Monday, December 20, 2010

NPR's Nina Totenburg Apologizes for Saying "Christmas Party"

NPR's Nina Totenburg
Nina Totenburg once said that Jesse Helms would get AIDS from a transfusion if there was retribution in "the good Lord's mind."  Wow, what a hallmark example of tolerance and high-brow journalism.

Why was Juan Williams fired again, from NPR?  For spouting the "Company Line"?  Juan was simply making an observation that because of the narrative of 19 Islamic hijackers causing the calamity of 9/11, that he was nervous getting on a plane with people who are sporting "Muslim garb."  He said that he gets worried.  Williams also said that he was not being bigoted.

Whether you agree with Juan Williams' assertions about flying on a plane with people who are making obvious statements as to "who they are", keeping in mind again the Company Line about the 19 hijackers, at least Juan attempted to clarify his remarks.

Whereas Nina Totenburg can freely spout her anti-Christian views with inpunity.  Here she goes again, showing us her bigotry in her NPR-approved, politically correct Washington D.C. pseudo-intellectional manner:



Here is the text of her comment, courtesy of REAL CLEAR POLITICS:

"I want to say one thing about the budget that didn’t get passed, the omnibus bill. You know, we talk a lot about – we just passed this huge tax cut in part because business said, you know, we have to plan, we have to know what kind of tax cuts we have. Well, these agencies, including the Defense Department, don't know how much money they've got and for what. And I was at – forgive the expression – a Christmas party at the Department of Justice and people actually were really worried about this," NPR's Totenberg said on PBS this weekend.

FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom


Photo Courtesy themusicvoid.com
"...Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, Subsidize it."
-Ronald Reagan

By Robert McDowell - online.wsj.com: 'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.'Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Click Here for the Full Story

Friday, December 10, 2010

Bernanke Deceptive, Says Real-Life 'Lie to Me' Firm

Helicopter Ben
Bernanke deceptive, says real-life 'Lie to Me' firm
Intel analysts say Fed chairman hiding true feelings in '60 Minutes' interview
wnd.com - December 10, 2010

In his recent "60 Minutes" interview, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke assured America and the world that he's 100 percent confident the extraordinary measures he's taking to help the nation's depressed economy will be effective – and won't cause undesirable inflation.


However, according to a unique business analysis firm staffed with intelligence professionals – who use esoteric techniques to separate truth from obfuscation and deception in high-level business data – the Fed chief's public assurances about its most recent controversial attempt to stimulate the economy are very different from his actual beliefs and fears.

The Fed's new expansion of the money supply – dubbed QE2, short for the second round of "quantitative easing" following QE1 that ended in March of this year – involves the creation of $600 billion of new money to purchase Treasury debt. Critics and proponents alike agree the action is blatantly inflationary, but disagree on how much and whether that is desirable.

During his interview with "60 Minutes" last Sunday, reports Forbes, Bernanke claimed that the Federal Reserve isn't really printing money, and that he's "100 percent confident" the Fed can control the inflation that will result from the unconventional policy.

Not quite, says Boston-based Business Intelligence Advisors, or BIA, which "conducts 'tactical behavior assessments' based on methods developed during intelligence interrogations and interviews," according to Forbes writer Neil Weinberg. "BIA's analyses are used by institutional investors to assess the behavior of senior corporate executives."

In BIA's Dec. 7 report, "Mr. Bernanke lacks confidence the $600B Treasury bond plan will stimulate the economy and may actually foresee a need to increase that amount," reports Forbes.


Moreover, say BIA's analysts:

When asked about the likelihood of another recession, while he downplays the possibility as 'relatively unlikely,' his qualified statements suggest he lacks confidence that this is the case. Furthermore, he highlights unemployment as a reason that the economy could slow down and signals legitimate fears that the economic recovery is not self-sustaining. Given that Mr. Bernanke clearly has low expectations for improved employment in the foreseeable future, these comments raise the likelihood of additional funds being committed to the plan."


In addition, BIA states, "The possibility of inflation is a greater concern than Mr. Bernanke is willing to admit. Mr. Bernanke fails to truly deny the plan [to buy Treasuries] will not drive inflation and inadvertently reveals very real concerns about implementing the plan when he states 'the trick' is when to start to unwind the policy and that the Federal Reserve is 'trying' to achieve a balance."


BIA is reminiscent of the popular Fox television drama "Lie to Me," based on the real-life scientific discoveries of psychologist Paul Ekman, who discovered how to read clues embedded in the human face, body and voice to separate truth from lies in criminal investigations.

BIA's methods, according to its website, are "grounded in the Company’s proprietary Tactical Behavior Assessment® model, conceived by the national intelligence community and refined since 2001 while serving the world’s premier investment firms. BIA applies its unique behavioral lens using Tactical Behavior Assessment to evaluate the completeness and reliability of all forms of corporate disclosure. The Tactical Behavior Assessment model relies on patterns of certain verbal and non-verbal behaviors which are consistent and reliable indicators of hidden risk."

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Assange Speaks: "The Truth Will Always Win"


Assange Accuser Ana Ardin: CIA?
I ran across this interesting op-ed piece offered by Julian Assange in The Australian. By now, you are probably aware of Assange's turning himself into Scotland Yard.  He truly is a bizarre character.  The two females who have come forward with charges of "sex without a condom" are dubious characters themselves.  For a great article on this story and the strange case surrounding Assange's accusers, see Paul Joseph Watson's article at Infowars.com.

Both according to Watson allegedly sent text messages boasting of their feats with Assange, which reportedly occurred on back to back nights at a party.  One accuser allegedly has ties to the CIA and has published a 7-Step Guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends, to make them "suffer."  The jury is still out, metaphorically and perhaps literally, in short time.  Will this cause the "nuclear option" Dump release by WikiLeaks, as promised by Assange should he be arrested or harmed?  Stay tuned!
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange
by Julian Assange - December 07, 2010

IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.”

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch’s expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use Internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain ‘s The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be “taken out” by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be “hunted down like Osama bin Laden”, a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a “transnational threat” and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister’s office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn’t want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: “You’ll risk lives! National security! You’ll endanger troops!” Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can’t be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US , with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan . NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn’t find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran ‘s nuclear program stopped by any means available.

Britain’s Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect “US interests”.

Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay . Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said “only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government”. The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.


Friday, December 3, 2010

Chertoff's $350 Million Motivation

NYC Councilman Blows the Lid off of Government Corruption
Michael Chertoff Had a $350 Million Contract with the Full Body Scanner Company

Michael Chertoff, after the foiled "underwear bomber" attempt to blow up an airline on its way to Detroit, went on all the cable news shows after the event.  He was hawking the Full Body Scanners that TSA is using in order to "stop the terrorists."  His recommendation was about as good as one of the hacks at CNBC, who comes on the network to stump for their favorite money managers or stock du jour.  They, along with Chertoff, are about as legitimate as your average annoying sports bookie that comes on the sports radio networks every Sunday Morning.  "I've got your Pittsburgh vs Miami winner right here, gauranteed!  Absolutely free, absolutely free, absolutely free!"

Just to let people know who visit my Blog, I don't care if the voice of liberty happens to be a Democrat.  I know my website says "RedState RightMind", but that doesn't mean I don't think.  It means that I am a thinker and more like a Classical Liberal, which is a true Conservative.  HUH?  I'm WAY PAST partisan blindness.  Will I ever cheer for any NFL team like I do the Oakland Raiders?  NEVER!  Will I wise up and stop carrying water for the GOP and take a real good look at government corruption, in all its guises?  Been there for a while now. 

Here's a perfect example!  NYC Councilman David Greenfield (D) from Brooklyn said "We've turned TSA Screeners at our airports into peeping toms for no legitimate reason."

Bravo!  I love how he explains to Shepard Smith that the Israelis are the best in the business at screening out terror threats and that they have said that the TSA's Full Body Scanners won't stop a real terrorist.  According to Greenfield, the head of security at Ben Gurion airport said that he could sneak enough bomb making material on his person and avoid detection by Chertoff's scanners to blow up a 747.  While Smith avoids talking about how the TSA staff have been trained to humiliate passengers to train them into accepting the unhealthy scanners rather than being molested, he does cede to the truth about how there appears to be a sequence of dots that points to hanky panky.  Again, he doesn't go so far as to confirm the Chertoff connection.  Here's the video: