Thursday, March 15, 2007

Everybody Wants To Rule The World.

I'm a child of the 80's, what can I say.



Okay, has anyone else done any research on the PNAC (People for the New American Century)? This is some really, really scary stuff. We're talking world domination here. They want to set up permanent bases around the world (including Iraq) so that if/when the time comes, we can invade several countries at once.

In an article about Pres. Bush, TVnewslies.org said that this administration doesn't care about the real imminent dangers that the American people are faced with:
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/imminent_threat.html


3. Threats to our basic Constitutional freedoms: Using 9/11 as a cover for the most virulent attack on our civil liberties in history, we now live with the following:
The Patriot Act that has all but eliminated the protections provided to us by the US Constitution. (This act was actually in the planning long before 9/11.)

The public no longer has the right to know what the government is doing! Secrecy protects Bush from divulging information about 9/11, the Cheney energy meetings, the Iraq intelligence fiasco, and the archives of the first Pres. Bush.

Media consolidation threatens the public's ability to access diverse and complete information and opinion. Misled and coerced by accusations of being un-American, the Congress abdicated its exclusive responsibility for declaring war. By voting war powers to George W. Bush, the Constitution, once again, has been rendered meaningless.

4. Threats from an insane foreign policy. This administration has made this country feared and hated around the world. This is the result of:
An illegal and immoral war and occupation that are fueling extremist violence and inciting global terror and more acts of terror on our own soil.
Initiating a new nuclear arms race by showing that we do not invade countries with active nuclear programs.

A policy that declares that the US and its chosen allies have the exclusive right to develop weapons of mass destruction. Consider that approximately 3,500 people died within the US as a direct result of terrorism (in Oklahoma City and on 9/11)..

A doctrine that declares that the US has the right to launch pre-emptive, and if necessary, nuclear attacks on nations we suspect are hostile to us. Playing diplomatic games with N. Korea's nuclear threat, while refusing diplomatic solutions in Iraq.

An arrogant, self-righteous display of moral superiority that tells the world we can go it alone, without alliances and international agreements..

The abandonment of the war on terror, and the pursuit of domination of the Middle East and its oil.

The undue and self-indulgent influence of neoconservatives on foreign policy.

The intrusion of right wing religious doctrine as an integral part of American policy.

The undermining of the United Nations as a vital peace-keeping organ.

Insistence on American exemption from prosecution for war crimes in the World Court.

Check out this site for some interesting tid-bits on the PNAC:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac_timeline.htm

Pay close attention to this statement Condoleeza Rice gave to the 9/11 commission:
April 2004

Condoleeza Rice lies to the 9/11 commission: "...no one could have imagined planes being used as weapons..."

Now, check this site for proof she lied: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

"On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th."

Does that look like no one could have imagined planes being used as weapons??

There's so much lying going on, it's tough to sort the truth from the fiction. So, tell me your opinions..and see if you can spot the lies.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I disagree quite strenuously on the issue of media consolidation. I consult on this issue for the NAB in DC, and if anything, media ownership should be relaxed.

Why? If no other reason, then to save local broadcasting.

The current rules are outdated, which preserve an uneven playing field -- free broadcasters now has to compete against the nibler cable and satellite providers, and advertising dollars aren't infinite.

Unless something changes -- like the FCC rules -- broadcasters are not going to be fully competitive. And I think that means the future of free local programming is at risk.