Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Saturday, November 28, 2009

The Empire of Fakes : How to make a mayor ( New York) in the Zionist US ! (just need a 100 millions of bucks !)

from : signs of the times (int.)

New York: Mayor Bloomberg Spent Over $100 Million for Re-Election

© Shaun Best/Reuters

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks to supporters after his election win in New York, November 3, 2009.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg's narrower-than-expected reelection campaign cost the billionaire some $102 million, or about $183 per vote, The New York Times reported on Friday evening, making him the top-spending self-financed politician in U.S. history.

Data on the mayoral election released on Friday found Bloomberg's run for a third term in office, which required special legislation overturning a city law that held the mayor to a maximum of two terms, was the most expensive campaign in municipal history, the Times said.

Bloomberg, the richest man in a city with no shortage of millionaires, surpassed past campaign expenditures of $85 million in 2005 and $74 million in 2001, the report said.

The spending continued until the election's final hours, as Bloomberg's campaign placed prerecorded calls shortly before polls closed in which the mayor implored voters to go out and vote for him.

Bloomberg defeated city comptroller William Thompson by fewer than five percentage points, a margin far smaller than polls had predicted, after he pressed the City Council to change the city's voter-approved term-limits law last year to allow him to run for a third term.

the logic of truth comment :

remember we are talking about the USA ,the most powerful and democratic nation on this planet !


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Bush bribed reporters to ask specific questions

from : http://www.sheilacasey.com

Bush The Wall Street Journal editorialized today about the revelation that Obama was looking for specific reporters to call on in the White House press corps:

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?". . . .

The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out. . . .

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.

Former President Bush not only pre-screened his questioners, at least one of them was offered a ride on Air Force One if he asked the question the White House wanted asked.

Although this story was related to me in 2006, I have held back on revealing it, as my friend Dermot Bennett was still a working journalist at the time. Now, sadly, Dermot is too sick to work and not expected to recover. His career will not be harmed by this revelation.

Dermot was a correspondent with Agence France Press. He related this story to me (rough paraphrase):

I was sitting in the back of the White House briefing room when Tony Snow approached and asked me "How would you like to ride on Air Force One?" I said "love to," and Tony said "Okay, when the President calls on you, please ask this question."

And he told me what they wanted asked.


I put my hand up and Bush called on me by first name "Dermot." I asked exactly the question they gave me and later was told who to contact to arrange for a trip on Air Force One.

Dermot then asked me (Sheila): "So, you want to go on a ride with me on Air Force One?"

I hate Bush and didn't want to be near him, so declined.

Yet more evidence--as if we need it--that our press is utterly corrupt. The goings on in the White House briefing room amount to little more than mutual masturbation.

Obama now appears to be equally afraid of unscripted questions. New boss, same as the old boss.



The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Obama adviser (Van Jones) quits over past 9/11 remarks

from : presstv.ir ( Iran )

Font size :

Van Jones resigned amid controversy over past inflammatory statements.


US President Barack Obama's adviser has stepped down after his past remarks about a government role in the 2001 terror attacks sparked controversy.

The White House said early on Sunday that Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned Saturday.

"I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality," Jones said in a statement.

Nancy Sutley, chair of the council, said that she accepts Jones resignation and thanked him for his service.

Jones has come under fire in recent days following revelations that he had signed a petition, which claims Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and he once had called Republicans "assholes."

Earlier, Jones said he was "clearly inappropriate" in using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the Obama administration.

The resignation comes after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said earlier that Jones "continues to work in the administration." Jones issued an apology on Thursday for his past statements.

However, his apologies did not stop Republicans' calls for Obama's green jobs adviser resignation.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana called for Jones to quit, saying in a statement, "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Missouri Sen. Christopher Bonds urged Congress to investigate Jones's fitness for his White House position.


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Monday, August 24, 2009

FBI Operative Turner Said Cynthia McKinney Should be Lynched

from : alex jones' infowars ( US )

Cynthia McKinney
Pravda
August 24, 2009

I am in the Bay Area and rocking with the San Francisco Bay View newspaper. But something quite insidious is happening and I think you should know immediately how it involves my friends and me.

Hot on the heels of my learning that the Georgia Green Party might have been described by the U.S. Government as a “terrorist organiztion,” it has just now come to my attention that a “journalist” who suggested that I be lynched was actually being paid by our own government to say that. Now, when I reported it to the FBI, how in the world was I to know that he was at that time on the FBI’s payroll? Interesting that charges stem from his comments against Connecticut lawmakers and Illinois judges, but not from the threat made against me, a sitting Member of Congress at the time! I wonder why. To whom can I or any other innocent citizen turn when the government, itself, is the instigator?

John Judge, my Congressional staffer, is the one who reported the threat. Here is what John just wrote, along with the article that reports that Turner was on the FBI payroll at the time the threat was made against me, according to Turner’s attorney. See the green highlights below:

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods
John Judge wrote:

This is the guy who announced a program topic suggesting that Cynthia McKinney be lynched on her way to the polls to vote in 2006 and published her campaign office address on the website. He asked how she would look swinging at the end of a rope and what message it would send to other “uppity” Blacks. I called NJ Homeland Security and FBI at the time sincee related to it as a death threat. The FBI agent I spoke to said “We know all about Mr. Turner”. Looks like they did. Now they say he was trained as an agent provocateur by the FBI to get others to participate in illegal acts. As Jim Garrison says in the movie JFK after interviewing Clay Shaw, “I think we got one”.

Here is an excerpt _ JJ

“Prosecutors have acknowledged that Turner was an informant who spied on radical right-wing organizations, but the defense has said Turner was not working for the FBI when he allegedly made threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.

“*But if you compare anything that he did say when he was operating, there was no difference. No difference whatsoever,*” Orozco said.”

Harold Charles “Hal” Turner is an American white nationalist and white supremacist from North Bergen, New Jersey. He was arrested in June 2009 over alleged threats to politicians, and is currently jailed without bail. Prior to Turner’s arrest his program, The Hal Turner Show, was a webcast from his home once a week, and it depended on listener donations.

Turner promotes antisemitism (including the rounding up and killing of Jews, he opposes the existence of the state of Israel and he denies the Holocaust.

According to the AP Hal Turner has exposed through his attorney that he worked for the FBI from 2002 to 2007 as an “agent provocateur” and “his job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest”



The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Monday, August 10, 2009

How Barack Obama Got Ben Stein Fired from the Times

from : www.gawker.com/



Do you buy the cover story about the New York Times firing heroic famous person Ben Stein over a "conflict of interest?" You are so naive. This was a preemptive hit, to protect Barack Obama, our dictator.

Stein detailed on his American Spectator diary how he used to be allowed to do whatever he wanted at the Times, even making a TV ad for Comcast and releasing a nutty creationist documentary. Then he questioned the legality of Obama firing a bailed-out CEO; suddenly Stein's copy got spiked. He criticized Obama's lack of focus; then immediately got fired over the supposed "conflict" over his latest batch of ads.

You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.

Read between the lines. Sure, Stein's latest TV spots were a much bigger conflict of interest than his prior ads; as Reuters' Felix Salmon writes, "Stein provides financial advice in his column, and he provides financial advice in the ad." And it's true the credit-report company he endorsed was a bait-and-switch operation from a deceptive corporation. But, bottom line, Stein spoke truth to power and was brought down by "the haters and the weak-willed."

This persecution is why Stein is entitled to call himself a "poor... servant" and argue that he's under seige by "the atheists and neo-Darwinists" and by "the real power in this country," Goldman Sachs. Despite all this, he manages to maintain homes in both Beverly Hills and Malibu. And if you want to know his secret, tough luck, because someone just canceled his finance column.



The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Friday, July 24, 2009

The New Mr. America: Bankrupt, Diseased and Running Out of Options

from : signs of the times (int.)

Mike Adams
Natural News
Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:27 UTC

cartoon on new Mr. America debt, disease, war
With a military rifle in one hand and a bottle of prescription medications in the other, the new "Mr. America" is over-fed, under-nourished, over-medicated, over-spent and "over there" (waging war in the Middle East). And soon, with Obama's new disease care reform proposals, America will find itself destitute and diseased, unable to climb out of the medication dependence pit it has dug for itself.

To understand why this is true from a financial point of view, take a look at these numbers:

If you read the actual federal budget for 2009, it's an astonishing $3.1 trillion. The size of the number itself is mind-boggling, but it's even more disturbing when you realize just how much of the federal budget is spent on these three things:

WAR
DISEASE
DEBT


In fact, let me ask you this question right now: What percentage of the federal budget do you think is spent on these three things? War, Disease and Debt.

Is it 10 percent? Twenty-five percent? Fifty percent?

Keep going...

Of course, if you actually work in Washington, you won't even describe these as "War, Disease and Debt." Instead, you call them:

DEFENSE
HEALTH
THE ECONOMY


It all sounds much nicer when phrased that way. But these terms are intentionally deceptive. We're not really "defending" our way into Iraq, Afghanistan and seventy-five other countries where we have a military presence. Spending on "health care" doesn't have anything to do with health (it's all about disease). And people who say spending more debt money to "help the economy" are mathematical retards. You can't get yourself out of debt by spending more money (even though V.P. Joe Biden insists you can...).

So are you ready for the actual number?

It's an eye-opener. The actual percentage of the U.S. federal budget spent on WAR, DISEASE and DEBT is 87 percent.

Here's how it breaks down according to publicly-available numbers: source

Total U.S. Federal Budget for 2009: $3.1 trillion

1) WAR: Department of Defense ($515.4 billion) + War on Terror ($145.2 billion) + Dept. of Veterans Affairs ($44.8 billion) + Dept. of Homeland Security ($37.6 billion) = $743 billion

2) DISEASE: Medicare ($408 billion) + Medicaid ($224 billion) + Dept. of Health and Human Services ($70 billion) = $702 billion

3) DEBT: Debt to the people: Social Security ($644 billion), Social Security Administration ($8.4 billion), Welfare ($360 billion) and Interest on National Debt ($260 billion) = $1,272 billion


The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.

Friday, June 26, 2009

White House drafts executive order to allow indefinite detentions

from : www.rawstory.com

By ProPublica

Published: June 26, 2009
Updated 2 hours ago




By Dafna Linzer and Peter Finn

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president’s January deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner “consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”

One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.

“Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone,” the president said.

Some of Obama’s top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a “national security court” to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama’s own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention.

Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either in federal court or military commissions. In many cases the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services, or has been tainted by the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.

Three months into the Justice Department’s reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released.

The White House has spent months meeting with key congressional leaders in the hopes of reaching agreement on long-term detention, even as public support for such a plan has wavered as lawmakers have sought to prevent detainees from being transferred to their constituencies.

Lawyers for the administration are now in negotiations with Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) over separate legislation that would revamp military commissions. A senior Republican staff member said that senators have yet to see “a comprehensive, detailed policy” on long-term detention from the administration.

“They can do it without congressional backing, but I think there would be very strong concerns,” the staff member said, adding that “Congress could cut off funding” for any detention system established in the United States.

Concerns are growing among Obama’s advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. This week Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

“Legislation could kill Obama’s plans,” said one government official involved. The official said an executive order could be the best option for the president at this juncture. Under one White House draft that was being discussed earlier this month, according to administration officials, detainees would be imprisoned at a military facility on U.S. soil but their ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review. U.S. citizens would not be held in the system.

Such detainees — those at Guantanamo and those who may be captured in the future — would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge.

Officials argue that the plan would give detainees more rights and allow them a better chance to one day end their indefinite incarceration than they have now at Guantanamo.

But some senior Democrats see longterm detention as tantamount to reestablishing the Guantanamo system on U.S. soil. “I think this could be a very big mistake, because of how such a system could be perceived throughout the world,” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told Holder.

One administration official said future transfers to the United States for long-term detention would be rare. Al-Qaeda operatives captured on the battlefield, which the official defined as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa, would be held in battlefield facilities. Suspects captured elsewhere in the world could be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution, turned over to local authorities or returned to their home countries.

“Going forward, unless it’s an extraordinary case, you will not see new transfers to the U.S. for indefinite detention,” the official said.

Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush’s detention policies suffered successive defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

“There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order, and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so,” said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush’s first term. But Waxman, who waged a battle inside the Bush administration for more congressional cooperation, said the “courts are more likely to defer to the president and legislative branch when they speak with one voice on these issues.”

Walid bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash’s case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

“These issues haven’t morphed simply because the administration changed,” said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal questions of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn’t create security loopholes that cause Congress to worry,” Zarate said.

ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Its content is in the public domain.



The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.

.