"Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy, I’m not going to be sending some young man or woman over there – beyond what we already have." Barack Obama September 20th 2009
This comment is a ruse. It is intended to convey the attitude of Barack Obama as someone who is reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan. It is part of a play. Another part of the play are leaks that Stanley McChrystal is in some way the antagonist in the drama, calling for more troops. When we recieve government supplied information or "leaks" from unnamed government sources about the in house dynamics of our government, the infighting that is said to occur, we must be at least sketptical. Almost all information about the government comes from the government, through, not from "independent sources".
I believe Obama will call for more troops in Afghanistan and an general increase in military activity, bombing and troops thoughout the world and most immediately in Pakistan. General McChrystal has allegedly asked for 40.000 according to "confidential" documents leaked to the press. Perhaps Obama will give him 20,000 since that is the amount of troops he is REALLY asking for or that they have agreed upon in advance.
In order to make this troop increase palatable, Obama must look reluctant to sending them. That will keep the "left" confused and unable to mount a response and the troop increase satisfies the right.
Obama always sides with whoever he perceives as being the strongest. The military is always seen as a source of strength and he will always side with them. The military and it's advisors will always be percieved by Obama as stronger than civilian interests.
Obama may turn out to be the most militant of presidents. I believe he will be using the military everywhere. He is sending troops to Columbia who will fight, according to the Ambassador of Columbia, William Brownfield, in the jungles and cities of Columbia against FARC. The real reason for U.S. troops being sent to Columbia is to fight Venezuela or at least to bring about, or be prepared for that eventuality.
Recently Obama has decided not to install defensive missiles in Europe and this pleases the Russians. The reason for this action is to make way most probably for a military blockade of Iran and or bombing of Iran.
Additionally one might ask why are so many people suddenly being arrested for terrorism?
The reason is simple.
It's a set up.
The U.S. population is being prepared psychologically for a major troop increases by Obama in Afghanistan. This is the same pattern that Bush used. The idea is to create fear, uncertainty among the people. In a climate of fear, things like troop increases and general military action become acceptable
It's time to start recognizing the patterns. These patterns have occurred countless times in the Bush administration. Homeland security alert levels always preceded an increase in troops or some military or even domestic action or congressional vote.
America is being set up. The emotions of the American people are being played with. Americans are being made to feel fear. The controlling interests of this nation see the population as objects to be manipulated. This is occurring in governments all over the world. It's the political style or the ruling classes as they concentrate wealth and power to an almost exclusive level. The fear that people experience is in fact secretly relieved when Obama announces a major troop increase.
Whether someone is Liberal or Conservative they may be, most likely relieved to find the troops are going to Afghanistan to protect them. We become only dimly aware the relief and do not associate the introduction of fear with the relief of "troops being sent to "protect" America".
And so there is no protest.
Additionally we find "terrorists" are being arrested with little evidence or through a dubious entrapment and charged with terrorism. This illustrates the idea of the previous administration that new attacks are imminent. There have however, been NO Attacks. The only people involved in any attacks are individuals supplied with money and weapons under the supervision of the government who then arrest these people under an entrapment scheme.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Does this man look like the Anti-Christ to you?
I'm almost postive that Obama is not the Anti-Christ.
A lot of speculation (even among liberals) about Obama being the Anti-Christ is now floating around in the media. I've done an brutal, merciless, exhaustive and thorough investigation. I would like to put an end to this speculation.
Many people, especially on the right, are using biblical references and the works of Nostradamus to butress their view of Obama as the Anti-Christ. As a geniune, authentic journalist, I find this a totally subjective view not based on facts. We authentic journalists look for facts, not specualtion to report. The attacks on Obama are merely smears used to fit their bitter prejudices and bigotry.
Although it is true Nostradamus had visions of the Anti-Christ as a man in his 40’s of Muslim descent, and Obama meets that description. This is not proof.
Nostradamus saw the Anti Christ as a charasmatic, man with a broad smile who people would be attracted to. The masses would flock to this man, "Mabus" and he would promise them false HOPE and CHANGE. He would promise the masses Peace before he gained power. After achieving power, The Anti Christ would destroy everything.
I have to ask: Has Barak Obama destroyed everything?
Maintaining the troop levels in Iraq and increasing the troop levels in Afghanistan, bombing Pakistan, threatening to Bomb Iran, sending troops to Columbia, bailing out wall street financial firms with public wealth is not exactly destroying the world, now is it?
Nostradamus said the name of the Anti-Christ would be Mabus. Well Obama's name isn't Mabus. It's Obama. Though it is true that if you combine the names of Bush and Obama you get ObaMABUSh. And Mabus is right there in the middle indicating that both men are in fact part of the same Anti-Christ. Well that's ridiculous!
On my website I put an end to the idea that Bush was the Anti-Christ long ago.
Some complain that Obama has only been in office for 8 months and that’s not enough time to destroy everything.
Obama is the world’s most powerful man. Everyone agrees with that. As the world’s most powerful man he could certainly destroy the world easily enough by pressing a little red button. He hasn’t done that. Not yet. That doesn’t sound like the Anti-Christ to me.
Neither is keeping Guantanamo in limbo and open, and denying “detainees” who have been kidnapped and tortured the right to trial, or continuing the policy of rendition (kidnapping of suspects) refusing to investigate war crimes and the reasons for entry on false "information" into Iraq or lies that the Bush administration may have told. It just doesn't reach the Anti-Christ level.
Although the bible in Aramaic does use the word Baraq (lightening) to describe the Anti-Christ falling like lightening from the heavens this is clearly a coincidence.
The fact that the word “Bam Maw” in the bible refers to a high place in the clouds is used by some on the right to further justify the idea that Obama is the Anti Christ. This should not be used by those on the left who are dissatisfied with his policies to further promote the idea that Obama is the Anti-Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Luke 10:18 Jesus, who is the Son of God, and ought to know, therefore, what he’s talking about, said:
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightening (Bam Waw) falling from the heavens.
Well, some of our friends on the right are trying to use that to suggest that Barack O Bama is not only the Anti- Christ but Satan too! I suppose you could make the case that Sham Wow means Devil in Aramaic and that Vince Shlomi is the Anti Christ.
Aramaic was the language Jesus spoke (Jesus was illiterate and didn’t know how to read or write or much less speak Greek like Paul) and according to the bible, which is like, the bible? Ok?, Jesus said that the name of Satan was “Barak O Bamwaw”. Obama and O Bamwaw are two different names.
I will grant that there may be a slight similairity between the names Barak Obama and Barak O Bamwaw, but similarities exist everywhere. This is not proof. Authentic journalists like myself do not use similitude, we use facts.
Acording to Gore Vidal in his book "Live from Golgotha", Paul was the first gay man to truly love Jesus. He and his partner Timothy were bi-lingual and spread the word of Jesus as they pranced around all throughout the Mediterranean gaining donations from wealthy widows.
According to A.N. Wilson in his book, "Paul a Life", Paul never met Jesus except when he had a vision of Jesus as a Bush. Now that’s something to think about!
Jesus couldn’t read or write. Now how could an illiterate person like Jesus know that one day Barak Obama would become president of the United States and destroy the world?
You see how ridiculous this is? How mixed up people can get?
Getting back to Earth, we find that Obama is shielding CIA agents who tortured people, but he is not shielding CIA agents who went outside the limits of torture that Bush intended for torture. That doesn’t sound like what the Anti Christ would do, now does it?
Even more ridiculous is the following:
One of the winning lottery numbers in the president-elect's home state was 666— which, as everyone knows, is the sign of the Beast (also known as the Antichrist). "It is very eerie, and I take it for a sign as to who he really is," wrote one of Strandberg's correspondents.
How someone can assume that this makes Barak Obama the Anti-Christ is beyond me. As far as I know there is no 666 imprinted on his head. His hair is fashionably short enough and if it were there, it would certainly been identified by one his Illinois barbers. And just because Illinois is rife with corruption with 3 governors in the last few years being sent to prison and a 4th, Rod Blagojevich being indicted, that doesn’t mean that the Anti Christ will come from Illinois. Or that a barber from illinois would be corrupt and hide the information.
Nowhere in the bible is the state of Illinois mentioned. Not once.
Sun-Times, which reported that at least 79 current or former Illinois, Chicago or Cook County elected officials had been found guilty of a crime by judges, juries or their own pleas since 1972. The paper provided this tally of the tarnished: three governors, two other state officials, 15 state legislators, two congressmen, one mayor, three other city officials, 27 aldermen, 19 Cook County judges and seven other Cook County officials.
Barak Obama has only been accused of criminal activity, as in the purchase of his house with help from his friend Tony Rezko (currently incarcerated for real estate fraud, bribery) who purchased a adjacent lot on part of the land on which Obama's house was placed. Rezko purchased the land for more than the asking price on the same day Barak purchased his house from the same seller for less than the asking price. You can read the details here.
Tony Rezko is the one who is in prison, not Barack Obama.
Well, I’m out of time. I just think it’s ridiculous to imagine that Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the Earth. It’s obvious that his heart is in the right place.
I think we should all just kick back and relax and let some of the experts that Obama has working for him sort out the mess that Bush left him in this incredibly complex world where there are only shades of grey.
Who better to sort out this mess but the entire Bush Pentagon, which Obama has cleverly kept on?
Recently Glen Beck has attacked several Obama appointees and they have resigned without protest from Obama. I don’t think the Anti-Christ would be afraid of Glen Beck.
(I know many of you will join me in this spirited debate about the true nature of Obama. I look forward to your comments, suggestions and criticisms. But I warn you. I have the facts on my side).
Posted by Stu Piddy at 7:25 AM
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Albert M. Giordano shown with a monkey on his back.
In an E-mail addressed to me, Albert Giordano of Narco News, stated the reason I was "banned" from posting comments on Narco News, his website, was among other things making libelous comments about Markos Moulitsas and predicting that the coup in Honduras would not be declared a coup officially by the United States. An official declaration of a coup cuts of almost all aid to any nation the United States gives aid to.
I wrote to Narco News predicting that unnamed officials who were reporting that the U.S. State Department were about to cut off funds were either trying to keep those opposed to the coup off balance, or, a single member of the State Department was trying to pressure Hilliary Clinton into declaring it a coup. In any case I assured Al Giordano that the U.S would not ever declare this an offical coup, that Manuel Zelaya would not return before the elections, that elections would be held and the U.S would support their hand picked sucessor to Zelaya.
How do I know all this? I read it in the news. It's called historical precedent. It's a pattern of U.S. activity all over the world. Currenly they want Karzai out. So you are hearing about fraudulent elections. The news all comes from the government and it's intention is to confuse (keep you off balance) or manipulate the emotional sensibilities of whoever is listening.
You would think Giordano would be at least a little bit skeptical, instead of blindly following the bait set for him by "unnamed sources" as if they were the word of God.
Giordano who was reporting from Honduras, claimed wrongly that it had been declared a coup officially by the United States.
Today Narco News has a column by Bill Conroy asking why the coup has not been declared officially by the United States, as a coup.
If the head of Narco News doesn't understand that the United States has not declared officially that there was a coup in Honduras, while he (Al Giordano) is in Honduras reporting on the events there, why is Al Giordano even writing for Narco News? Why is he teaching "journalism". Why is he asking people to pay money to attend his "journalism school" in Mexico. And why is he soliciting donations for Narco News?
He doesn't seem to know what's going on.
Narco News purports to report on the Drug war and Democracy in all of America. Bill Conroy among others are reporters there who appear to me to be serious people.
Albert M. Giordano appears to me to be a person with a monkey on his back. He appears (to what I imagine are my perceptive eyes) to be a substance abuser of some kind, a bit of a low life con man (nothing serious) and I'll bet his fellow writers think of him as somewhat of a "little Hitler".
He seems to generate income from a set up called the "The Fund for Authentic Journalism". He asks for contributions to keep Narco News running. Narco News often has very serious articles that are informative and sometimes, in my opinion they are disinformational.
I imagine Albert M. Giordano to be a person who spends a lot of time doing his authentic research in journalism in bars in Latin American countries talking to people he imagines are intellectual. These conversations with authors and University graduates leave him with the erroneous feeling that he is somehow validated in what he imagines he is doing. And he leaves there believing he must "know something for sure, now."
But that's just my imagination.
Mr. Giordano was born in the Bronx. But it doesn’t appear he grew up there. He went to High School in Mamaroneck New York. Mamaroneck is about 90 Percent white and parts of it are very wealthy. Currently Tim Geithner’s daughter is president of the high school student body there.
Is it just a coincidence that Markos Moulitsas also claimed to have “come to this country in 1980”, when in fact he had always been an American citizen having been born in the Chicago area? Or is this the typical pattern of rich kids who never really worked as laborers claiming humble beginnings?
Well, maybe it's just my imagination. And my imagination is not factually based.
Al Giordano stated a host of observably factually inaccurate comments on Honduras and on Marcos Moulitsas.
Albert M. Giordano has declared Marcos Moulitsas the "Saul Alinsky of our Time" or some such thing.
And here he touts Markos Moulitsas Book
And once again he touts Daily Kos
Apparently Narco News sees Daily Kos as a source of revenue with it's broad audience of potential donors.
One of his factually inaccurate comments was that Marcos Moulitsas applied to the CIA years before he started Daily Kos. This is contradicted by Markos Moulitsas who is recorded as saying that he talked to the CIA about his website and that he decided in 2003 not to join the CIA, but instead join the Dean campaign. His website began prior to 2003.
But more importantly he ridiculed my statement that the United States would never declare a coup in Honduras or stop the flow of money or so called "aid".
My reason for stating the U.S. would never declare a coup is that I believe the United States supports and was involved in the coup itself while claiming not to have been.
Today of course, Bill Conroy of Narco News reported on his investigation as to whether Honduras was still receiving aid and questioned why the overthrow of the Honduran government had still, not been declared officially, a coup by the United States.
I can only wonder what Albert M. Giordano is thinking after he stated that the U.S. had decided to declare the overthrow a coup and that all aid had been stopped as of August 28th, the day that Al Giordano mistakenly claimed was the day the U.S. declared the Honduras coup, offically a coup and stopped all aid.
Doesn't make any sense.
Narco News highlights the activities of the CIA in Latin America. You have to wonder why such a close connection with Daily Kos and it's CIA connected leader Markos Moulitsas. Now I'm not implying that Moulitsas is a CIA plant. I don't think he is. But I would not be surprised if he has, after applying to the CIA, cooperated with them on any number of requests. And how bizzarre is it that Al Giordano would trumpet this CIA influenced person, Markos Moulitsas from a website that is filled with reports of CIA past activities in Latin America?
Here is the full text of his email to me sent on August 28th when he claimed on that day the U.S declared officially declared the in Honduras official and cut off aid. . This was a response to my email to sent to Bill Conroy, to Bill Conroy's email address.
"Comments that are defamatory and libelous don't get approved, as is clearly disclosed above the comment submission box. Your malicious claims of Markos Moulitsas being "deeply involved with the CIA while running Daily Kos" - based only on his own admission that in the years before launching that web site he considered working for the agency - make you a kook and sleaze ball of the first order.
I also laughed out loud at your self-aggrandizing claim of having been right about how the Honduras situation played out "because (sic) it will never be declared a coup" on the very day that Washington decided to legally declare it a military coup, as widely revealed yesterday. You may wish to better inform yourself so you don't continue to embarrass yourself so much in the future:
You have zero grasp of the facts in Honduras (I'm typing from there right now - we do real reporting so we don't have to invent fictions) so you just make them up to fit your bitter prejudices and bigotries. While you may yet learn how to write a comment worthy of submission to our fact-based newspaper, here's a clue: malicious untruths don't get past the goalie here. Sell your COINTELPRO style sleaze to someone else. It's people like you that do the work of the CIA unwittingly by spreading untrue smears about others. You can take your false claims and shove them where the sun don't shine."
---So today Narco News prints a report saying that Honduras is still receiving aide by a real reporter, Bill Conroy who I have been unable to contact because Albert M Giordano intercepts all Emails to Bill Conroy and edits them. Preventing him from communicating with people like myself who apparently DO understand something about the situation in Honduras from the American side.
Here's my email to Bill Conroy, which was apparently intercepted and never seen by Bill Conroy.
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 10:28 am
I think Iv¹e been banned from writing comments. I just wrote one and it keeps coming back ...comment field required. I don¹t care.... I "m not a fan of Al Giordano...not when he supports Obama and Markos Moulitsas....
I predicted accurately all the events that have transpired since the coup.
Here¹s the comment rewritten ...I don¹t have time to do a better job.
I tried to explain to Giordano that when he said the U.S. Stopped
aid...that that was a ruse. The aide will never stop because it will never be declared a coup because the U.S. initiated the coup with elements in Honduras who wanted it as well.. This is not complex stuff...it¹s a simple pattern....it¹s been done before...if you can¹t recognize patterns...you shouldn¹t be an
Investigator...that¹s what I¹ve said to Giordano...oh well.
I just wrote a comment and accidentally erased it...sorry I don't have time to rewrite it.... Why won't Al Giordano condemn the Obama administration for it's involvement in the overthrow. Why does he blame Hilleary alone?
Why does he support Markos Moulitsas who has been deeply involved with the CIA while running Daily Kos....those are Moulitsas words.
(Bill Conroy...you ought to investigate Markos Moulitsas ...I think it would be far more revealing that just an uncovering of CIA involvement in Blogdom)
Giordano in another e-mail says
"you're such a fuck-up that you sabotage everything you claim to be for. Now, go back to whatever human garbage dump you slithered out of andgive your attention to someone who wants it. You will not get any more response from me. Your attention is unwanted here."
I'm not a journalist, I don't want to be a journalist. I don't want to spend that kind of time on blogs pretending to be one and editing everything to perfection. I'm not interested that much in spelling. That's what most journalists like Al Giordano know how to do.
It ends there.
Posted by Stu Piddy at 9:40 PM
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
The United States has decided to send U.S. Troops and contractors to 7 military bases in Columbia to fight FARC and other groups.
Venezuelan Ambassador to OAS Roy Matos: “Wherever bases have been established, or were established, that belong to the powerhouse of the world, the military powerhouse, the economic one, the cultural one, etc., etc., the winds that have followed by the winds of war. In Vietnam, they began with a few little bases and small groups of advisers. That’s how they are going to begin now with these seven bases.”
From El Tiempo
"Si me preguntas si las misiones que van a aprovecharse de este acuerdo en el futuro van a incorporar a las Farc en su zonas de blanco, la respuesta es sí, sin duda alguna."
Ambassador to Columbia, William Brownfield (a Bush Appointee from Texas seen here with a very revealing steeley eyed grin) answers questions in an interview with Columbia's El Tiempo regarding combined U.S. Columbian military missions against "drug trafficking ". The question presented is will American troops actually be involved in fighting (and presumably being killed ) on Columbian soil...
The literal translation of the above quote from El Tiempo is the following:
"If you are asking me if the (combined U.S./Columbian) missions they are going to approve of in the agreement (between the U.S. and Columbia) are going to incorporate FARC as target, my answer is yes, without a any doubt."
That means, that without any doubt U.S. troops will be fighting in the jungles, cities and mountains of Columbia. Just as they are doing all over the Mid East with their Columbian partners. Just as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan with their Afghan and Iraqi partners. U.S. soldiers will be killed and injured fighting people whose ideology is in opposition to American ideas under the rubric of terror and drugs.
FARC is a revolutionary group with a communist ideology. They actually control large regions of Columbia and are a provider of social services in those areas. There is no mention of the other groups in Columbia which are involved in drug trafficking that the U.S will be fighting.
FARC may very well become the designated Al Queda of the North American continent. Perhaps even designated more dangerous as their access to the United States will be much easier.
This is a description from the Council of Foreign Relations.
Colombia, one of the closest U.S. allies in Latin America, has been ravaged for decades by a civil war pitting left-wing guerrilla groups against right-wing paramilitary organizations. The two predominant rebel groups--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym, FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)--are included on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. Under Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who took office in 2002 and has been boosted by large inflows of U.S. funding, both groups have been depleted in numbers and resources. Yet peace talks between each group and the government remain dogged by difficulties. Allegations in March 2008 and August 2009 by the Colombian government that the FARC is receiving support from the Venezuelan government have further complicated prospects for peace.
Here we hear the familiar pattern of the United States accusing other nations of interfering the it's interference in the foreign affairs of other nations. In Vietnam it was the Russians and Chinese, in Iraq it is the Iranians and in South and Central America it will be Columbia's immediate neighbor, Venezuela.
The question may soon be asked:
"How long can we allow Venezuela to keep sending arms to FARC rebels who use those arms to kill American troops?"
Not only are U.S. troops being sent to Columbia to co-occupy existing Columbian Military and Naval bases, but so are "private contractors". The number of troops is not clearly defined, and neither are how many private contractors who will be involved.
In Iraq the number of private contractors is roughly equal to or exceeds the number of troops.
The Obama administration has already been supportive and involved in the coup in Honduras while claiming to be in opposition to it. Hilliary Clinton's lawyer is spokesman for the Coup leaders and Hilliary Clinton is a chair person to MCC a corporation that flooded money to the coup leaders prior to the coup.
Clearly, the U.S. is actively trying to destroy the mild movement to the "left" ( toward mild socialism) that has occurred in parts of Central and South America. In Argentina, Brazil and Chile the movement to the left has been very mild and is hardly radical at all. In Ecuador, the president has asked the U.S. to leave from it's military base. Equador uses the American dollar as it's currency and is hardly an enemy to the U.S.
But Obama is declaring war against Nicaruaga, Honduras, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
And drugs will be used as the excuse.
The next big frontier of the American Military machine and it's supporters on the "left" and right will be South and Central America.
Posted by Stu Piddy at 4:52 PM