be deadly explosive devices, halted just minutes before reaping carnage, was Saudi Arabian-born Ibrahim Hassan Al Asiri. Al Asiri is “in regular contact in Yemen with radical cleric Anwar Awlaki,” reported the Daily Mail.

Within 48 hours, it was announced by the US intelligence backed SITE organisation that Awlaki had appeared in a new video posted on a “jihadist website,” in which he encouraged further attacks.

Like many supposed terrorist leaders before him however, Awlaki has previously been reported killed.

On December 24, 2009 several news outlets reported that Awlaki was believed to have been killed in a joint U.S-Yemeni pre-dawn air strike by Yemeni Air Force fighter jets on a meeting of 30 or so senior al-Qaeda leaders at a hideout in Rafd, a remote mountain valley in eastern Shabwa.

The Reuters news agency spoke to an unnamed Yemeni official at the time who said: “Anwar al Awlaki is suspected to be dead (in the air raid).”

Awlaki’s death was also reported by Fox News and Al Jazeera.

On December 28 The Washington Post reported that U.S. and Yemeni officials had confirmed that al-Awlaki was at the al-Qaeda meeting.

Then on December 29 it was reported by Newsweek that a Yemeni journalist called Abdul Elah Hider al-Shaya had been in contact with Awlaki after the air raid, and was claiming that he was still alive.

The report stated:

    There is no independent way to confirm Shaya’s account and U.S. intelligence officials are now ducking the question of whether they believe Awlaki is dead or alive. “His status is not entirely clear,” a U.S. intelligence official says.”

As we have previously reported, every significant Al Qaeda leader appears to have been killed or reported killed several times, indicating that these people are simply names, interchangeable at the whim of the Pentagon, US Intelligence and their corporate media mouthpieces.

The American-born cleric is perhaps the most complex of these characters.

As we reported last month, every indication points to Awlaki being a double agent working for US intelligence. He has been involved in almost every terror plot over the last couple of years, from directing the underwear bomber, who was allowed to board the plane by order of the US State Department aided by a well-dressed man who got Abdulmutallab on the airliner despite the fact that he was on a terror watchlist and had no passport, to advising Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Authorities have engaged in a cover-up of what happened at Fort Hood after they ordered Private Lance Aviles to delete cell phone footage of the attack.

Awlaki was also the spiritual leader of the alleged 9/11 hijackers, a fact that didn’t seem to concern Pentagon top brass who invited him to dine with them just months after the September 11 attacks despite the fact that he had personally colluded with the very hijackers who were alleged to have slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, and would undoubtedly have also picked up Awlaki.

As Webster Tarpley has documented, Awlaki is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”

Any Awlaki connection to the latest alleged bomb plot is therefore a huge smoking gun that the entire story, as every other piece of evidence also indicates, is a manufactured political ploy.

If indeed he is already dead, so much the better for the Pentagon who can continue to connect Awlaki to anything they see fit without reprisal.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Al-CIA-Duh boogie Man Anwar al-Awlaki Killed... AGAIN!
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2011, 09:37:32 am »
How many lives does a supposedly dead corpse have?


  As many as the CIA can get away with.  In this drug-crazed, sports-crazed, vampire-crazed nation, who is counting except for AJ and all of us?
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Anwar Awlaki killed
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2011, 10:29:20 am »
US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.

Unnamed US officials confirmed he had died in a US drone strike, but gave no further details.

Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.

The US named him a "global terrorist" and said he had played a "significant role" in plots to blow up US airliners and use poison to kill US citizens.

President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

Offline _CREATIONIST_

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,232
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
How many times has Anwar Al-Awlaki died?
« Reply #10 on: September 30, 2011, 06:23:49 pm »
I know he died back in 2009 and obviously just died yesterday. Was there any other times he also died? I couldnt find anthing.
" In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." - General Robert E. Lee

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
US (DRONES) attack in Yemen kills al-Awlaki
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2011, 06:37:13 pm »
Quote
After three weeks of tracking the targets, U.S. armed drones and fighter jets shadowed the al-Qaida convoy before armed drones launched their lethal strike early Friday. The strike killed four operatives in all, officials said. All U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.



http://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-us-attack-yemen-kills-al-awlaki-130835684.html
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Al-CIA-Duh boogie Man Anwar al-Awlaki Killed... AGAIN!
« Reply #12 on: October 01, 2011, 01:23:59 pm »
Terror mastermind and senior Al-Qaeda leader Pentagon distinguished guest and frequent lunch companion of US Secretary of the Army, Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed for the 20th time, a senior U.S. official propagandist confirms.

Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al-Awlaki linked to 9/11 hijackers
'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322397/Al-Qaedas-Anwar-Al-Awlaki-invited-Pentagon-lunch-9-11-attacks.html
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 2:03 AM on 22nd October 2010

An Al Qaeda leader who is one of the most wanted men in the world was invited for lunch at the Pentagon in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, a new report has claimed. New documents have been obtained which apparently detail how  Anwar Al-Awlaki, the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, rubbed shoulders with high-ranking military personnel just months after the atrocities. Fox News claim to have acquired documents that state that  Awlaki was taken to the U.S. Department of Defense's headquarters as part of the military's outreach program to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks. In an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November last year, a Defense Department employee told investigators that she helped to arrange the meeting with Awlaki after seeing him speak in Alexandria, Virgina. One of the documents read that the employee had 'attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorists attacks'. 'During his talk he was harassed by members of the audience and suffered it well,' the document continued. Other documents read: 'At that period in time, the secretary of the Army was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim'. American-born Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, 'was considered to be an up and coming member of the Islamic community'. 'After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel'. Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to the three hijackers. Nawaf al-Hazmi,Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour were all aboard Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. He was also linked to the alleged Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan who had emailed Awlaki before the attack. Awlaki, a former Muslim chaplain at George Washington University, is now believed to be hiding in Yemen. That is where he is said to have met with the Christmas Day bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab and became the go between the young Nigerian and the maker of the bombs that Abdulmutallab had planned to use. There appeared to have been a break in communication between the FBI and the Pentagon as it emerges that none of the Bureau's information abotu Awlaki was shared with the Department of Defense. Former Army Secretary Tommy White who led the troops in 2001 has said he doesn't recall having lunch or any contact with Awlaki. White said: 'If this was a luncheon at the Office of Government Counsel, I would not necessarily be there'. The Pentagon has yet to offer an explanation as to how one of the world's most wanted men with clear connections to other terrorists could have ended up at a lunch for Muslim reconciliation soon after the attacks. Army spokesman Thomas Collins said: 'The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report'. A former high-ranking FBI agent told Fox News that nine years ago when Alwaki went to the Pentagon lunch, there was tremendous 'arrogance' about the screening process and who they allowed in the building. 'They vetted people politically and showed indifference toward security and intelligence advice of other', the former agent claimed.


Ron Paul:
We've been neoconned

Speech at the house floor: July 10, 2003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4156174553630131591


The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.

Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who's really in charge? If the particular party in power makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?

Someone is responsible, and it's important that those of us who love liberty, and resent big-brother government, identify the philosophic supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they're wrong — and I believe they are — we need to show it, alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to government. However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American people really believe it's the government's responsibility to make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.

One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no longer matter.

The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down — even if we vote to lower them. They can't, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced — and they certainly should have been — but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or 'printing' new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the 'tax' is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs — they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a 'tax' burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.

Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.

Early in our history, the advocates of limited, constitutional government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was crucial, and a constitutional government must derive 'just powers from the consent of the governed.' It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups, with some protecting civil liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.

The philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.

Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and security.

That remnant — imperfect as it may have been — was heard from in the elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002 when professed limited-government proponents took over the administration, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored — except when they are used by the new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.

The remnant's instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives — especially with the great harm done by their support of the drug war. Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire, it's been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-11, the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in the promises of the politicians.

Now there's mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo. Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed.

Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43 trillion, while total net worth of U.S. households is just over $40 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter — and especially for expanding the American empire — must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world. Already we're entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan, with plans to soon add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when Syria, Iran and North Korea will be attacked.

How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven't the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

Will the euphoria of grand military victories — against non-enemies — ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!

We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences, and even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.

There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of the achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should concern us.

Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.

The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This process — where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy — is hardly the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life in Washington.

There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be na've for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures. There's no sign that these programs will be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won't be soon) or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire (which will probably come sooner than later).

None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans. The neoconservatives — a name they gave themselves — diligently worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.

Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of Teddy Roosevelt, and certainly Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot brags that what he advocates is 'hard Wilsonianism.' In many ways, there's nothing 'neo' about their views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-op the conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of conservatism.

More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal Christopher Hitchins has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. One of Strauss' books was Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan and William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others include: Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director James Woolsy; Bill Bennett of Book of Virtues fame; Frank Gaffney; Dick Cheney; and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon philosophy in some varying degree.

The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication Reflections of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.

More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means — that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
They express no opposition to the welfare state.
They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.
They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.
They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised.
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.
They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists).
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.
Various organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of its respectability.

It is no secret — especially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq — how they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf War — which still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. Early on, they urged war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton's personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasn't too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an 'American greatness' imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.

The money and views of Rupert Murdock also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powell's State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdock empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: 'Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.' This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in 'A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.' Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where we'll go next — Iran, Syria or North Korea?

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.

It was recognized that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama's 'end of history' declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will be spread throughout the world.

Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it. Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: 'Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.' Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: 'Creative destruction'both within our own society and abroad'(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.' Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: 'They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.'

If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: 'There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.' This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: 'It depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is.'

Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. 'A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.' To Ledeen, this meant: ''the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.' Yet it's obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There's a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for ''peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.' Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace — believing peace is not a benefit to mankind — is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man's condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there's no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: 'In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging'we are rotten,' argues Ledeen. 'It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.' In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: 'Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?'

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: 'lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.' What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it 'strategic deception' make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries — because that's the way it's always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains: 'Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.'

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man's disputes. How can one call this progress?

Machiavelli, Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It's been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God's approval. Our side refers to a 'crusade'; theirs to a 'holy Jihad.' Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.

Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: 'Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.' It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than eternal salvation of one's soul. Ledeen adds: 'Without fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws'to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.'

It's of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their support.

I'd like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a 'spectacular' state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the 'spectacular state.'

He explains in eerie terms: 'Dying for one's country doesn't come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.' This is an admonition that might just as well have been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at AEI, who greatly influence our foreign policy.

Neocons — anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle East — clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was sought by our leaders.

Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event (1999): ''of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.'

Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a 'lucky' event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise, foresaw the need for 'a Pearl Harbor event' that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential 'rival.'

Recognizing a 'need' for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being 'lucky' are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this nation find appalling, is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the attacks.

The fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S. interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for an American world hegemony.

The current attention given neocons usually comes in the context of foreign policy. But there's more to what's going on today than just the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in what I call 'neoconism.' The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven by old views brought together in a new package.

We know those who lead us — both in the administration and in Congress — show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform. There's no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.

There's no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and internationalism — in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereignty — are championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.

Instead of the 'end of history,' we are now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our nation's capital. While most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate. The so-called 'third way' has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.

Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the new approach called 'compassionate conservatism' has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons, but there's nothing conservative about expanding the federal government's role in welfare.


The supply-siders' policy of low marginal tax rates has been incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders' argument for a phony gold standard.

Is it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?

Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace. But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one. In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another — whether or not it is done with good intentions.

I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don't necessarily agree on all points — which means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders from AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate for — with amazing success I might point out — would be at our own peril. This country still allows open discourse — though less everyday — and we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every American. We should all be thankful for C-SPAN and the Internet.

Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war 'cowards and appeasers of tyrants.' Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's best 'traditions.' I wonder where he learned early American history! It's obvious that Ledeen doesn't consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.

If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.

The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the administration's proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that preemptive war — for almost any reason — is an acceptable policy for dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.

In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington — with loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by nation building — there are still quite a number of us who would relish the opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop doing a bad job.

We're at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across the country. I'm not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop! Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. We're all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and controlled by special-interest money.

One thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.

Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn't worked in Japan, and it isn't working here either. As a matter of fact, it's never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem — it's a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when both groups realize that it's not merely a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.

Once enough of us decide we've had enough of all these so-called good things that the government is always promising — or more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people — we can start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for today's problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is rejected.

Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many — both in and out of government — close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,085
Watch out Osama bin Laden were coming after you next.  No wait we already did. Didn't we?  Ah hell lets kill him again.
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
What happens when a CIA double agent get exposed? He is officially killed - Over and over again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KkLu1QVaZg

From The nightly news at prisonplanet.tv 30/9-2011
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341


  AJ called into his own show "from his road trip" on Friday and said they have killed him--Al-Awlaki-- 5 or 6 times already.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Anwar Awlaqi Most Likely Alive

Yemen Post Staff

More than 25 leaders from the Awaliq tribe, the tribe of Anwar Awlaqi, reached Jawf on Sunday to see the remains of the body of Anwar, however, no body resembling his was found.

Amongst those who went to the province was his father, a former minister and university dean.

Tribal leaders in Jawf told the family that Awlaqi was not killed in the attack.

Tribes in the province say there is no proof that Awlaqi was amongst the killed and DNA tests on the remains of the five killed can prove that.

An al-Qaeda senior leader also denied the claims that Awlaqi was killed and said that he will soon come out with a statement to prove that.

The Awaliq tribe has not officially announced the death of their fellow tribesman, Anwar.

Yemen and US announced that Awalqi was the prime target in the US drone attack last Friday.

http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=4148&MainCat=3
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Anwar Awlaqi Most Likely Alive

Yemen Post Staff

More than 25 leaders from the Awaliq tribe, the tribe of Anwar Awlaqi, reached Jawf on Sunday to see the remains of the body of Anwar, however, no body resembling his was found.

Amongst those who went to the province was his father, a former minister and university dean.

Tribal leaders in Jawf told the family that Awlaqi was not killed in the attack.

Tribes in the province say there is no proof that Awlaqi was amongst the killed and DNA tests on the remains of the five killed can prove that.

An al-Qaeda senior leader also denied the claims that Awlaqi was killed and said that he will soon come out with a statement to prove that.

The Awaliq tribe has not officially announced the death of their fellow tribesman, Anwar.

Yemen and US announced that Awalqi was the prime target in the US drone attack last Friday.

http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=4148&MainCat=3

  So AJ says he has been killed 5 or 6 times.  And now he may be still alive.  That means he gets to "die" a few more times.  HA HA

  The World of the CIA is becoming more and more like the movie GROUNDHOG DAY.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

worcesteradam

  • Guest
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 24-year-old alleged underwear bomber accused of trying to bring down an international jetliner, walked into the start of his federal trial Tuesday and declared that a radical Islamic cleric killed by the U.S. military is alive.

"Anwar is alive," Abdulmutallab said, referring to American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,206
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Alex is absolutely spot on when he compares the clueless majority of non-reading, TV-watching Americans to a mind-controlled "crack whore" who -- no matter how many times she's beaten and brutalized -- continues to grovel at the feet of her demonic "pimp," because the more the banker-owned political establishment blantatly lies to them, the more they thank for them for it, and the more indignant they become whenever someone tries to expose these lies for what they are.

----------------------------

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25244

American Politics: "Lie To Me"

by Joel S. Hirschhorn



Global Research
June 12, 2011

What is the main lesson from the recent fiascos of former Senator John Edwards and Representative Anthony Weiner?  If you follow the news shows you saw a number of video clips where each of them had lied many times about what eventually they confessed to, their stupid, sleazy sexual misconduct.  As I watched the videos I was amazed how good their lying behavior was, without any hint of their blatant dishonesty in how they looked or sounded.  Of course, I was also reminded how terrific a liar Bill Clinton was when he went on television to lie about his sexual misconduct.

As a fan of the TV show Lie To Me where the experts can detect minute physical signs of lying or micro-expressions, I felt that the politicians had developed the talent and skill to lie without giving any sign of it.

Here is what Americans should learn: All elected Democrats and Republicans have succeeded because they are excellent liars and, therefore, not one of them can ever be trusted to be telling the truth.

When you vote for any of these two-party politicians all you are saying is: LIE TO ME.

And when they get elected that is exactly what they will do, and not just about their personal behavior.  The larger lesson is that American politicians will also lie effortlessly about public policy and just about everything they have anything to do with.

Make no mistake, President Obama has lied about many things just as presidents before him also have.

Can you have an effective representative democracy when elected officials can never be trusted to tell the truth to citizens?   No.

Elected officials no longer feel they have a profound responsibility to tell the truth.  It appears to be behavior that has become automatic, not something they agonize over.  Lying has become normal behavior whether it is done in Internet communications, on TV, in speeches or during campaigning for office.  Lying may have become so commonplace that politicians no longer spend time justifying it to themselves or their closest staff or supporters.  Sure, when they get caught, they easily apologize and accept responsibility in some glib and usually tearful way.  But their moral decrepitude should not be forgiven.  Dishonest politicians are chronically ill, selfish, egoistic betrayers of public trust.  Severe punishment of them is necessary, starting with legally required removal from office and loss of all pension and health insurance benefits.

In the US political system public trust of elected officials is passé, or should be.

This is not a matter of cynicism; it is just prudent and logical to mistrust just about everything said by elected officials.  Of course, if you think that a particular politician lies supports your views, then it may not bother you, but it should.

Forget about the rationalization that politicians merely misspeak or that they are just fallible human beings like the rest of us.  My point is that an essential skill and regular behavior of politicians is lying without any hint of it.  The only thing that politicians now fear is losing control and inadvertently telling the truth!

Has it always been this way?  Have American politicians always been ubiquitous liars?  I don’t think so.  What was once aberrant behavior has become normal behavior.  It is yet another sign of just how much the US has sunk.  It is not just that the country is on the wrong track; it is off the track, falling into an abyss.

When it is rational to always be suspicious of everything politicians say, then why keep listening?  Why keep voting for them?

[Continued...]


http://www.naturalnews.com/032293_gullible_minds.html

The gullible mind explained

by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com
May 05, 2011

(NaturalNews) In light of the string of the blatant falsehoods being announced by the U.S. government these days (FDA, DHS, White House, etc.) it's interesting that so many people still believe whatever they are told by "official" sources. It brings up the question of the functioning of their brains: How could a person swallow official information so gullibly and so completely without even asking commonsense questions about the reliability or factual basis of that information?

These people, it turns out, are operating from what I called The Gullible Mind. It is a psychological processing malfunction that filters out information based on its source rather than its integrity. People who operate from The Gullible Mind tend to have misplaced trust in governments, institutions, mainstream news networks, doctors, scientists or anyone who wears the garb of apparent authority.

Whereas a normal, intelligent person would raise commonsense questions about information they receive from all sources, the Gullible Mind wholly accepts virtually any information from sources that occupy the role of apparent authority in society.

Governments never lie

But how does this work inside their heads? It's an interesting process. Gullible Mind people do believe it is possible for a government (or institution) to lie; but they believe that governments, institutions and doctors choose NOT to lie even when it would serve their own self interests to do so.

Follow this carefully, because this is the fascinating part. These Gullible Mind people effectively believe that even though a government official could lie about something, they would never actually do so. And why wouldn't they? Because, ultimately, the Gullible Mind crowd believes that governments, institutions and mainstream media outlets operate from a sort of honor code. So even if it were in the interests of our own government to lie to us, it would never happen because that would violate this imaginary honor code.

Where does this honor code exist? Where is it written down? Nowhere, of course. It is imaginary. But to The Gullible Mind, it seems real. Interestingly, even though this "honor code" only exists in the imagination of The Gullible Mind person, they project this honor code onto sources of authority, imagining that they abide by it.

Extreme gullibility

This is how The Gullible Mind person believes that network news always reports the truth. The news networks have a sense of "honor," they believe, and this sense of honor requires them to always report the truth and never manipulate the news for any nefarious purposes. So news networks never "shape" the news and they only report what is factually true without any consideration whatsoever of politics or advertiser profits.

This view of the world is, of course, laughably naive. And yet it is the core belief system of at least half the population -- the Gullible Mind half that believes everything it is told by its own government, media or authority figures.

Interestingly, the Gullible Mind is also inwardly gullible because it does not recognize its own gullibility. Instead, it believes it is operating as a Rational Mind. This false Rational Mind believes it functions as a critical filter of incoming information, but even this is self deception. In truth, this false Rational Mind is on "auto filter" so that it filters out any information that conflicts with the information it is receiving from official sources.

This is the key to understanding the Gullible Mind -- it isn't the quality of the information itself that matters; it is the confirmation of the story from official sources that "makes it real" in the Gullible Mind.

[Continued...]

----------------------------
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0