is filling out his status report.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
woofer: two things. Firstly: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Secondly:
"1959: Saddam Hussein (22), after a failed attempt upon the life of Iraqi president General Qassim, flees to Egypt. In Cairo, Hussein repeatedly visits the U.S. embassy and meets with CIA agents interested in the downfall of the Qassim government. (PBS Frontline)
Upon his return to Iraq, the CIA installs Hussein in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qassim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe his movements. (UPI)
1963: President Qassim is assassinated in the first Ba’athists coup. The United States is among the first nations to recognize the new government, and arms shipment begin immediately. On the eve of the coup the CIA offers a list of 800 Iraqi communists to the Ba’athists insurgents - all are killed. Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide to President Kennedy, described it as “Almost certainly a gain for our side.” (Roger Morris, New York Times) Unfortunately for “our side,” the new Ba’athist government collapses within nine months. The next five years bring two more CIA-backed Ba’athist coups. Under their regimes, western business interests, such as Mobil, Bechtel, and British Petroleum begin operations in Iraq.
1968: The final Ba’athist coup brings Amad Hassan Al Bakr to power, who places his cousin, Saddam Hussein, in charge of the state security apparatus.
1979: CIA asset Saddam Hussein seizes power in a palace coup – afterwards, he liquidates all political opponents within the Iraqi Ba’ath Party.
1980: The incoming Reagan administration, seeing the Islamic revolution, in Iran, as a threat, encourages the subsequent invasion of Iran with promises of arms, money, and intelligence. In addition to billions of dollars in arms, the Reagan administration provides the Iraqi Regime with chemical and biological weapons: including Bacillus anthracis (cause of anthrax), Clostridium botulinum (a source of botulinum toxins), Histoplasma capsulatum (cause of a disease attacking the lungs, brain, spinal chord, and heart), Brucella melitensis (a bacteria that can damage major organs), Clostridium perfringens (a highly toxic bacterium causing systematic illness), and Clostridium tetani (a highly toxigenic substance).
This aid was given with full U.S. knowledge of the repressive nature of Hussein’s regime and his support of international terrorists such as Abu Nidal. One year after Iraq uses U.S.-supplied chemical weapons against Iranian troops; the Reagan Administration resumes normal diplomatic relations and removes it from the list of countries that support terrorism. (Donald Rumsfeld was the liaison.) The Iran/Iraq War stretches on for eight years, claims over a million lives and bankrupts Iraq.
After the war ends in 1988, Iraq’s erstwhile ally, Kuwait floods the world oil market, lowering oil prices worldwide. This undercuts Iraq’s efforts to rebuild its war-ravaged economy and infrastructure. After Hussein’s pleas to OPEC falls on deaf ears, he begins to consider military action against Kuwait. When he informs the U.S. about his plans to invade Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie tells him: “We (the United States) have no opinion on your border dispute with Kuwait. James Baker (then Secretary of State) has instructed our official spokesmen to EMPHASIZE this instruction.” Given this green light to invade Kuwait, Saddam Hussein does so. The Bush administration immediately reneges on its assurances and immediately begins preparations for war. Iraqi offer to withdraw from Kuwait in exchange for convening a Middle East peace summit are ignored.
The rest is history …"
My credible sources tell me that any program and weapons were supplied by the good ole U.S.A. Neo-entrapment; you see. I had expected them to find what they gave him.
woofer: thanks but that's not it. I wouldn't exactly consider the late Butto as a credible source.
woofer: it was an Asian news or wire service from years ago that carried the OBL story with great background information. If it was fake, they were master story tellers. I had posted the link to a number of places.
ThatHawaiiGuy: before the Jimmie Earl, Ronnie Ray Gun, Opium Poppy, Billy Jeff, and Dubaya administrations there was Lincoln. Constitution! What constitution? Granted that Dishonest Abe tried very hard to repair his damages, but as they say in many a court house, "Once you have taken the skunk out of the bag, you just can't get the smell back inside." It was in this milieu that I consider Andrew Johnson to be one of the two best presidents this nation has ever had.
woofer: the long-standing link that I had via an Asian news service is now defunct.
woofer: numerous facets of The MIC, The CIA, The FBI, and, of course, the think tanks have woven psychological operations into what you call The MSM, both domestically and globally.
As long as the sheople have their entertainment and retirement plans they just allow the influence and the resulting groupthink. It becomes convenient, worldwide, for so many to pretend that OBL did not die in August 2001. If that had been reported and known to the vast masses, then what would have been the cover for 9/11? I'm sure they would have thought up someone.
PegnVA: I'm a liberty/freedom fighter first. Restore the Republic comes first. I am a Ron Paul supporter somewhere in fifth or sixth place. I gave you an open and candid answer of what state that Ron Paul will win. I was clearly surprised that Dubaya "won" Ohio in '04. I guess their slogan was "Diebold rocks."
PegnVA: here's a several week old link to Zogby's New Hampshire chances of Ron Paul: http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11/14/zogby-ron-paul-has-a-good-chance-of-winning-new-hampshire/
I know I've read more recent stuff that was even more positive. I think you can appreciate that this carries a good amount of weight in my objective assessment.
zardiw: yeppers, BTW great interviews today solicited of Ron Paul on the Butto assassination by Faux and CNN.
PegnVA: his best initial shot is New Hampshire. The Zogby folks recently had some very interesting things to say and they feel his numbers are quite higher and they supplied some reasons as to the why.
As you know, primaries have a momentum factor. Should Ron Paul show strong early, there becomes the natural bandwagon effect by a certain sector of the electorate.
StephanieVanbryce: coming from you, it is a complement and a testament to our hard work and our knowledge. Your post also proves what I've previously posted about you.
zardiw: he was the answer and he worked within the system to change it.
PegnVA: yes he is; yet they are virtually all paper dolls. Some say interchangeable parts. The puppet masters belong to roughly the same interlocking groups. Their agendas are less and less secretive as they become surer and surer of the obtainment of their objectives. It's not really about money (at the top) as they freely create money out of thin air. It isn't really about perceived power. They have a near monopoly on that. It's about the destruction of sociology as we know it. They want a one-world government dedicated to Satan.
It doesn't matter whether you believe in this or not; they do. The present American movement to restore The Republic did not start with Ron Paul and it will not end with him. He is merely the best possible option, at the present. Each of us is responsible for our own personal liberties and our education to proactively secure them.
zardiw: I know you mean well. But there is an especially clever nuance to: "Who is Ron Paul?"
In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, the question was asked: "Who is John Galt?"
It makes for some fascinating comparisons.
SoxFan: it good that you claim no deductions and tax credits allowing more money for the federal coffers.
SoxFan: ROFL You're the one making charges and assertions. The burden of proof is on you.
eaglesurvivor: 3
SoxFan: 0
The ball's in your court.
SoxFan: cult following demands throwing facts out the window. Since you constantly lack research skills and proof and favor innuendo vis-a-vis a course of logic; we can surmise that you're a cult leader.
PegnVA: that's right; you prefer pathological liars for your polies so you can spend all your time bitching about them.
Susie924: previously answered in 3805.
PegnVA: I ... will ... type ... slowly ... they ... were ... within ... the ... legality ... and ... the ... ethics ... and ... morality ... of ... the ... same ... proposed ... term ... limits ... that ... had ... they ... passed ... no ... one ... not ... even ... you ... unless ... that ... person ... wanted ... to ... appear ... totally ... idiotic ... would ... complain ... about.
Presidential ... term ... limits ... are ... 9 ... years ... and ... 364 ... days ... or ... 2 ... fully ... elected ... terms ... which ... are ... 4 ... years ... that ... is ... 8 years.
A ... constitutional ... amendment ... had ... already ... spoken.
aim hier: I guess it doesn't bother you that The U.S. State Department with all that CIA assistance keep setting up Islamic regimes that kill professed-Christians the first chance that they have. Essentially, there was a freedom of religion and women had basic rights under Saddam Hussein. Of course, they didn't have a central bank and they didn't grow opium poppies.
Woooweee! With all the recent sheoplism, one can tell who has foisted special interests upon government.
PegnVA: so, according to your "logic" (Snick! Snick!), Billy Jeff and Dubaya violated term limits.
BTW, have you ever applied for a tax credit?
PegnVA: apparently, you read using "look see" and are unable to obtain a minimal reading comprehension level. Your vain repetition of lies, like praying to demons with beads does not make it so.
I chuckle at the sheople who have constantly elected and reelected folks with membership[s] and/or ties to think tanks and secret societies who then rail against those who support the rule of law and the brotherhood of man[kind].
It is this slavish seeking of the restoration of The Republic and prying it from the hands of the groupthink sheople that causes so many of us to support Ron Paul, who we have known about for a long time.
If he is so inconsistent, then why are the ABTT Networks, the think tanks and the secret societies so afraid of him and why do they vigorously rattle their faithful sheople, supporters of tyranny, to rattle against Ron Paul?
Apparently, these sheople love the wars and the long running Yale administrations. Please remember that Yale was the birth place of the American intelligence community and their running of drugs.
SoxFan: that was what was the compromise language when the amendment was put forth. This was the one Ron Paul voted on. BTW, I'm in constitutional disagreement with him over this as I call it voter limitations. It is sort of like seat belt laws. Yes, please protect us from ourselves.
PegnVA: like Russert, you are dishonest. Paul voted for 20 terms. That's 40 years. Grow up already. BTW, show us where Ron Paul ever said he was against earmarks. He's against the pork barrel projects, which often use earmarks as a tool. HE VOTED AGAINST ALL EARMARKED PROJECTS. WHAT PART OF HE VOTED AGAINST CAN YOU NOT SEEM TO GRASP?
Susie924: thanks for admitting it, however you are quite wrong about my motives. For over three decades I have been a political activist fighting for restoring the Republic and protecting it. Below is an except from my book, which is still in manuscript form, The March of the Sheople. I hope it answers both questions.
"There were no lessons learned by the sheople. After seventy years and two whole generations, the remembrance of what happened was lost. The history that was written was lies upon lies. They went back to seeking political messiahs, instead of governing themselves by “We the People.” They paid preachers to do their spiritual thinking and to pray for the dead. They never wrote a letter to their representatives or otherwise contacted them. They embraced their chains and shackles. They sat mesmerized in front of the screens bringing forth the indoctrination of The ABTT (Anything But The Truth) Networks. In four more generations, they were destined to return to tyranny."
Susie924: to deliberately take a quote out of context is both cowardly and dishonest.
Virtually everyone clamoured for the unconstitutional FEMA to do something after Hurricane Katrina. Here was a job for Congress usurped by the executive branch. Now what was supposed to be the tool of Congress to give relief, like the constituents in Ron Paul's district petitioned his congressional office for flood relief, etc.?
Now that's the blasted hypocrisy of The ABTT Networks that you seem to worship. Uh oh, another sacred cow down the tubes.
A father hed a great relationship with his daughter that went beyond parental love. She fell for Joe Analretentive. Dad was ballistic. Nevertheless, he paid for his daughter's wedding and showed his new son-in-law the gift he gave his self in his daughter's husband's name. It was a razor sharp Cutco buck knife. He opened it in front of the young man and said that if he ever saw him look at another woman, he would cut his eyes out. If he touched another woman he would cut his hands off. If he ... well you get the picture. Within a year, his daughter filed for divorce. The father's sister-in-law criticized him for ceremoniously giving away the bride.
Susie924: as a rule, I do not personally spend much time listening and certainly not calling in to radio talk shows, as they seldom allow someone to speak other than the host. An exception is Brian Wilson. I believe I can put Charles Goyette in that same category.
Recently, Glenn Beck, who is not exactly a Ron Paul cupcake, allowed the candidate to actually answer the questions. Mr. Potato Head just talked over him and pushed deceptive questions. Tim Russert had to know that Ron Paul had voted for a constitutional term limits of 20 terms. He "conveniently omitted" the pesky detail in charging the candidate with being inconsistent. That's not toughness, it's shysterism.
BTW, I have as much use for the point folks of The ABTT Networks as I do for most polies. So I, ahem, am consistent in the matter.
MIT claims to refuse "congressional earmarks" however, they have for decades received massive money from folks like the Josephine B. Crane Foundation for "earmarked projects" to include Mass Persuasion/Brainwashing. Look it all up. But, of course, they are a Teflon university.
Yeppers, it's all okay for presidential executive orders circumventing The Constitution, but let Congress try to do they job is something else. BTW, the problem with pork barrel projects is the personal gain written into them. Ron Paul has done no such thing.
PegnVA: guess what? You just pulled a Tim Russert on me. You pushed your agenda BUT you didn't respond to my points. Here's that pesky post again. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=25533776
So far, you have only asserted that Ron Paul says one thing and does another. You certainly have FAILED TO PROVE IT.
Susie924: yes and no; I found it far more interesting when it was a panel and thus the name. The name should be Meet the Statist Propaganda Specialist or how I want to be a Lewis Prothero wannabe.
Susie924: pushing is good; not allowing an individual to answer the question is very uncool. Advancing a dishonest agenda, especially in the face of straightforward responses is reprehensible.
PegnVA: it was intellectually dishonest, let alone an obfuscation of high order type of "interview." Ask yourself the reaction that it fostered in you. Aren't you the least bit suspicious that Tim Russert was able to manipulate you in this manner?
Earmarks are a ploy or a tool for returning appropriations to Congress and removing it from the unconstitutional seizure of the executive branch, e.g. the president. Now often earmarks are a launch pad for pork barrels, but one does not necessarily lead to the other. In fact, it is one of the many duties of a congressional representative toward his/her constituents. It figures that this was all too arcane for Tim "Mr. Potato Head" to grasp. BTW, Ron Paul voted against all earmarks; so he did his double duty.
Ron Paul is on record to be in favor of mandatory term limits. He is also on record that he has not voluntarily opted for term limits apart from a constitutional amendment, as a 1995 Supreme Court case ruled out states imposing such limits. He's also against The IRS, but he pays those taxes and files a 1040. Furthermore, what is the length of those term limits? Do you know? It was/is 20 terms!!!! So what has he violated?
ergo sum: I apologize for you being ignorant of the fact that it is a word in the title of my book.
I just figured it out: Tim Russert is Mr. Potato Head. He is the poster child of what's wrong with The ABTT Networks.
It should be spelled Mr. Russet.
ergo sum: yeppers, just like such a high percentage of sheople who have never read and comprehended The Articles of Confederation and then The Constitution. As long as they are fed, entertained, and have their retirement plan, their sad lives happen to them by default.
Vexari: Glenn Beck actually let Ron Paul answer all the questions. I have to give him credit for that. I mean what else could one want in an interview like that?
GB did catch me off guard with the "French kiss" quip. LOL
"The advent of the Internet has allowed so many to become exposed to life and concepts beyond their usual groupthink. The cross-fertilization has begun and has commenced an end to mental inbreeding." (from The Epilogue of The March of the Sheople)