In the Spotlight
Al Qaeda No. 2
Calling Austin Powers
Obama's Latest Bogeyman is "No. 2"...(we shit you not!)
But once again, "Jihadist Websites" cited by Liberal Media have no URLs
Featured Videos
Judge Napolitano Draws the Line in the Sand Celente: Get the Wall Street Boys Out of
the White House
Max Keiser Unleashed: Goldman Sachs = Scum Tom Woods explains Nullification
Why liberal pundits are calling Obama Warns not to Challenge The Underlying Politics of 9/11
for Another 9/11 Official 9/11 Story
__________________________________________________________________________________
Featured Articles
Our Big Government 'War on Terror'
The Big Lie Selling You War with N. Korea
The Truth about Government Schooling
False Flag Cyber Attack Could Take Down Internet
Our Un-reported Cold War with Israel
Promises, Promises: Which Way Will Scott Brown VOTE on the Dems' Disclose Act?
July 27, 2010
Scott Brown has publicly promised us conservatives that he will vote against the Democrats' upcoming "Disclose Act," which, if passed, will crush the 1st amendment for millions of liberty-minded Americans. Brown has said he will be the all-important 41st vote against the bill. But now that Brown has earned the distinction of being Harry Reid's "favorite Republican," we Best and Brightest must be ever on our guard, continually reminding Brown that his votes are all that matter to us, not his pre-vote speeches and promises. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the Democrats' Disclose Act as early as today. Call Senator Brown at 202-224-4543 and tell him to vote NO on ending freedom of speech for conservatives.
Move Over bin Laden
Why Barack Obama needs his Terror Boogeyman to be a US citizen
American citizen Anwar Awlaki, the new Poster Child of evil?
July 20, 2010
Exactly one year ago (see archive, July 20, 2009) we became aware of a new propaganda trick being used by the establishment media, whereby they would write news stories claiming that a new "terror" video had been released via this or that "al Qaeda-affilated" website, but never provide the URL links to the websites so that readers could verify and/or examine the websites for themselves. We were all just expected to take the media's word that the videos had originated at these "known" terrorist websites. After all, would the liberal media lie ?
The latest AP article to commit this journalistic sin is apparently designed to make us believe that a fellow American is the new face of al Qaeda.
Enter U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, the new Head Evildoer in Barack Obama's "war on terror." Al-Awaki plays the starring role in all the latest alleged al Qaeda videos, in which the American is said to mock President Obama for his incompetence as Commander in Chief. The AP informs its readers that these videos were posted at "militant websites" which, once again, apparently have no URL addresses.
The Missing Links and the Paradigm Shift to 'Homegrown Terror'
Because al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico, Obama now has the rationale he needs to morph his criminal Mideast bloodbath into a crackdown on pesky Americans who oppose his radical agenda. In the wake of several failed left-wing attempts at selling the American people on the "right-wing militia" terrorism paradigm, it appears Obama has figured out that his homegrown boogeyman, alas, must come complete with a towel wrapped around his head if even a few gullible Americans are going to buy into his conspiracy theories. The trick was simply to find some devoutly Muslim American who dislikes Barack Obama's policies as much as, say, Newt Gingrich does. Voila! instant homegrown boogeyman.
Propaganda Alert!
Do not trust any MSM news story that claims this or that website has published this or that terrorism-related material if the article fails to include the URL to the offending website!
Note that ABC News, CBS News and many other news outlets have picked up on this AP story and have linked to the al-Awaki video itself, However, just like the AP, they also fail to provide the URL link to the "militant" website that allegedly originally published it. This missing link is KEY...for without it, any video showing al-Awaki dissing his president is no different from any of the millions of other disgruntled Americans rightly criticizing this president at any given moment in time, for any number of legitimate reasons.
Scott Brown's purpose: Make Barney Frank's Foul-tasting Monetary Policies go down Easier
July 14, 2010
One of Big Government cutest tricks for keeping its criminal enterprise thriving is to cultivate anti-establishment "hero" candidates who promise to go to Washington and fight the evil majority party in charge. These well-financed "outsider" candidates are given mega media exposure with which to sell their message of "change," only to turn around and help the majority party once in power.
How often have we seen, for example, far-left candidates campaigning against things like unjust wars and torture, only to see them turn around and support those same policies once elected. Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama come to mind. They were the political elixir concocted during the Bush era to make the neocons' Big Government warmongering go down easier, as the gullible liberal voters who supported them were eventually forced to acknowledge their own role in perpetuating the killing. Political flip-flopping is no accident; it is a tool used by the Elite class to demoralize the electorate, break our civic spirit and weaken our patriotic resolve to see genuine change: If even "our guy" is now funding the wars, then we might as well just roll over and accept the Military Industrial Complex.
The same trick is used when the Democrats are the majority party: "conservative" heroes will magically emerge to be the elixir needed to make toxic socialism go down easier. Scott Brown is essentially the political flipside of Nancy Pelosi. Whereas Pelosi was apparently brought in to sweeten Bush/Cheney's putrid-tasting foreign policy thereby watering down a broadening antiwar movement, Brown's job is apparentty to sweeten Barack Obama's and Barney Frank's sickening financial policies, thereby watering down the rising Tea Party movement: I.e., if even our guy Scott Brown voted with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, then we might as well just give up on American freedom and let the Democrats implement their full agenda.
The complicit media
"Conservative" pundits like Jay Severin appear to be plants; put on the radio by our corporate/government masters to provide guys like Scott Brown cover, in the form of free media whenever he feels a need to smooth over his treacherous deeds with his considerable charms, to continually have a platform available to him for reminding voters that he's still just a guy from Wrentham who drives a pickup truck; a regular guy, just like us.
True change agents do exist
To be sure, there is such a thing as a genuine change agent in American politics. And it''s easy to know who they are, too. They're the ones being mocked and/or ignored on WTKK.
Scott Brown Drives His Truck Through the Volcker Rule
Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts won election last January by duping gullible voters with a cultural populist prop, a pickup truck. But Brown has now documented his subservience to Wall Street by driving his truck straight through what remains of the Volcker Rule, by forcing through a provision allowing commercial banks to use 3% of their capital for speculation through hedge funds. It might seem that 3% is a tiny fraction of a bank’s Tier I capital, and that Brown’s amendment is therefore not such a big deal, but this is not the case. If you buy stocks and their price falls to zero, you can lose 100% of your investment and no more. But when you are dealing with derivatives, your losses can be geometrically pyramided into interplanetary space. This proposition is not a matter of theory; it has been documented through a decade and a half of bankruptcies by hedge funds that had been speculating with derivatives, going all the way back to Long-Term Capital Management of Connecticut in 1998. (1)
Why are the Gtmo Five still languishing without charges?
Because the Obama Admin is afraid they will be acquitted if they are given their day in court
July 13, 2010
What happens to countries whose governments abandon the rule of law in favor of torturing confessions out of people? Their system of justice grinds to a halt as officials grow fearful about what information might spill out at trial. After years of legal limbo, the Pentagon in February dropped all charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Gtmo detainees, following a much ballyhooed decision by the Obama administration to have them all tried in civilian courts. But it's now mid July and all five men are still rotting away at Gtmo, except that now they're rotting away without even any charges against them!
The fact that these men's fates are still stuck in neutral is one of the clearest indications that there is an active 9/11 coverup. For if these "confessed terrorists" were really as obviously guilty as Barack Obama (and Jay Severin) would have us believe, then why in hell is the government in such a hopeless quandary over how to deal with them? The answer is easy: Because every fair and impartial American, whether military or civilian, recognizes that 100+ waterboardings is more than enough torture to make ANYONE confess to ANYTHING. That it took that much torture to extract KSM's "confession" demonstrates that he is innocent, not that he is guilty. And the government is well aware of this fact, which is why the Pentagon, and now the Obama administration, are so reluctant to bring him to trial.
Obama is terrified that KSM will be acquitted, and for very good reason.
Supremes Officially Recognize Power of Non-Violence, 6 - 3 !
Amherst Vigil July 11, 2010
At the end of last month, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case fittingly titled Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, officially recognized the power of non-violence by outlawing it. After argument and briefs, the Supremes held that an organization or individual counseling non-violent methods of conflict resolution may be liable for felony prosecution. This, of course, is as it should be. Non-violence is the greatest threat to the Republic. The very cornerstone of our existence as a nation is at grave peril from the threat of non-violence, the one tool that has a chance to enlighten the public to the ongoing theft of their resources, even as they are complicit in the theft of resources belonging to others.
It may seem hard to imagine that large numbers of people around the globe might become non-violent until you realize that so many already are. In the U.S. alone, many citizens live out their entire lives without ever being violent. Some even manage to avoid being the victim of violence. This is a hidden menace that must be faced! The question for military-industrial planners is always how to create the most fear in the most people because most people will not engage in violent behavior unless placed in fear. Thankfully we have a warrior caste that effectively selects for characteristics not exhibited by most humans, a fine example of which President Obama recently selected as the new CENTCOM commander, General Mattis. A few years back he famously said “It’s fun to kill some people.” Until such time as all our children can grow up to think killing is fun, we must be ever vigilant in the cause of encouraging violence and discouraging non-violence. Our corporate masters depend on it!
Why would anyone oppose the Dems' so-called "Bomb Component" bill?
Because if explosives are outlawed, then only outlaws will have explosives!
July 07, 2010
WTKK's Michele McPhee spent Tuesday evening pushing a liberal Democrat bill to disarm Massachusetts communities.
Liberal Beacon Hill Democrats Steve Baddour and Michael Costello are working feverishly to hand Governor Deval Patrick emergency bill S.2468, which would criminalize possession, by "known terrorists," of anything that even potentially could be assembled into an explosive.
McPhee's rally cry for this bill was, as usual, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, Oh My!!! We must crack down on evil people who would own fertilizer!! Trouble is, just as with firearms, most people who own fertilizer are perfectly decent folks.
But isn't it ironic that McPhee would use 9/11, of all things, as her rationale for disarming us, given that 9/11 stands as the ultimate proof that government fails to protect us when the chips are really down. How soon she forgets that 19 losers armed only with box cutters were allegedly able to outfox the most sophisticated and expensive air defenses ever devised by man. And THIS is McPhee's rationale for forcing us all to give away our own local ability to fend off attack?
'And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air...'
McPhee and her liberal Democrat friends on Beacon Hill should maybe go back and re-watch the movie Red Dawn. Or maybe just re-read Ben Franklin's famous quote: They who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Yes, Michele, sometimes it becomes necessary to defend America. And sometimes that means THE PEOPLE having the freedom to keep and bear various stuff that can go boom!
Call your Reps and Senators and tell them to vote against the anti-self-defense S.2468. Real Americans who've learned the real lesson of 9/11 understand that we cannot depend exclusively on government for our protection, particularly not in an era when our military has been bogged down and decimated by nine years of liberal foreign nation building. Today we must be ready to defend ourselves, which means reserving our 2nd amendment Rights.
Sample letter
Dear MA Legislator:
I am troubled by S.2468, the so-called "bomb component" bill." I am aware that this bill would not ban anything outright in a "prior restraint" sense; that it was ostensibly designed merely to allow DAs to pile on extra charges when dealing with "known terrorists." And I understand that the bill does not overtly target peaceful gun owners or average law-abiding citizens, yet.
However, as you know, freedom groups and gun owners have increasingly been smeared and villainized by the mainstream media as potential terrorists, especially in the age of Obama vs. the Tea Party. Even decent, patriotic groups like Oath Keepers have been labeled "hate groups" and "militias." So this bill smacks of being a sneaky Democrat attack against the 2nd amendment, with "slippery slope" written all over it. As the politicians in Washington have been warning since 9/11, we are one major terrorist attack away from rampant public hysteria and possibly even martial law in this country. This bill, if passed, would almost certainly be applied inapproriately in such a climate of fear, oppression and distrust. Plus, this bill is terribly cynical, in that anyone who opposes it is already being labeled by talk radio neocons as "terrorist sympathizers." Please help defeat this radically unAmerican bill. We do not need any more laws that infringe our domestic Right of self-defense; we already have far too many. If explosive materials are outlawed, then only outlaws will have explosives.
Just as we pray we'll never need our personal firearms to defend our homes and families, even as we reserve our Right to keep and bear them, we likewise pray we'll never need explosives to fend off well-armed or organized evildoers who might try to raid our communities. The heightened risks inherent of the 21st century, however, mean it's possible that firearms alone won't always be enough to keep us safe.
Barack Obama and Deval Patrick cannot guarantee our families' safety any more than George W Bush or Dick Cheney could in 2001. If the government cannot (or will not) defend us in our hour of need, then it must get out of our way so we can at least defend ourselves.
Is it Possible that the Entire BP Oil Disaster is a Hoax?
June 24, 2010
Best and Brightest Infowarrior writes the following:
Think about this scenario…What we are seeing on their cameras may not necessarily be what’s actually happening 5,000 feet down. What if the ships they keep bringing to “help” at the well site are actually dumping the oil to make it seem like the well is leaking. Let’s face it, you may disagree with my theory, but you can’t prove that it is an actual on-sight camera feed. We already know the feed was manipulated several times with a loop, so what if this is all a scam to make us believe it’s worse than it is….even better, make us believe something’s happening that’s not? Either way, they get what they want: Collect on the oil rig insurance, no evidence (rig on bottom of gulf), by the way. It’s kinda like the lunar module and the little car on the moon that no person has ever thought to point a telescope @. Half kidding, but really, why no footage of the rig? ROV’s and cameras? Let us see it. Anyway, all footage is coming from controlled sources, which would be just like some movie I saw, where everybody assumed a dooms day scenario was taking place because the news said it was, so they didn’t want to break the military blockade around their town and acquiesced to martial law, believing the government controlled media and television. It would have the makings of a good book….oh yeah, that’s probably where they got it. Just an idea…everything they would need to pull it off, they already have…and most of it they’ve already used on us before. I’m just sayin'.
Well, Infowarrior...it may seem like a crazy theory at first glance...but it would at least explain all the media censorship down there and the ridiculous no-fly zone over the spill area, and the Blackwater takover, and the feds' refusual to allow dredging funded by the affected states. Plus it would explain the appalling lack of leadership in solving the problem, now nearly three months in ...and Obama's going golfing in the midst of it all...and his refusal to accept international help...and the unusual stock selloffs just before the rig exploded.
Given what we know of this lying, cheating, murdering, unspeakably evil federal government of ours, is it really outside the realm of possibility that the whole entire BP disaster is just the latest staged event to facilitate their next big federal power grab? Sadly, no.
Is it really true that 'Jews control the U.S.'?
Is it time to call a spade a spade?
June 14, 2010
Best and Brightest Chris had this to say on Monday:
Rich, Just an fyi: Jews run all the media and also the banking, They run the Federal Gov't and most of the insurance giants. Not that I'm picking but if Jay Severin can get away with saying NOT ALL MUSLIM'S ARE TERRORISTS BUT ALL THE TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS then what's wrong with saying: Not all Jews are ruining the country but the country has and is being ruined by Jews. I know you're not supposed to say the J word but the common denominator is what it is.
Thanks for writing, Chris.
One of the perks of editing the Best and Brightest website is never having to be PC. I am not afraid to use the word "Jew." Nor am I afraid to use the word "queer" nor "nigger" nor even "Catholic priest." What matters is the words surrounding the "offending" term; i.e., the CONTEXT. As longtime readers will attest, I have zero fear when it comes to freedom of expression.
Now, on the matter of whether Jews control the media, I am not sure. All I know is that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the MO behind the media takeover. America's neocons (including at least a few non-Jews, you'll recall) had sneakily referred to the bill as "deregulation" in order to trick old-school conservatives into buying it. Once Bill Clinton signed it into law, the consolidation of major media outlets spread quickly. Our newscasts and talk radio programming were replaced by nonsense, government shills and fake libertarians. Turn on 7 News any morning of the week...It's very nearly all sports, weather, traffic now. Almost no actual news...unless you count Balloon Boys, celebs and Boston's continunously bloodsoaked streets, thanks, btw, to the FUCKING "war on drugs." Turn on cable "news" any night of the week and you're likely to see two "opposing" government hacks screaming at one another, both wrong.
But here is a question for you: If Jews really have the lock on American media that you suggest, then how did Fox News, in a rare bit of quality journalism, get away with exposing Israeli spy connections to 9/11?
The issue is: who bought up the establishment media after Clinton "deregulated" it? Who dumbed everything down? I do not care whether the culprits were Jewish or not. All that matters is telling the truth of what has happened to us, and restoring the real America before it is too late. Thanks for your thoughtful question.
Why Won't Tel Aviv Release the Confiscated Videos?
What are they trying to hide?
The video evidence Severin hopes we won't see
June 06, 2010
If shameless Israel-Firsters like Jay Severin, Michael Graham and Scott Brown are to be believed about the recent flotilla raid, then Tel Aviv surely would be eager to prove its official story, simply by releasing the video evidence they confiscated from the flotilla's passengers. Strangely, however, they appear reluctant to do so.
But Tel Aviv's notorious skills in the art of secrecy won't help them this time.
Fortunately for modern truth seekers, we live in a time when journalists routinely beam their reports LIVE to the entire world. So, just as with the hugely inconvenient live feeds of World Trade Center 7's so-called collapse, all the official censorship in the world can't stop us Best and Brightest from seeing what really happened on that boat.
It appears now that Severin, Graham and Brown will have some serious splainin' to do this week. Or perhaps they'll just conveniently change the subject to the next set of official talking points. I.e., the jihadists are coming!!! the jihadists are coming!!! Yes, more perfectly timed arrests of American Muslims allegedly caught trying to leave the US...in an effort to attack the US.
While digesting this week's latest media diversion, ask yourself the following question: If you were a jihadist residing in the US, would you travel 12,000 miles to wage jihad against America? Or would you maybe, just maybe, use your "proven" network of fellow American jihadists to figure out some way of killing Americans right here in America? What kind of incompetent jihadist morons attempt to flee the scene of their crime before they have even committed one?
This obviously concocted "Somali-Al Qaeda" story is absurd on its face, of course, but it does give Barack W Obama yet another "success" story on which to base his continued suspension of our Constitution.
Are Cameras the New Guns?
June 03, 2010
In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. Full story.
Sneaky Dems turn war funding debate into referendum on 'gays' in the military
May 29, 2010
Wow. It appears Barack Obama's latest war funding request will actually be debated in Congress! But the debate won't center on whether Commander Obama's immoral and budget-shattering Mideast wars are justified or not; it will instead center on whether "gays" have an equal right to commit war crimes on behalf of Obama's corporate pals. The war machine has always been brilliant at tossing political curve balls at the peace movement, taking its focus off the main issue of whether maintaining a murderous overseas empire is good for America or bad. But this latest disgusting display, coming -- coincidentally we are sure -- on Memorial Day, has to be the most cynical ploy in the history of the war racket.
It is time to tell liberals everywhere the truth about their phony "war on terror." It is an unDeclared war and is therefore unLawful. There is no honor in obeying bad orders. Let us be clear: Any troops who turn off their consciences, ignore their oaths to the Constitution and obey this treacherous president are traitors and criminals themselves, not "heroes."
All troops, regardless of sexual orientation, home NOW!
Bonus: Dear Soldier; An Open Letter From the Home Front
Do you have a right to choose who you do business with?
Rand Paul Says Yes; Establishment Says No
May 25, 2010
The political establishment's attempt to ignore Dr. Rand Paul's US Senate campaign in Kentucky backfired last week when he won that state's GOP nomination in a stunning landslide. So now the establishment has gone into full-scale attack mode, accusing Paul of wanting to turn back the clock on civil rights in America to the bad old days when private business owners were free to discriminate against blacks and other minorities. Sunday morning's talk shows were awash in pundit after pundit, both "liberal" and "conservative," agreeing that Paul is wrong in his belief that Americans operating their own businesses have a Natural Right to discriminate if they wish and that the federal government has no lawful authority to stop them.
Who is right?
Anyone capable of reading plain English will see right away that Rand Paul is at least technically correct, since nowhere in the Constitution does it say Congress may force private businesses to sell goods and services to people they would rather not sell to. In fact, the first amendment makes quite clear that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of association.
The truth is, any business that refuses to accommodate entire groups of people based on their skin color, nationality, gender, etc. will die a natural death in any free-market economy, as their customer bases will be artificially shrunken and angry boycotts will inevitably ensue. Thus Natural Law already deals with bigotry and discrimination harshly enough; we don't need Big Government violating its constraints (and human nature) by sticking its snotty, runny nose into our private business.
The vital but ignored fact about Jim Crow laws
Today's liberal and conservative pundits never talk about one key fact regarding 1950s "whites-only" lunch counters, drinking fountains, etc. That is, these racist rules came from government, not from private business owners. That's right; if you owned a lunch counter in, say, Alabama in the '50s, you were prohibited by law from serving black patrons. Thus private businesses themselves were victims just as surely as those whose money they weren't permitted to take.
Successful private businesses have always understood that black people's money is just as green as white people's money. They don't care if their patrons are purple.
Rand is right
The proper, constitutional solution to government-mandated racism in the south was to shrink government power, to expand individual liberty and economic freedom and allow the market to punish racism and bigotry. The answer was NOT for Congress to once again tread where it had zero authoirty, giving Americans the false (and tragic) impression that "too much freedom" had been the cause of southern racism. Just don't hold your breath waiting for the government-loving, libero-conservative media to tell you any of this. Instead they will fall all over themselves trying to prove how much more each of them loves minorities than the other. And they will both of course go on trashing people like Rand Paul for daring to tell the truth about the "Civil Rights" Act.
Bonus: Rand Paul's Problem, And Ours
Scott Brown's Liberal Circular Logic
May 8, 2010
Best and Brightest Kathleen sums up Scott Brown's insanely liberal proposal to strip precious citizenship from alleged "terrorists."
She writes:
Scott Brown wants to strip citizenship away from Americans who've been accused of having terrorism ties before they've been tried and convicted so that the accused can be tried via a military tribunal as an "enemy combatant," before he's been proven to be an "enemy combatant."
Right, Kathleen. And not only that, Brown's proposal would mean that Americans could be tortured until they confessed, just as happens now to innocent Muslims at Gtmo and other ungodly U.S. Gulags around the world. And those torture-induced confessions would then be cited by the liberal media as proof that Brown's "anti-terror" policies are "working."
Scott Brown is an ultra-liberal and extremely dangerous politician. And the scariest part is, millions of Americans actually believe he is a conservative.
Update: Hillary Clinton Embraces Brown Proposal.
For Arizona controversy, Severin puts 'America First' spin on his anti-Mexicanism
But who's he kidding?
April 27, 2010
In a transparent attempt by Jay Severin on Monday to mollify WTKK censors, he softened his blistering anti-Mexicanism, repeating over and over that his southern-border immigration stance is merely a matter of his being an America First type of guy. Nothing whatsoever to do with Mexicans themselves, mind you! No, the new-and-improved, kinder-and-gentler Jay Severin feels empathy for our poor, unfortunate neighbors to the south.
Wow, evidently Jay is hoping his listeners are the worst and dullest around, that we'll have already forgetten his recent, unbelievably mean rants against Mexicans and their culture; rants which nearly got him fired. But we Best and Brightest remember the old Jay, all too well.
Severin's new America-First brand of anti-Mexicanism is apparently just a clever MO, allowing him to seamlessly go on helping the central government sell its long-sought Biometric National ID Card.
Severin spent nearly ten years playing the role of 96.9's resident Mexican hater, referring to the southern border as an "open sewer pipe," demanding the government impose a Papers, Please society to help round up all the Mexican "criminaliens." As if undocumented fruit pickers in Arizona could, in their wildest dreams, fuck us any more than the politicians in Washington can, and do every day! Let us face it: if given the choice, more Americans would deport Barack Obama back to Kenya before they'd go after poor, toilet-scrubbing Juanita who's just trying to feed her hungry kids.
So now, rather than Severin demanding check-point Charlies and FEMA camps for rounding up "wetbacks," "leeches," and "women with mustaches and VD," he is demanding these things now merely for ensuring that (well-meaning) Mexicans won't be able to compete with us struggling Americans during a recession. I.e., Don't call us, you fine and lovely southern folk just trying to eke out a living like the rest of God's children; we'll call you!
But since when has Severin been America First?
It is funny how whenever Israel's interests trump those of taxpaying Americans or U.S. service members, Severin marches in lockstep with those who beat the tom toms for war at Israel's behest. All at staggering cost in American blood and treasure. It is funny how whenever American soldiers are asked to go fight and die on Israel's front lines, Severin has consistently been America Second.
As staunch small-government advocates, it's awfully difficult for us Best and Brightest to find a silver lining in the presidency of Barack H Obama, but here is one: He at least appears reluctant to attack Iran for Israel, which is causing the Israel Lobby (and rabidly anti-Iran operatives like Jay Severin) great fits of consternation. But given Israel's documented willingness to commit false-flag attacks against Americans, and given Severin's apparent willingness to help them cover their tracks, we now must pray like hell that a new false flag isn't being planned to force Obama's hand.
Severin is certainly correct that sovereign Arizona has the right to pass whatever immigration laws she likes. But Jay isn't fooling anyone around here with his newfound sympathy for desperate, impoverished Mexicans. As usual, he is simply morphing and contorting his radio schtick in clever ways that permit him to keep on back-door helping freedom's enemies while appearing to be patriotic. Severin is doing his level Mockingbird best to trick his conservative audience into clamoring for a Big Brother, UK-style surveillance grid.
The Power Elite needs two-faced conservatives like Severin to sell their NWO plans to the American right. But we Best and Brightest still aren't buying.
Bonus: Beware of Card Tricks
Severin Gloats Over Israeli Cyber Warfare Technology
Woohoo! Mossad knows how to cyber-infiltrate and cyber-confuse a nation's defense systems!
Was 9/11 a Cyber Attack, too?
April 19, 2010
Jay Severin celebrated on Monday a Military.com news article exposing Israel's recent use of cyber warfare against her peaceful neighbor, Syria.
By using modern software technology, Israel was apparently able in 2007 to fly through Syrian airspace unmolested and destroy a militay facility without Syria even realizing she was under attack until it was too late to react. This technological feat sounds eerily similar to what happened to America's air defenses on 9/11, especially considering that our multi-trillion dollar Defense Dept knew for more than an hour that we were under attack yet the Pentagon was somehow struck anyway.
In any case, neocon Severin glorified Israel's naked act of aggression against Syria, rejoicing in Israel's new-fangled capability to manipulate flight radar and outfox a nation's air defense systems. But the truth is, high-tech software capable of tricking sophisticated air defenses has been around since at least 2001.
If you don't believe us, just ask WBZ's Joe Bergantino.
Given all that's come to light in the past 8+ years, we must ask the question: Did the dreaded "Cyber 9/11" that we're all supposed to be terrified might happen next already happen on 9/11 itself?
Severin says Mitt's passage of Romneycare was 'right thing to do'
Mitt's was 'a good law'...simply because it 'didn't violate the 10th amendment'??
April 15, 2010
Jay Severin reverted on Wednesday to kissing Mitt Romney's liberal behind, as he actually attempted to defend Romneycare.
To make his lazy case, Severin resorted to Mitt's official talking point about how his universal healthcare law is waaaaay different from Obama's, i.e., because at least Mitt's law doesn't violate the 10th amendment! Oh, gee...now there's a consolation for Massachusetts, even as Fallon Shrugs.
Severin claims that Romneycare was simply the result of "the people of Massachusetts getting together to pass a law." How quaint! Severin knows as well as we Best and Brightest that Romneycare was actually the result of healthcare industry special interests and the insurance companies themselves "getting together" with ultra-liberal Beacon Hill politicians to write a law that benefited them!
3 Key Similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare that Severin won't talk about
Neither Romney nor Severin is willing to discuss the three devastating similarities between Mitt's alleged "free-market" program and Obama's socialist program: 1.) Both use the brute force of government to make law-abiding citizens purchase a product from private companies, a product they may not want or even need. 2.) Both programs are beloved by Democrats, due to the fact that "mandatory coverage" means the government must pick up the tab for countless more "poor" people who had not already signed up for "free" care. 3.) Both programs put crushing new stresses on the healthcare infrastructure, driving up costs, causing doctor shortages, introducing rationing, driving down overall quality of care.
So forget about bum-kissing Jay Severin's defense of RINO sellout Mitt Romney. To find a true assessment of Romneycare, we can simply recall the ominous words of Ted Kennedy as he proudly stood over young Mitt's shoulder back in 2006: "You may well have fired the shot heard round the world on healthcare in America."
Right, Teddy...and it was that shot that Barack Obama heard loud and clear.
Bonus: Why We Need more UNInsured Americans
Ron Paul exposes DC's latest whitewash
The 'Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee'
April 14, 2010
Last week the federal government’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) held hearings as part of their continuing investigation into the causes of the acute economic meltdown which occurred in late summer 2008. This bipartisan commission, partly inspired by the Pecora Commission – which investigated the causes of the Great Depression – is expected to report back to Congress before the end of the year.
Predictably, the commission will avoid calling any witnesses who might unequivocally indict the federal government for its role in the crisis, or suggest solutions which take away government power. Government commissions have a remarkable tendency to recommend granting even more power to the same useless government agencies that so utterly fail to prevent crises in the first place. We saw this with the Pecora Commission, we saw it with the 9/11 Commission, and we’re seeing it again today with regard to financial regulations. Full story
Pro-constitution group is branded 'Anti-government' by Establishemnt Media
April 3, 2010
A patriotic group whose mission is to peacefully restore American government has written letters to all 50 governors, asking them to resign their offices if they don't want to keep their Oaths to the People.
In a supremely ironic twist, even though the group's website states clearly that they are committed to nonviolence and restoring the true American system of government, the ever-treasonous establishment media are claiming the group is "anti-government."
Of course, we Best and Brightest know the media have it exactly backwards: it is those who have discarded America's order-preserving constitutions who are dangerously anti-government, not those working to restore them.
The only question is whether the government/media are using this really big lie as a precurser to an even bigger lie.
U.S. admits 9/11 Report was based largely on phony accusations against a waterboarded mental patient
April 3, 2010
The Justice Department has quietly recanted nearly every major claim the Bush administration made about Abu Zubaydah, the alleged al-Qaeda leader who was the first suspected terrorist subjected to the torture of waterboarding and other White House-approved “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Full story
Establishment media keep attacking Oath Keepers
O'Reilly joins Chris Matthews in claiming constitutionalists are 'dangerous'
February 19, 2010
First it was MSNBC's Chris Matthews saying that Oath Keepers is a fringe, radical, extreme right-wing, hatemongering organization. Why? Because Oath Keepers believes in following the Constitution at all times, not merely when it's convenient or when the politicians feel like it.
Now Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, in a segment titled "Tracking Hate Groups," has come out agreeing with the uber-liberal Matthews that simply honoring one's oath to the Constitution is somehow dangerous and unAmerican.
Immediately after Matthews started his slanderous attacks against Oath Keepers, founder Stuart Rhodes reported a doubling in membership. So we say to big-government media hacks like O'Reilly and Matthews: Bring it on! Your attacks are making us stronger. Please keep attacking Oath Keepers!
Bishop case reeks of MKULTRA mind control
Another 'crazed' shooter... and three more dead scientists
February 15, 2010
In the eight turbulent years since the attempted coup against America, nearly a hundred scientists have died prematurely, often mysteriously. Now, with the increasingly bizarre and somewhat suspicious case of the Harvard-cultivated Dr. Amy Biship, who is accused of shooting several fellow scientists at the University of Alabama and thus faces a possible death sentence herself, some observers are openly questioning whether Bishop might not be the latest victim of the CIA's MKULTRA mind-control and behavior modification program.
We Best and Brightest are surely wise enough to reserve judgement on this controversy so early on in the investigation. But given the CIA's involvement in the 9/11 coverup and the Secret Service's involvement in the JFK assassination (and a long list of other deadly government corruption), we are equally wise to avoid presuming Bishop was simply another "lone nut."
Severin's good buddy Glenn Beck also a government agent?
Masquerading as a Tea Party activist
February 13, 2010
Glenn Beck is the single most dangerous man on TV. While virtually all of today's major political pundits (O'Reilly, Matthews, et al.) are apparent government shills, the most insidious is Beck, for his job is to undermine the growing patriot movement by attacking its leaders and misguiding his "flock" at key moments and on key issues. As always, Operation Mockingbird operatives like Beck (and Severin) give their audiences around 80% truth, creating an impression they are on America's side.
This is classic COINTELPRO (government-sponsored covert activities aimed against grass-roots activism) For those unaware, the CIA was caught back in 1975 controlling the media via their 'Mockingbird' operatives, when the Church Congressional hearings exposed widespread intelligence abuses by the FBI, CIA, IRS and NSA.
'Mockingbird' assets held some of the highest positions in corporate media. People like Katherine Graham, owner of the Washington Post, were put on the payroll to spread official D.C. propaganda. There were literally hundreds of assets suppressing truth, attacking whistleblowers, and generally lying to the American people.
The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.
-- William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy.
There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are (Central Intelligence) Agency people at the management level.
-- William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein.
'Mockingbird' is still in business today, of course, except that the names have been changed to protect the guilty. Here is a great video proving Glenn Beck is an establishment prostitute. Watch him attack the true leader of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul.
Let it never be forgotten that Beck pushed for the Bankster Bailout (currently at more than $27 Trillion, not $700 Billion) and favored the worst attack on our freedoms in over 200 years, the Orwellian "Patriot" Act, a law designed to protect the criminals in D.C. from U.S. Patriots, not from phantom bogeymen.
Explaining Severin's queer behavior
February 06, 2010
Once upon a time, Jay Severin disliked homosexuality so much that he would often use it to insult male callers who expressed opposition to Dick Cheney's "war on terror," by mimicking their words of opposition, speaking with a "gay" lisp, joking that their favorite color was pink, etc. "Real men" favored the neocons' liberal wars of aggression; "homos" didn't.
But suddenly, in the age of Commander Obama, Severin has discovered a deep respect for homosexuals. He now believes they have an equal right to commit mass murder on Obama's behalf, as long as they do so "honorably." He no longer even opposes same-sex marriage and has even begun calling homosexuals "gays," the politically correct label.
Severin can always be counted on to morph his radio schtick to suit the evolving needs of the liberal war machine. With a Nobel Peace Prize recipient now occupying the Oval Office, a new, progressive-sounding twist to Washington's war propaganda was needed to keep the war profits rolling in uninterrupted. This article by Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo helps explain Severin's queer behavior, as the government-media have begun using their ever-trusty "gays in the military" canard to trick civil libertarians into supporting war crimes. "Gays" have just as much right to murder innocent foreigners as "normal" people have. And if you disagree with Severin, Obama and Nancy Pelosi, well then you must be a homophobe.
Yet more evidence that Severin is a paid Mockingbird hack.
War is the Health of the State
And it's the elephant in the room at every conservative Tea Party in America
January 27, 2010
Jay Severin interviewed Christen Varley of Greater Boston Tea Party on Tuesday. Ms Varley told Severin that her organization "embraces the principle of limited government." Her message sounded great, except that she never mentioned Barack Obama's biggest Big Government boondoggle of all: his massive expansion of George W Bush's overseas jobs program.
After her 96.9 interview, Ms. Varley rallied at a conservative Tea Party gathering in Norton, MA, where she was asked by this writer why Greater Boston Tea Party avoids discussion of Obama's budget-shattering war program. Ms. Varley said Obama's war is just too popular within today's conservative movement, so it's not on her short list of government that needs limiting.
Okay, we admire Christen Varley for what she's trying to accomplish; we know how tough it can be to herd political cats. But she is doomed to failure right out of the gate if she thinks that real conservatives can somehow be invigorated by a Tea Party movement that cedes to government the power to tax us into oblivion for a "war" that's been exposed over and over as a fraud.
Because we hard-core conservatives haven't forgotten that war is the health of the state, Ms. Varley and her timid group will have an awfully difficult time convincing us that they can lead the way back to limited government. Instead she is likely to end up attracting mostly just Scott Brown-voting, pro-war RINOs who care more about "winning" than actually shrinking government.
And so, what started out as a truly revolutionary Tea Party movement back on December 16, 2006 has already morphed into a hopeless pro-war farce. Ms. Varley must either shit or get off the pot; she either wants limited government or she does not.
Hey, Jay... who's your Daddy?
Who controls WTKK, FOX News, CNN, et al?
MSM "programming" determined by a powerful few
January 24, 2010
Jay Severin is free to say almost anything he likes on WTKK's airwaves. But there are certain topics that are so taboo that most mainstream talkers won't risk discussing them. For example, if Severin were to start asking the many disturbing questions still haunting 9/11; if suddenly Jay decided to support the victims' families by demanding Barack H Obama do something to stop the blatant 9/11 coverup, he would quickly find himself kicked to the media curb. And pro-war politicians like Scott Brown would immediately stop kissing his ass.
If the six 9/11 Commissioners who now admit their official report was a whitewash were to ask WTKK, or any other mainstream radio station in America, for air time to explain to listeners the numerous ways their investigation was stalled and then stonewalled by federal officials, their pleas for air time would be rejected by nervous station managers and their information would be deemed "old news." After all, we can't allow speech on the airwaves that might lead impressionable listeners to doubt the official MSM mantra, that "so far, all of the terrorists have been Muslims."
So, who are the powerful people behind the curtain of America's media, preventing certain issues from receiving a fair hearing? Answer: The innocuous-sounding "Council on Foreign Relations." (See above video for details.)
Remove government from airports
For security's sake
January 05, 2010
With the current controversy over whether the flying public should undergo full-body radiation scans at airports, "pure libertarian" Jay Severin has been handed yet another terrific example to hilite the harm caused by big-government takeovers of private businesses. But not only is Severin refusing to call for the removal of government from the all-important task of airport security, he is actively whining because Barack Obama isn't doing enough to "protect" him.
And let us not forget that even before the massive 9-11 security failure, the government was already hog-tying airport security and threatening passenger safety by banning private airline pilots from carrying arms to defend their cockpits, and by transferring to the vice president the sole power to dictate what happens (or doesn't happen) to hijacked aircraft. No, the best way to strengthen airport security in a post-9/11 world is to remove government completely, make airports and airlines 100% responsible for developing their own security procedures, forcing them to compete for the best safety record, and giving them no legal or civil immunity if they screw up. Then let the flying public choose.
No security system will ever be perfect, so the last thing we need is government forcing its single failed system on every carrier, which even the dullest of evildoers can easily avoid and work around, and which serves only to inconvenience and harass the innocent.
More stories
