The Empire Retreats

Last year, my one-page blog became far too long, so I promised to break it in half this year. Jump to the second half of 2011 here.

A simple idea to our foreclosure crisis is finally gaining attention in Washington, and requires no government funds. Federal law limits financial intuitions to financial activities. They must sell property they foreclose upon. As a result, Americans who can no longer afford their mortgage payments are kicked out of their homes, even though they are willing to pay rent, which is often much less. These houses sit empty for years as banks slowly market them without driving prices down further. Congress should alter the law, requiring banks to allow home occupants to remain and pay fair market rent if a bank forecloses on their home.

My overseas base closure list is attracting a lot of attention, so I'm putting forth more effort. Here is the latest addition:

The U.S. Postal Service lost $8 billion last year as mail use continues to decline in favor of e-mail. Taxpayers will soon be asked to help out. There is talk of eliminating Saturday mail service, but the ultimate solution is to switch to three day a week home delivery mail service. Some people would get mail Mon/Wed/Fri, and the other half Tue/Thu/Sat. A one day delay won't make any difference for home delivery. Local postmasters can choose daily delivery for high-volume businesses, but its wasteful to dispatch a mailman to every home every day.

This would also save billions of dollars in fuel costs, especially for rural route carriers. They drive miles between each remote roadside postal box every day to dump off a single letter and junk mail. Many people don't bother to get their mail everyday anyway. Anything urgent can be sent FedEx, and e-documents are now widely accepted. The cost savings would be huge because the postal service would require half as many delivery vehicles, and thousands fewer mailmen. This would instantly wipe out losses for the Postal Service, and even allow a profit.

One theme of this blog is to explain how nearly everything our military does is focused on making easy profits for billionaires. Major General Smedly Butler summarized this in 1933: "War is a Racket." American foreign policy is run by a cabal of ultra-wealthy people with the assistance of the "Power Elite", who are the President and his staff, congressmen, senior federal officials, generals and admirals, the CIA, professors, media CEOs, TV hosts and anchormen, and judges. They don't have an official club, but help each other rise to the top, and dispose of troublesome idealists.

Retiring Defense Secretary Bob Gates is a long-time member of the Power Elite. He began with the CIA as a mole wearing a USAF uniform for several years. Few military people realize there are CIA agents working among them and wearing the same uniform. They report all unit activities to Langley and assist CIA efforts when needed. Gates impressed all by doing what he was told, even if illegal. This allowed him to become CIA director, a position equal to that of the U.S. President. Recall that when President Obama was elected, he promised to clean house and undo all the wrongs of the Bush administration. Then why did he retain Bob Gates in a key position? A man from the "evil" Republican party? It is obvious that Obama has always been one of the "Power Elite" with limited power in Washington, who masquerades as a "liberal/progressive" with the help of our media.

Gates recently blurted out the truth about our foreign policy to a New York Times reporter, feeling somewhat guilty about the mess he helped create in Iraq and Afghanistan:

“When I took this job, the United States was fighting two very difficult, very costly wars,” Mr. Gates said. “And it has seemed to me: Let’s get this business wrapped up before we go looking for more opportunities. If we were about to be attacked or had been attacked or something happened that threatened a vital U.S. national interest, I would be the first in line to say, ‘Let’s go,’ ” Mr. Gates said. “I will always be an advocate in terms of wars of necessity. I am just much more cautious on wars of choice.”

So the USA engages in war for "opportunities" unrelated to national defense. And Gates made sure his comment was understood, adding that these are "wars of choice." That is straight talk from a retiring long-time member of the Power Elite. This statement should send shockwaves through America, yet his fellow Power Elite members kept it out of their "news", while more senior members called the editor of the New York Times to complain that story was unfit to print.

They also called up Gates and told him to shut up and get out of Washington ASAP, lest he fall "out of a canoe" and die. That happened to former CIA Director William Colby (pictured) in 1996, shortly after he appeared in a CDI documentary and said now that the Cold War ended, U.S. military spending should be cut in half. Colby never gave another interview. We now spend more on our military than during the Cold War.

The American media has mostly ignored the NATO invasion of Libya. NATO attack jets, attack helicopters, and special forces along with hired "rebels' are closing in on Tripoli. As I've noted before, one goal is to retake Libyan oil fields and return them to their legal owners (Western oil companies.) The other reason is a $70 billion bank heist. As relations with Libya improved these past few years, western banks convinced Libya to send billions of oil dollars to their investment banks to invest and grow. As Tripoli falls, over $70 billion will be quietly transferred to the control of Western billionaires, money that belongs to poor Libyans. Goldman Sachs has already pocketed $1.3 billion by announcing that 98% of the money Libya invested with them was "lost" in bad investments.

Sometimes I feel I waste time with my on-line efforts, but then I read my solution to the military base conflict in Okinawa and the billions wasted by the Army in Korea have received high level attention in the US Senate after a recent GAO report:

"Certain projects in Korea, Japan and Guam have gotten to the point that it is clearly in the best interests of our countries, and in the best interests of sustaining and furthering our strong alliances, to re-examine these plans and adjust them to fiscal, political and strategic realities," said Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senators Levin, McCain, and Webb backed my proposal to move Marine Corps aircraft from Futenma up the road to the larger U.S. airbase at Kadena, and moving some USAF units to other bases. They also objected to Army expansion plans in Korea. Here is the latest addition on my list of overseas bases to close:

I've always loved libraries, although I haven't used one in a decade. In the great, futuristic movie "I-Robot" a CEO mocked Will Smith as one of those backward types who wanted to preserve libraries. I basically agree, libraries are extinct. Their main function today is to provide free internet access to the poor, which I fully support. But this does not require $60,000 a year "librarians" with useless college degrees on how to utilize the "Dewey Decimal System", which search engines have made irrelevant. Most public libraries have lines of people waiting for their 15-minute turn at free internet, whilst traditional librarians wait around for someone to ask about old books.

Many public libraries justify their existence by providing DVDs, but that service is available in the private sector for a $1 rental. As our cities struggle with funds, libraries should become rows of computers for the poor to use the Internet, or free wireless for those with laptops, watched over by a $14 an hour Joe. Perhaps a children's' book area, and magazine area is needed, but no more book stacks and outdated reference sections. Used books can be found cheaply at Amazon.com and other outlets for the rare book reader.

At the university level, politicians must demand library reform, simply by cutting budgets in half as part of a reform plan devised by outsiders. For example, look at the huge library staff of the University of Texas at Austin, earning a comfortable living off an outdated concept. I doubt much has changed over the past two decades, with over a hundred people doing little, except surfing the net during "work" hours for topics that interest them. Google has copied all library books for on-line access, so why keep thousands of hard copies collecting dust on shelves? If they are "historic" sell them to collectors because their content is available on-line.

Rather than cutting back on nursing, pharmacy, or engineering degree programs, UT Austin should fire 124 library staffers, delete or merge most departments, and close half of their outdated book storage facilities that no one uses anymore. UT students wouldn't notice any change. This is not drastic, because firing half will still leave a staff of 124, which is probably too many. Prompt action is required because of budget shortfalls, so the state legislature should slash library budgets in half, which would shed over 1000 library staffers from the state university system, allowing 1000 professors to remain in classrooms.

Your TV may give you the impression that Republicans are slashing spending. In the first major spending bill passed related to the FY 2012 budget, they increased military spending. This is $11 billion more than FY2011, and after OBL is gone and "we are told" all troops will be out of Iraq by years' end. I will be surprised if the total FY2012 budget passed by Republicans in the House is smaller than the FY2011 "Democrat" budget.

They may try the irresponsible path of providing less funding without changing laws that require the expenditures, thus creating chaos that federal departments must confront. For example, federal law may entitle X number of Americans to receive X amount of money. But if Congress doesn't fully fund these needs and is too cowardly to adjust benefits, anger and turmoil result, until Congress kicks in an emergency "supplemental" spending bill that it never counts as spending.

The failed coup in Libya still smolders. The British/French colonizers have decided they will have to invade directly, and their attack helicopters and special forces are now in action, but that is not news. Yet the plan to justify this invasion has unfolded. Everyone who supports Libya's government is a rapist, which we all know after countless news reports. My April 19th blog mentioned one odd "cry rape" story, but the misinformation campaign is now in full swing, and our Corporate/CIA controlled media outlets are "reporting" just what they are dictated.

Their "mass rape" story is laughable. Dr. Seham Sergewa is touted as a Libyan psychologist, who speaks perfect English, and some "news" reports say she is London trained or London based. Google her name as I did, and it appears nowhere before she became famous from her odd rape study in war torn Libya. Apparently, she arrived in Libya as fighting raged to conduct a survey, and within one month distributed 70,000 questionnaires to displaced refugees and got back 59,000 responses that proved widespread rapes by Libyans loyal to their government. And she personally interviewed 140 rape victims, all within a month in a deadly war zone! None claimed they were raped by the sainted "rebels."

Any half wit reporter would doubt claims by a Londoner, whose government is trying to gin up public support for their military conquest. Might someone ask where she has worked? Who funded her study? And how many staff members were employed to distribute and process all the questionnaires? And during her amazingly fast study in a war zone, she flew to the Hague to testify and gain endorsement from the International Criminal Court, and appeared on CNN, and made press appearances for numerous interviews? In her AP interview she concludes: "We must throw light on what is really happening in Libya and fight to bring justice for these women, to help heal them psychologically." Yes, fight the rapists! We must!

Once again, who is paying for this unknown Londoner's survey and travels? Isn't that a basic question, before reporting whatever she says as fact? This is a classic misinformation campaign, evidenced by the heavy reporting at the CIA's key outlets, the "Washington Post" and CNN. CIA mole Anderson Cooper complemented the effort with an interview with another lady from London posing as a reporter. She confirmed that a thousand rapes occurred in Misrata because "someone" showed her a cell phone video of one, and she was led to a man who "someone" told her was a Libyan POW, who said that a thousand rapes occurred. She saw none, but knows that sensational hearsay from strangers must be true, especially with Anderson Cooper ready to broadcast whatever anti-Libyan government story she hears on the street, whilst she is shadowed (or accompanied) by British agents keen on manipulating the news.

Meanwhile, stories of British and French warplanes bombing Libya and their troops on the ground are not considered newsworthy in the USA. This is an excellent example of misinformation posing as "news." Rapes have occurred, as they do in all wars, by both sides, but hundreds of people are dying too. A recent article in the "Economist" noted there are now six times more Americans employed in "public relations" than in journalism, and their job is to target the journalists to spin the truth, which is easy since most "newsmen" are employed by their bosses too. The real story here: Libyan oil fields will soon return to British (BP and Shell) and French (Total) control.

Former Reagan budget director David Stockman is a rare good guy who understand the issues AND speaks about them. Of course he is unelectable since corporations will never give him a dime and instruct their "news" outlets to keep him out of their news.

Most Texans fancy themselves as reasonable and financially conservative people. While our corporate media loves to hammer states like California and New York for budget shortfalls due to liberal spending, take note that Texas has an equally serious budget problem. One unmentioned issue with growing state budgets is the need to realign university degree programs. The modern world has added new, needed programs related to electronics, computers, and pharmacy college degrees. However, old world degree programs of little societal value remain on the government teat.

For example, the University of Texas spends millions of dollars a year to graduate hundreds of students with degrees in Art History. Why? That is not essential to the state's economy. Jobs related to art history are extremely rare, and private universities in the state graduate several times more art history majors than the state needs. This department should be slashed 90%, which would save huge amounts of money, with zero impact on the state economy. Just take a look at this current list of art history professors at UT Austin earning $100,000+ a year :

Art History Faculty

Assistant Instructors

Show this list to most Texans and they will want to eliminate the entire art history division. Keep in mind that our public university system is one where the lower income half of a state's population helps pay for educating the upper half. As a result, public universities should be limited to producing graduates that the state needs, like more nurses and primary care doctors. There are several other degree programs of no real value, like Paleontology, which is best described as a dinosaur hobby that Texans can purse at their own expense at private colleges. Art history buffs cannot refute such arguments, so will use childish snobbery, accusing realists of lacking a real education.

As you watch all the news reports about major floods along the Mississippi River and the billions of dollars in damage they cause, note that no one suggests dams are the solution. I'm not referring to the river itself, but far upstream in the hundreds of tributaries where dams could provide protection from flooding since they hold back water during major rains. They could also provide recreational areas for water sports, reservoirs for drinking water, and pollution free renewable energy. Recall my Feb 6th blog about the anti-dam conspiracy. And the cost of a dozen new dams would be less than the destruction caused by this years' flood alone.

Control of the American media is so complete that no one expressed doubts about the obvious flaws and lucky timing in the recent tale of killing Osama Bin Laden. He was always in poor health, walked with a cane, and required kidney dialysis. Many experts think that he died long ago, which is why the USA never found him. The erratic videotapes that appeared since 2001 were of questionable authenticity. Now we are told Osama wasn't living in a remote cave, but an upscale Pakistani suburb amongst retired Pakistani military officers and down the street from Pakistan's military academy.

President Obama and the Pentagon were increasing criticized in Congress and the press for their pointless effort in Afghanistan, where a manpower surge has resulted in no military progress, just an huge surge in costs and causalities. This has suddenly changed with the killing of Osama. Bill Gates had just announced his retirement as Secretary of Defense, so he can take credit for getting Osama. General David Patraeus is head of all U.S. military forces in the Middle East, and is moving to head the CIA with an eye on the Presidency. He is now known as the General who got Osama, and this helps explain his CIA nomination.

President Obama announced his plan to run for reelection on April 4th, despite having lied about every campaign promise. He will face no Democratic primary challengers after personally announcing that Osama was killed on April 30th -- the same day Hitler died! Republican challengers have been deterred as well. Pictures of the President and all his key staff watching the raid were instantly released, implying he was in command. Obama immediately went to New York to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site, and then off to Fort Bragg to accept cheers from the troops. The corporate media congratulated everyone in his administration, and Obama's approval rating surged, even though he has done nothing about uncontrolled spending, a growing energy crisis, a failed CIA coup in Libya, high unemployment, and a falling dollar. The political timing for killing Osama was perfect, too perfect.

The CIA has long been criticized for torturing and killing terror suspects in places like Gitmo. We were instantly informed that Osama was found because of these dirty deeds. We were also informed that the raid turned up evidence that indicated Osama was directing terror attacks, and planned for more in the USA this year. It seems the CIA is much more efficient than anyone thought. A huge trove of disorganized info was captured, flown back to the USA, and somehow all these random files in Arabic were analyzed within 24 hours and their contents released to the press. This was amazingly fast, too amazing. And wouldn't it be better to wait a few days before announcing the Osama raid in order to exploit actionable intelligence and round up some Al Qaeda before tipping them off with an announcement from the President?

We are told the CIA had a excellent tip that Osama was at this house last August, and set up a surveillance post near the house while satellites took thousands of photos that yielded some proof. Then why did they wait so long to kick down a door to find out? Osama could have slipped away at anytime. We have Predator drones armed with missiles that loiter over Pakistan killing anyone who looks like a terrorist, and blowing up homes based on weak "intelligence" only a few hours old.

They finally got a good tip about Osama himself, yet waited eight months to take action? He wasn't in a fortress protected by hundreds of Al Qaeda, and apparently had no security at all. And when they did act, they must have been 100% sure he was there. We know this because the White House released a photo of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Defense, and top Generals watching the raid. The Pentagon would never gather all these busy people to watch a raid unless it was 100% sure the raid would be a success.

The SEAL raid was obviously a staged event. Only a fool would fly four helicopters into a small compound where big booby traps (IEDs) might lurk. And one lesson learned from the "Blackhawk Down" fiasco is that you never hover a helicopter over a hostile area to allow commandos to fast rope down, something they say the SEALs did. Anyone can shoot a common RPG out a nearby window and down a helicopter. Moreover, helicopters are loud (even the quiet ones used by the Special Forces) and make unique sounds that alerted everyone in town to the arrival of American commandos, reenacting a famous scene from "Apocalypse Now." Certainly, Osama had an escape plan. He'd turn on the booby traps and run out his secret passage.

Our Generals are not stupid, and would never invite the President and staff to watch a potentially disastrous "Blackhawk Down" type raid where hovering helicopters are shot down in a confined courtyard while surviving SEALs are pinned down by machine gun fire as Osama slips out the back. And what about the dogs, who special operators fear most? Dogs are the standard security feature of every Third World home to keep out criminals. If one builds high walls topped by barbed wire, of course he will keep several big dogs in the compound to deter and warn of intruders. Those who wrote the script forgot about this, and say dozens of SEALs landed in the courtyard, kicked down doors, and didn't open fire until they encountered a courier inside. What about the dogs? They would have started barking at the strange helicopter noises long before they landed, and attack dogs are unafraid of anyone invading their turf, even Navy SEALs. And what happened to the local Pakistani police? If odd helicopters began flying about and shooting occurs at night in a nice suburb, it would surely result in several Pakistani policemen showing up with AK-47s at the ready.

If this were a real raid, SEALs would have landed three miles away, and walked or took local trucks to surround the courtyard to ensure no one escaped. Teams would slip over the walls and attempt to gain entry to the houses without alerting the occupants. This is called "special ops." Fast roping into an urban compound is a staged show that would only be attempted if it had been secured beforehand. In addition, SEALs are trained to operate in small teams. They focus on stealth insertion, using parachutes, scuba gear, small boats. Army Rangers are better organized and more heavily armed for helicopter raids. The only problem they admitted is that one helicopter "malfunctioned" while landing and hit hard, yet no one was hurt. Pictures from a Pakistani officer showed that its tail hit the compound wall and broke off, the helicopter crashed, yet none of the SEAL supermen were injured?

And while they were collecting Osama's papers and computers, no one thought to grab his three wives for questioning? We have hundreds of "war on terror" prisoners who have been held for years, questioned hundreds of times, and even tortured, because they once met Osama. His wives are the ultimate source, who might know about all these planned terror attacks. Why not interrogate them for a few days? No one thought of that? Finally, every purported video of Osama showed AK-47s close by. The script should have him blazing away until cut down by Navy SEALs. The CIA script has Osama just waiting to get shot in the head, as though the helicopters and gunfire never altered him to danger.

This tale of killing Osama is pure fiction. The most obvious BS is about his corpse. We can't show photos because Americans have never seen gory stuff? The Pentagon is suddenly worried about upsetting Muslims? And the body was dumped at sea before anyone knew what happened? At least they should show the courtesy of providing doctored photos. And why not allow Congressmen or White House reporters to privately view the raid video and corpse? And since the names of everyone on the SEAL raid is secret, the press cannot confirm anything, although they excitedly repeat whatever the CIA-Pentagon tells them as fact. Most members of the raid force had no need to know either. Just a couple trusted SEALs could have performed this ruse -- going into the house, shooting some folks, sticking one in body bag, hauling him to a helo, and dumping the body at sea.

This entire raid tale is based on "trust us" information from the CIA-Pentagon, which has a historical record of lying about everything. Recall the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman lies? Those embarrassing screw-ups led to high-level conspiracies to hide the truth and spin the success of the Special Forces. Two lesser known lies surfaced this past year. The CIA finally admitted that it shot down several unarmed, small airplanes over South America thought to be carrying drugs, including one full of American missionaries. And the CIA insists that three "detainees" in separate cells at Gitmo decided to kill themselves the same night by somehow stuffing a rag down their own throat, just after they endured CIA special interrogations at remote "Site Zero." One was the son of a Saudi Arabian General. The CIA insists that it was just a coincidence that all three killed themselves the same night in the same odd way, while the Army guard assigned to watch over them took a lengthy, unauthorized break.

In a poor attempt to prove they got Osama, the CIA released five video clips of Osama captured in the raid. However, it shows that Osama's upscale "million dollar home" is surprising bare with tiny rooms. And Osama has a black beard, and not the graying beard he grew over the last decade. It is obvious these are old video clips, yet the CIA says Osama colored his beard black. Why? Wouldn't that make him look vain and silly to his followers? Meanwhile, our television "news" shows interview smug members of the Obama administration who feign shock that anyone would mistrust the word of the CIA-Pentagon or our sainted President, who promised dozens of times during the Presidential campaign that Gitmo would close by January 2010, and all U.S. troops would be gone from Iraq by May 2010. They state that there is a small percentage of crazy Americans who will never accept the truth, so there is no point explaining obvious flaws in their tale of killing Osama.

1. Osama died long ago, and this entire raid was a ruse. It's possible that General Patraeus, certain CIA operators, or Special Forces officers pulled off this stunt with no involvement from the Pentagon or White House. One indication occurred when the CIA's civilian figurehead, Leon Panetta, said that photos of dead Osama would be released. He was overruled, because none exist. Those Special Ops guys have made numerous boring deployments to Pakistan looking for Osama, now they can go home as heroes and spend time on the beach.

2. Pakistan's government is fragmented. Perhaps a General decided to snitch on Osama for a reward. His troops and agents surrounded the compound and told everyone inside they had a choice of dying or fleeing. They removed all weapons and swept the compound for IEDs, then pulled back and told the SEALs to come get him. Its also possible that Osama recently died, and a Paki General decided not to let his corpse go to waste, so arranged the show. All the Pakistan experts say there is no way the USA would attempt this raid without approval and help of a few Generals in Pakistan. Imagine a Paki General saying: "Let's put this bin Laden thing to rest. My cousin has a nice compound in my neighborhood that we can use for your show, and I will fill it with some terrorist papers and a couple political prisoners that you can gun down. Its big enough so that you can land helos! I'll have my men secure the area before you arrive. All you have to do is wire $10 million to my Swiss account."

3. Another possibility is the raid turned up nothing, and killed a couple innocent Pakis. Bad intel again, and the President and his entire staff were waiting for the promised good news. (Recall the President mentioned that real-time webcam footage to the White House stopped for the key 25 minutes, due to technical problems.) The guy in charge of the raid was embarrassed, but Osama had probably died years ago, so he decided to proclaim success, stick a dead Paki into a body bag and dump it in the ocean. Everyone gets a promotion, medals, and praise, and returns home for a long vacation. A brilliant solution! No one in Washington will demand proof since they don't care about the truth, and the body is gone, and the DNA evidenced faked. Besides, he has two SEALs who will swear they killed Osama, and photos of a disfigured Arab face with a beard that could be Osama. This tale is a win-win for everyone!

The spineless corporate media will not even suggest something is amiss, and bloggers can be labeled as unpatriotic and crazy conspiracy theorists. No evidence is required and no witness is provided. Osama Bin Laden was killed in a flashy, flawless raid in which no American was injured, because "they" say so. So shut up, praise the CIA and our military, and reelect Barak Obama.

o accept the idea that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. We conveniently forget that in the first two communications following 9/11 bin Laden denied any involvement even though he had everything to gain from acknowledging his leadership, whether true or not.

The alleged bin Laden 9/11 confession video showed a man much heavier than the sickly bin Laden and one who wrote with his right hand. The FBI wanted poster explicitly states that bin Laden is left handed and does not mention 9/11 among his crimes.

When asked on June 5, 2006 why the omission, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, responded that it "is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” This has remained true up until his extra-judicial murder.

I am puzzled by the issue of Obama's birth certificate. Even if it never existed, it would be simple to fabricate one. The serious "birthers" don't doubt that he was born in Hawaii, but that his dad is not the guy listed on his birth certificate. We are told that his dad was from a middle-class Kenyan family, but somehow got the money and visa to take Russian language courses in Hawaii, then went on to Harvard, and then back to Kenya. This was during the Cold War, so what powerful group may have arranged all that? Why would a Kenyan need to learn Russian? The only logical answer is that he was assigned to spy on Soviet diplomats and military advisors in Africa, which were heavily involved in places like Angola and Somalia. And if the Soviets uncovered him, or his alcoholism caused the CIA problems, might he die in an "automobile accident"?

The birth certificate is a dead horse issue used by our corporate media to fill air time with another manufactured controversy. Yes, Donald Trump mentions it, but he spends more time saying that China is slowly killing our nation by exploiting its cheap labor to steal our industries, something our media refuses to report. If one wants intrigue, try to discover how a poor, average student named Barry Obama managed to attend expensive, private Occidental College, then somehow found the money to attend two ultra-expensive universities of the eastern establishment (Columbia and Harvard).

Obama's only private sector work experience was a year with a CIA front company, Business International Corporation. This may seem like Manchurian Candidate paranoia, but even Obama supporters acknowledge that he has ignored all campaign promises and reversed his senate voting record to function as a puppet for Wall Street and the Pentagon. He made no effort to implement: closing Gitmo, pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq by May 2010, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, prosecuting Wall Street swindlers, reducing our military budget, or establishing efficient, single-payer health care for all Americans. Obama brought in the corporate cronies who run the Democratic party for personal profit to run the show, and they blocked efforts in the Democratic controlled Congress to implement these changes.

Its not like powerful people selected Obama for President 20 years ago, but a key element for controlling American democracy by the Power Elite is to select and groom young, ambitious middle class Americans to run for political office. They sponsor hundreds of potential senators and presidents from college onward and push them upward. Candidates must be attractive, intelligent, ambitious, and lacking in scruples. This is nothing new, most American Presidents were sponsored for years by the powers that be until they were selected to accept their party's nomination. They were unknowns who suddenly showed up on every corporate TV show as a leading candidate. Recall Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barak Obama rose from nowhere. Carter was a disappointment, who cut his puppet strings, so he was ousted. Republican candidates are usually "old money" types from the Power Elite, like Bush and McCain. Nixon was not, and when he tugged back on his puppet strings, he was thrown out of office. The Democratic party machine needs candidates that appeal to the working class, so they must grow their own, although the Republicans test market attractive puppets they find in the sticks, like Sarah Palin.

For a current example of a CIA front company manned by the "Power Elite", take a look at this propaganda outfit: America Abroad Media Few Americans are aware that PBS is a corporate run propaganda outfit, which is why PBS and NPR will not be defunded by the Republicans. It offers a sophisticated slant on news to fool those who consider themselves highly educated, rather than the crude spinmasters at Fox. Just yesterday I heard a reporter from NPR discussing Obama's plans to cut our military budget, which he must know is nonsense. These "cuts" are just reductions in planned growth, but the military budget will continue to grow each year. Next year, Obama will spend 10% more on our military than Bush (even after adjusting for inflation). Has the "threat" to our national security grown 10% in two years? When I watch or read corporate news, I'm not seeking information, but learning what "they" want us to think, and try to determine why.

This was the only American combat division to be overrun in battle during World War II. It was a new "green" division placed in a quiet area of the German front during late 1944 to gain combat experience. That was the precise location of the German "Battle of the Bulge" offensive. The 106th was overrun in two days as it suffered 417 killed, 1278 seriously wounded, and 6697 taken prisoner, with the survivors fleeing rearward and joining other units. Many American officers recount the fear and disbelief when unit icons for the 106th were removed from their tactical maps.

You probably heard about the recent incident where First Lady Michelle Obama's airplane had to go around for another landing approach because it was a bit too close to a USAF C-17 transport. OMG, it had to go around! We all heard that vital news.

We also hear President Obama talk about the need to conserve energy and reduce pollution that contributes to global warming, and how the federal budget must be slashed. We did not hear about the hypocrisy surrounding that trip. The First and Second Lady went to New York to appear on "The View" TV show. They didn't fly first class commercial. But they didn't even take a small executive jet, but a big military C-40 transport (Boeing 737) for their one hour flight. They burned up more money and fuel than the average American uses in a decade.

There are many stories in our media about war vets having troubles with PTSD (acting crazy). If you want to understand this issue, watch the great PBS Frontline documentary: The Wounded Platoon.

It clearly shows a major problem in how we treat combat veterans. VA benefits are denied to veterans with a dishonorable discharge. There are thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan combat vets who got kicked out of the military for crazy things once they returned stateside. This was often for minor things like failing drug tests or drunken incidents, or violent ones, like those detailed in that documentary. As a result, they are unable to seek VA help with their mental issues. Some GIs did multiple combat tours, had over a decade in service, but PTSD caused them to get booted out with no retirement pay, and not even VA health benefits that a National Guardsman rates if he does just 90 days active duty stateside.

I think Congress would agree that once a servicemen enters a combat zone, his VA health benefits are vested for life, and he cannot lose them no matter what crimes he commits. Other VA benefits like education would be lost. This is fair, and good for society because these combat vets know how to handle weapons and how to kill, and some are trained in explosives. It's best for everyone to allow the VA to help these bad boys readjust to civilian life.

Few people are aware of how often they are fooled. For example, after the mysterious coup failed in Libya, NATO nations began bombing Libyan forces. This was unpopular with most citizens, so it was necessary to depict the Libyan government as evil. The CIA, or one of its allies, found a lady who supported the overthrow of Libya's government, and paid her to charge into a hotel lobby full of foreign journalists screaming rape.

All reporters instantly reported this "fact" as their top story, rather than Libyans killed in the fighting or the NATO bombing. They all learned the exact spelling of her name. The great CNN propaganda machine did one hour news stories of the "alleged" rape, portraying the evil Libyan government, even though her story was odd. Why did she choose that hotel, and when all the reporters were having breakfast near the lobby? Women are embarrassed by rape, so why scream it out to the world? And the 15 rapists, who were described as soldiers, or militia men, or sometimes just loyalists at a checkpoint. The women was removed from the hotel and released, the Libyan government promptly ordered an investigation, and said rape was illegal. The women just happened to be a lawyer, and was not that attractive. Nevertheless, our media proclaimed the Libyan government has been proven evil, and must be bombed, bombed, bombed.

What if a woman charged into a five-star hotel in the USA full of reporters, screaming her name and claiming she was raped by 15 of President Obama's secret service agents? Would reporters rush to report this truth, showing that Obama is truly evil? Or might they have doubts, and suspect a political prank? Would hotel security allow the hysterical women to continue screaming in the lobby, or might they remove her, perhaps to a hospital? Before fools attack me for not being sympathetic to rape victims, that is not the issue here. Reporters on the road did not encounter a rape in progress, they just saw an odd scene in their lobby and had no proof that she was raped, which is not a notable story anyway. There were no witnesses and no proof was ever presented. Yet everyone saw the same story dozens of times on our propaganda outlets reported as a fact.

CNN's Anderson Cooper did a series of reports on this incident, and even managed to locate and interview this woman. This confirms allegations that he is a covert CIA agent. His ultra-wealthy family is part of America's "Power Elite" allied with the CIA. Cooper graduated from the CIA's favorite recruiting grounds - Yale. He recently admitted that he spent two summers at the CIA's Langley headquarters as an intern. After graduation, he decided to roam around unstable Myanmar with a fake press pass, and then chose to study Vietnamese and live in Hanoi. Cooper then showed up at world trouble spots like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Somalia as a self-employed "reporter." Somehow, he landed a job as a senior correspondent with ABC news, without any formal reporting experience or a journalism degree, and soon became a major "news" anchor. He is from a wealthy family and looks good on TV, but his background is highly suspect, and his international reporting is always supportive of CIA misinformation efforts.

Another addition to my overseas base closure list: Cut Army Fat in Korea - 8th Army and Daegu

My prediction has come true, which didn't require much thought. Remember the Sadr militia in Iraq that went to ground after the USA announced all U.S. troops would be gone by Dec 31, 2011? Defense Secretary Gates recently made comments that some U.S. troops might remain. This is no surprise, since our military just completed its new, multi-billion dollar bases in Iraq. Meanwhile, Sadr has just emerged to announce that if U.S. troops and mercs "contractors" remain, his army will reappear to battle them.

American anti-trust laws are no longer enforced. A great example is AT&T's announcement that it will buy competitor T-Mobile. Anti-trust laws do not allow mergers that eliminate competition, unless one company is clearing failing and will go out of business. Another exception is when two smaller companies merge to better compete with larger ones, providing they are not currently major players in one area, in which case they must sell some assets in those markets.

AT&Ts buy-out is clearly illegal, gobbling up a healthy, smaller competitor who offers lower prices. T-Mobile executives will cash out with huge severance packages, T-mobile customers will face higher charges, while the two remaining cell phone powerhouses, AT&T and Verizon, can raise prices on their customers without fear of losing some to T-Mobile. Don't expect Wall Street's front man, Barak Obama, to enforce anti-trust laws during his reign, even when it's a clear violation of law and America's free enterprise system, and unpopular with all cell phone customers. Next on the duopoly hit list -- Sprint.

There was talk of cutting the U.S. military budget early this year, but that has gone away with a new conquest in the pipeline. The new U.S. Africa command (based in Germany) had nothing to do but develop a plan to conquer Libya, starting with a CIA backed coup. The uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt provided an ideal excuse to overthrow Libya's dictator. That Sandhurst educated madman has been targeted ever since he kicked the U.S. Air Force out of its Wheelus airbase, bought Soviet weapons rather than ours, and wasted oil profits on aid to Africa rather than investing all of it in London and New York. When the coup failed, Obama was told airpower was needed for a humanitarian effort to protect Libyan civilians. It was good to read that someone from a major newspaper had the courage to point out that is complete BS. He is a columnist, since our reporters no longer report news, they simply repeat corporate and government propaganda.

Very few Americans know that most of the UN Security Council abstained from voting, including: Germany, Brazil, India, Russia, and China. There was been much speculation of what the US traded for their disinterest, and keep in mind they only approved a no-fly zone to shoot down Libyan military attack aircraft. There was no approval for bombing Libya or arming Libyan insurgents. Geraldo Rivera recently reported from the frontlines there and described the Libyan insurgents as undisciplined and dangerous to everyone.

An acceptable leader for the insurgents has finally appeared, and its no surprise he is an English speaking exile from the USA. Ali Tarhouni had left Libya in 1973 and was an unknown professor in Seattle. For unexplained reasons, he abandoned his comfortable job in the USA to become the spokesman and de facto leader of an unrecognized and apparently unfunded rebel group whose members he had never met. Somehow, he returned to Libya after 40 years abroad to help lead the uprising before it "spontaneously" began. It is obvious that he was anointed by the CIA to become our boy in Libya many years ago. Meanwhile, London bankers are ready to divide up the $70 billion in Libyan investments foolishly deposited in western banks.

As economists discuss the huge economic impact of Japan's recent disasters, few have noted that the solution will mostly impact the USA. These disasters have cost the Japanese economy some $200-300 billion thus far, yet Japan has squirreled away over $1 trillion in U.S. federal debt securities over the years. Japan has begun cashing in these chips on the world market, and someone must buy these American IOUs.

As I ponder the problem of melting nuclear reactors, I was thinking they should be on barges. If one begins to meltdown for whatever reason, a tug boat can tow it out to sea and away from populated areas, while escorting fire boats drown it with water. It could be sunk in deep waters where ultra cold deepwater ocean currents and high pressure keep it contained. This will kill lots of fish, but its far better than a smoldering, spewing radioactive fire releasing radioactive gasses for months near densely populated areas. Since reactors must be replaced every few years, this barge system would also make that much simpler. Some people ask why power plants are not located in remote areas to begin with. The problem is that electricity is lost during wire transmission, so plants must be near customers.

The Ivory Coast is a small African nation where far more innocents die everyday than in Libya. Elections were held a few weeks ago, and a new President was chosen and endorsed by the UN. But the losing President refused to leave, resulting in a civil war. So why no NATO bombs for the forces loyal to the evil former President? Far more people are being slaughtered than in Libya, and the rebels are led by a democratically elected and UN endorsed leader. How does one explain the total lack of American interest in that civil war, given President Obama's far weaker justification for intervention in Libya? It seems reasonable to assume the USA wants to dominate Libya's oil, and not the defunct ivory trade.

My blogs about Fletcher Prouty's great book "JFK" failed to mention what he considered the key mistakes of the Vietnam war, which occurred before American combat forces arrived, when all decisions were made by the CIA. I found these interesting because few authors mention them, and none considered them vital:

1. The CIA believed that French colonial rule must be immediately dismantled. While colonialism had evil roots, it had progressive elements. For example, the French established a justice system of provincial police and courts. While village chiefs handled local matters, the French colonial administration dealt with serious criminals, rural gangs, and resolved disputes between villages. As soon as the Americans arrived, they instantly deported all Frenchmen and fired thousands of supporting colonial Vietnamese police and support personnel. Nothing replaced their vital role, leaving the poorly trained and corrupt new South Vietnamese Army to deal with the resulting turmoil.

2. Since China had become a communist state, all ethic Chinese in Vietnam were viewed as communist sympathizers. Ironically, the Chinese were the merchant class of Vietnam who operated a system of free trade. Villagers produced rice and mountain vegetables, which they traded for metal tools, medicine, and luxury items. Once the evil Chinese were deported, South Vietnam's traditional system of trade halted. Villagers could not obtain basic items, while food shortages developed in cities while food rotted in rural areas because trade arrangements ended.

3. People from North Vietnam are different from those in the South. They are taller and more Chinese in appearance, and speak with a different accent. After the split of North and South Vietnam in 1954, the USA installed an exiled Catholic, Ngo Dinh Diem, as President. The CIA thought it could weaken the North by arranging a mass exodus of "anti-communists" from the North. A million North Vietnamese were encouraged to flee southward after a massive propaganda campaign warned of life under communism. The USA devoted tremendous resources flying and shipping these people southward.

These refugees were dumped in groups to form new villages in the South after the army seized private land. This angered the Southerners, while the old French court system no longer existed to resolve disputes. Most of the refugees were Catholics, whom Diem favored, so he awarded most government posts and military commands to these "foreigners." Thus, the new South Vietnamese army was led by North Vietnamese, who settled rural disputes in favor of their fellow refugees. Finally, the new communist regime in the North used the chaotic exodus to send thousands of secret agents into the South, who landed jobs in the government and army.

As a result of these actions, the American effort to create the nation of South Vietnam destroyed its established colonial judicial system, deported its Chinese traders, and imported a million Northerners who seized land and organized a corrupt government filled with communist agents. This turmoil provided millions of recruits for the Viet Cong revolutionaries, who most Southerners supported against the foreign dominated government and army of South Vietnam. The CIA solution was the formation of a huge army, which was filled by conscripts who were literally kidnapped from villages. This resulted in chaos, and the solution was -- send in the U.S. Marines! No amount of American aid and military power could undo this political tragedy formulated by the CIA.

The appearance of Piers Morgan as host of a CNN prime time American news show reminds me of a book that cited studies of American cultural norms. Americans think that British accents demonstrate superior people with sophistication and intelligence. Americans listening to audio recordings voted London taxi drivers more intelligent than the voices of American professors. Apparently, American media executives now exploit this prejudice.

One of my best articles at Sanders Research described why Libya played no role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. It was payback from the Iranians after our Navy shot down one of their airliners, enabled by duped American agents.

The Lockerbie Cover Up
By Carlton Meyer
Feb/12/2007

Libya played no role in the bombing over Lockerbie. Iran funded the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in retaliation for the shoot down of an Iranian Airbus commercial flight by the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes a few months previously. The Damascus-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) was suspected by British and American investigators in the early years of the Lockerbie probe. All the evidence pointed that way, until the administration of President George H.W. Bush decided to blame Libya.

Last May, the Bush administration restored full diplomatic ties with Libya and took it off its list of state sponsors of terrorism. This shocked many observers because Libya had been found responsible for the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people. Libya is still run by dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, who has long been tied to terror acts. Nevertheless, Libya was never included in President Bush's "axis of evil," even though "taking out" Gaddafi is far easier than the other three evil doers. Did President Bush suddenly decide to forgive and forget, or is something else a factor?

Blaming Iran was a bad idea since it had an eye-for-an-eye justification that would demonstrate that a minor power can hit back at a superpower. It would also draw attention to the odd events that led to the "accidental" shoot down of an Iranian civilian airline flying a regularly scheduled route to Dubai. Although the USA paid reparations to the Iranian families of the shoot-down victims, no disciplinary action was taken against the skipper of the U.S. Navy ship.

As part of a massive cover up, the USA claimed the Vincennes was under attack while in international waters. Members of the crew were awarded medals for the action. In 1990, the captain of that cruiser, Will Rogers, was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989."

In 1992, a Newsweek cover story “Sea of Lies” shredded this cover up with a factual account, which included videotape of the incident.[1] The Vincennes was never under attack. Captain Rogers fabricated a lie and stormed into Iranian waters shooting at anything moving. The decision to shoot down a large, unidentified, ascending aircraft some 30 miles away was inexcusable. A later Navy inquiry was critical of Captain Rogers, but found no “criminal” wrongdoing, and Rogers retired. Since Rogers' previous assignment was in office of the Chief of Naval Operations, one might assume that he was given command of the Vincennes with secret high-level encouragement to provoke Iran.

A 1993 book Trail of the Octopus offers details on how Iran downed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.[2] Iranian leaders were furious at the "accident" in which their Airbus was destroyed. Blowing up an American 747 would be ideal revenge. Through their contacts with the Beirut PFLP-GC revolutionary group, they were told a bomb could be placed on an American 747 if the price was right.

Beirut is a traditional transit point for illegal narcotics, and a major station for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The PFLP-GC was also in the drug business. The DEA had arrested one of its drug couriers as he arrived in New York by air. He cut a deal for a lesser sentence and continued to smuggle heroin to New York City so the DEA could track its distribution and destroy this network. To ensure their drug mule got to New York safely, agents of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) carried his checked baggage past security in Cyprus. The DIA is a little known U.S. intelligence agency that has almost no Congressional oversight or restrictions because it is part of the Defense Department.

The PFLP-GC learned of this betrayal about the same time the Iranians were shopping for a way to down a 747. The solution was simple. Place a time delayed/altitude triggered bomb in the bag of the drug courier. This would explode on its final leg to New York when it was mostly full of Americans, killing the snitch as well. The plan worked perfectly, killing nearly the same number of innocents that the USS Vincennes claimed. As an added bonus, they selected a flight with four U.S. intelligence officers on the passenger list: Matthew Gannon, the CIA's deputy station chief in Beirut, Major Chuck "Tiny" McKee, a U.S. Army officer assigned to the DIA in Beirut, and two other CIA officers.[3] It seems reasonable that Major McKee was onboard to ensure the courier didn't slip away.

Needless to say, the DIA was in panic after Pan Am 103 blew up. They had never bothered to search the suitcase to ensure it only had heroin as they smuggled the bomb through security and on the Pan Am flight . This blunder was not good for careers, America's image, or foreign policy. In addition, the U.S. Government would be humiliated if Iran were credited for revenge with the aid of duped American agents. It would also threaten to expose the truth behind the USS Vincennes shoot down, which Newsweek exposed four years later. Finally, the U.S. Government would find it difficult to explain why Captain Will Rogers, the man responsible for the deaths of 259 Iranian pilgrims on the Airbus flight to Mecca, and thus indirectly responsible for the retaliatory bombing over Lockerbie, was not in prison, but had been awarded a medal and a hefty U.S. Navy pension.

This is why Libya was blamed for Lockerbie. The U.S. Government hated Libyan leader Gaddafi. This Sandhurst trained "madman," had overthrown Libya's Anglo-American puppet king, kicked the USA out of Wheelus Air Force Base, its premier Mediterranean air training base, and began buying Soviet equipment rather than American weapons. Worst of all, he wasted his nations oil wealth improving the lives of Libyans rather than investing profits in Western corporations.

The CIA was tasked to help the DIA pin the blame on Libya. The CIA announced they had found an unusual microcircuit embedded in a head scarf recovered from the aircraft wreckage in Scotland that could be used to detonate a bomb. This circuit was traced to a Swiss firm that had sold dozens to Libya. Next, they traced the scarf to a shop in Malta, where the shopkeeper remembered selling it to two Libyan men. This shopkeeper's memory was so impressive that he was able to identify photos of the two men, and they were Libyan intelligence agents.

This case was weak, until the CIA found a defector fleeing Libya who had learned of a big reward for information about the case. He was willing to testify that Libya was involved in exchange for asylum and the reward. Libya knew the case was bogus and refused to surrender the two innocent Libyans to a kangaroo court. The U.S. and Britain pressured the UN to impose sanctions, which held Libya hostage for years. The cover up was complete, at least for a few years.

The CIA led effort to blame Libya for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland was successful until Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) agent Lester Coleman decided to blow the whistle and write a book. He had grown furious at American policies in the region, especially the Iran-Contra affair in which President Reagan secretly allowed the sale of "surplus" U.S. Army weapons, parts, and munitions to Iran to raise funds to support the "Contras" in Nicaragua.

The publication of Coleman's book "Trail of the Octopus" was halted by U.S. federal courts because of DIA claims of libel. This is normally a civil matter that arises after publication, but suppressing the truth requires preemption. While attempting to clear his book for publication, Coleman submitted an affidavit that a bag of heroin, bound for a U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) drug sting, was switched for a bag of explosives on Pan Am 103. A federal judge declared it false and ordered Coleman arrested for perjury. He was released several months later and fled to Sweden where he was granted political asylum. Coleman was later subpoenaed to testify at the Lockerbie trial, but was prevented since he had been found guilty of perjury as part of the court proceedings to block the publication of his book. He was later cleared of perjury by a court of appeal. The judges issued a sealed ruling, which meant that Coleman and his lawyers couldn't read why his conviction was overturned.

Since publication was blocked in the USA, Coleman declared his book public domain and it enjoyed a brief publication run in England. Some expensive collector copies can be found on the Internet today. In addition to Lockerbie, the book relates Coleman's life story and his experiences working in the DIA and the realities of Middle East politics during the 1980s. The story ends with the Coleman family adjusting to life as political asylum seekers in Sweden.

While the suppression of Coleman's book was mostly successful, another problem arose when a documentary film on the bombing was released by Hemar Enterprises in November 1994.[4]

The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie took a critical look at both the evidence and witnesses surrounding the case. The film disputes the accusation by Britain and America that Libya was behind the bombing, concluding instead that the bomb was most likely introduced onto the aircraft by an unwitting drug mule, Khaled Jafaar, in a DIA-protected suitcase. Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, former prime minister of Iran, lends his weight to the theory that the Lockerbie bombing was in retaliation for the shoot down by the USS Vincennes of Iran Air Flight 655 five months earlier.

The film was to have been shown at the London Film Festival in 1994 but was withdrawn at the last minute because of the threat of a libel action by a U.S. official, believed to have been Michael Hurley of the DEA. Instead, Labour MP, Tam Dalyell, arranged for the film to be screened in the House of Commons on November 16, 1994. Other scheduled screenings at student's unions in the University of Birmingham and the University of Warwick were pulled, as was the showing at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London – all for legal reasons. The UK's Channel 4 television finally broadcast the film on May 11, 1995. Because of hostility by lawyers and by some relatives of Pan Am 103's U.S. victims, the film has never been shown on television or in movie theaters in the USA.

After the book and film were suppressed, yet another problem arose. Economic sanctions had hurt Libya, so Gadaffi relented and surrendered the two accused Libyans for trial by a Scottish court. Trial preparations went on for years, and the trial itself went poorly for the prosecution. There were three major weaknesses. The first involved the fragment of the timing device that was found in the wreckage of the plane and that led US authorities to accuse Libyan agents. The Swiss manufacturer testified that the device found at Lockerbie was not the type delivered to Libya in the past. The stunned judges declared a two week recess. An FBI forensic researcher then testified to overrule the manufacturer's claim. He was later fired for falsifying laboratory data in other high-profile cases.[5]

The second weakness of the case involved the Malta connection. The boutique owner Tony Gauci was questioned 16 times, but never clearly identified the Libyan agent thought to have purchased the scarf found in the Pan Am 103 wreckage where the timing device was embedded. At the time of his alleged visit, the Libyan was 14 years younger than the man first described by Gauci. In addition, Gauci maintained that Mohammed Abu Talb of the PFLP-GC is more likely to have been the man who visited his store. The third and major weakness of the case was the star witness. This Libyan defector moved to the US and offered help to the FBI in 1991. The FBI then took him into its witness protection program and paid him a reward for testimony that Libya downed Pan Am 103..

While this trial received heavy news coverage, most was shallow. Reporters must have sensed a rigged system, but editors of major media outlets know better than to report about "conspiracy theories," although several reporters wrote stories pointing to PFLP-GC involvement. Oddly, only one Libyan was convicted and the other set free. A compromise by Scottish judges?

After the trial, Libya agreed to take the blame and compensate families of the victims in exchange for lifting sanctions. On August 15, 2003 Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to the Lockerbie bombing. The Libyan government then proceeded to pay compensation to each family of US$8 million (from which legal fees of about US$2.5 million were deducted) and, as a result, the UN canceled sanctions and U.S. ties were restored.

However, problems continue to arise as key characters involved speak out. Recently, several damning news articles appeared that were ignored by the major corporate media. Here are parts of three:

#1 - Police chief — Lockerbie evidence was faked

"German investigators established that a Palestinian terrorist called Abo Talb, funded by Iran, could have placed the bomb on board Pan Am flight 103. They also established that the Iranian government paid millions of dollars into a Swiss bank account belonging to one of Talb's colleagues two days after the Lockerbie bombing.

However, Talb was produced at the trial as a vital witness for the prosecution, in return for lifetime immunity from prosecution. Defence sources claim this provided the motive for the Crown to suppress the German evidence... Meanwhile, the Libyan's defence team is understood to be furious at the failure of the Crown to comply with standard trial procedure. A source close to the defence said: 'The Crown refused to hand over these vital documents. That is unacceptable and a complete breach of all the rules about 'equality of arms' and disclosure and a fair trial.'

Jim Swire, spokesman for the Lockerbie families, said: 'We have always believed that the man in jail for the bombing should not be there. This seems to be a very important step in proving that and getting justice for the victims of the bombing.'"

Note: The full article is linked in this footnote.[7]

#3 - Lockerbie trial was a CIA fix, US intelligence insider claims

More recent events reconfirm this article. Just before a Scottish court was to hear the much delayed appeal by the convicted Libyan bomber, he was suddenly released and flown home to Libya. The British claimed it was a humanitarian gesture because he was gravely ill with cancer. After a year, it became obvious that he had no cancer and this victim of the Lockerbie cover up remains free in Libya today. Nevertheless, the lie that Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi was responsible for the 1988 Lockerbie tragedy is now repeated by our government officials and corporate media on a daily basis to justify his overthrow.

Here is a short summary of the budget games now underway in DC. The Republicans took over the House with big promises to slash the federal budget, which the old timers in charge don't want to address. Instead, they insist on debating the need for immediate cuts this fiscal year, and argue about dollars rather than programs. So rather than using the established committee system to systematically analyze, debate, and cut federal programs, they demand that Obama and the Senate controlled Democrats agree to vague, undefined cuts that leave federal agencies with the impossible task of operating federally mandated programs without the needed funds. If the Republicans are serious about cutting the federal government, they must focus on a detailed plan for the FY2012 budget due Oct. 1, 2011.

And note the reaction of Military-Industrial complex to talk of reducing our military budget by cutting Obama's plan to keep expanding our military budget. While federal employees endure a two-year freeze, Generals and GIs got another 3.2% raise in January, even though their much higher pay ensures recruiting and retention are no problem, and recent studies show they earn twice more than comparable civilians. Now we have a new war! How can anyone talk of reducing the endless growth of military spending while we are engaged in a third "war"? Meanwhile, citizens are confused by frequent "news" stories about cuts to Pentagon spending. One must read carefully to see that our military budget will continue to grow, while some programs are cut to allow others to grow faster.

There is little doubt that an American F-15 was shot down over Libya, and did not crash after a "malfunction." The F-15 has two engines, so it could easily fly home if one engine malfunctioned. If something affected both engines, it would have glided out to sea and ejected over water for a much safer rescue. Numerous eyewitness reports said there was a loud explosion before the F-15 crashed while flying over a battleground.

Although the Libyan military is in disarray, it does have formidable anti-aircraft systems. Also, with all the foreign aircraft flying around, the F-15 could have been downed by "friendly fire". It's also possible that a Libyan fighter took off from a small airstrip and shot it down. Our advanced fighters have great radar, but its only forward looking. The U.S. military has large AWACS aircraft with a big radar dome atop that allows it to see 200 miles in all directions. However, with all the allied air activity, it might be tracking dozens of aircraft at anytime, so the sudden appearance of an odd blip may take a minute or so to identify. Even then, its just an unknown bogey and "possibly" hostile.

A lucky Libyan fighter could zoom upwards and unleash a missile at an F-15 before it was informed of the threat. Or perhaps a missile fired at a Libyan fighter missed and went on to down the F-15. We may never know the truth, but all evidence suggests the F-15 was shot down, by something. Perhaps the U.S. Air Force will admit that an F-15 was shot down to enhance its sales pitch for more "stealthy" new F-35s.

During the first Iraq war, a U.S. Navy FA-18 was shot down by an Iraqi MIG-25. The MIG was tracked by AWACS, but while doing a great job at preventing blue-on-blue accidents, it refused to allow the FA-18 to fire at approaching aircraft until the blip was visually confirmed. In this case, the presence of an enemy MIG was confirmed when an FA-18 blew up in mid-air.

My computer crashed again, and CPR did no good. Then I had urgent family business that kept me busy for a couple weeks. I finally bought a new computer, but then my wireless broadband wouldn't work. I eventually determined that it wasn't compatible with the latest Windows 7 OS, so I had to get a new modem. Then I had to download the entire website. So I'm back on the net and I'll have lots of new stuff soon.

As a follow-up to my Jan 19th blog on anti-dam conspiracies, I googled around and came across this:

A 2006 study by the Department of Energy's Idaho National Lab estimated that about 60,000 megawatts of potential hydropower capacity could be developed in the U.S. using existing dams alone. That would more than double the capacity of hydro plants regulated by FERC.

"There are 84,000 dams in the United States in the Army Corps of Engineers national inventory of dams, and there's something like 2,300 or 2,400 hydroelectric plants," said Douglas Hall, the study's author and director of Idaho National Lab's water energy program. "That leaves an awful lot of dams that do not have power generation."

I came across that shocking fact several years ago and wrote about it in article for Sanders Research. The Hoover Dam produces 2000 megawatts, and a typical coal-fired power plant produces 500 megawatts. So this proposal for generating 60,000 megawatts by simply installing turbines in existing dams would produce the same power as 30 new Hoover Dams or 120 new coal-fired plants!

Most dams in the USA were built over a century ago for flood control before electricity was used by anyone. Their controlled water is routed through spillways and produces no electricity. Others were built this past century in remote areas where few lived, so electrical turbines were not installed, yet most of these areas now have thousands of inhabitants.

The USA could quickly boost its hydroelectric power 50% by installing electrical turbines at these old dams. This is not simple since a tunnel (penstock) must be cut through the bottom of these dams, yet this requires NO DAM CONSTRUCTION. In many cases these old, small dams require repairs anyway.

Go to a meeting of local environmentalists and ask these intellectuals why they are not shouting in support of this proposal, and watch them sit in stunned silence for a while, and then digress into mindless diatribes about dams destroying the Amazon rainforest. If they ramble about conservation, agree with that, but point out that this would allow the shut down of 120 dirty, coal fired plants. Ask why they continue to act as dupes for the coal and natgas industry.

I have used CricKet wireless for cell phones and broadband for two years and can't understand why people pay 50% more for service with the top three wireless players -- AT&T, Verizon, and T-mobile. Perhaps because CricKet is never included in national comparisons, although its a large company. It may not cover as many remote areas, so if you travel a lot its probably not a good choice.

If you really want to save money, learn how to "tether" you broadband smartphone to your home computer or laptop, so you don't have to pay for Internet at home. Your wireless carrier will insist it can't be done, but instructions can be found on the Internet. Widespread use of tethering would devastate the profits of Internet carriers.

I watched a polished, retired Admiral repel suggestions for minor Pentagon savings with a common distraction. Rather than debate the issue, he pointed out that saving a billion is not going to solve the deficit problem, and we must focus on bigger issues like Medicare and Social Security. I agree, but would point out that saving a billion dollars from each of hundreds of smaller government programs is a big part of the solution. The federal budget includes tens of thousands of small, wasteful programs (like the Coast Guard Academy and band), and while cutting one is of no real significance, that is no excuse to ignore waste. Cutting thousands of these tiny "insignificant" programs is necessary.

One of our nation's most unneeded programs is called the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. There is no reason why all Coast Guard officers cannot be recruited as university graduates and sent through its 17-week OCS program, or sourced from Navy ROTC or the Naval Academy and sent through its shorter Direct Commission Officer course.

The small Coast Guard Academy costs for producing just 225 graduates each year must be outrageous. It spends $2.8 million a year just for "admissions" to select 290 cadets each year, which is nearly $10,000 each, and this probably excludes personnel costs. Eliminating this relic would also produce an educationally diverse Coast Guard officer corps, rather than ultra-expensive ensigns whose minds were damaged by four years or rigid government instruction infused with cultural elitism.

Recruiting is no problem since new military officers earn much more than the average American college graduate, make six-figures within 10 years, and can retire after just 20 years without a single overseas deployment! Three lucky officers spend their "military career" with the Coast Guard band, touring the nation at government expense along with 56 enlisted costing the "Department of Homeland Security" over $10 million a year in salaries, and even more for hotels and flights. What a racket!

I am convinced that billionaires control our television news to keep us peasants in check. They know that democracy allows workers to insist on economic equality, as exists in most of Western Europe, where all citizens enjoy guaranteed health care, higher wages, unemployment benefits for all unemployed, and dozens of paid holidays each year. This is why our corporate television commentators scream about "socialism" in Europe, and warn that equality is "class warfare", when citizens heavily tax vast inherited wealth to pay for government services. This is why our airwaves are filled with government bashing and calls for slashing social spending and taxes. The Power Elite recently demonstrated their ability to manipulate America's electorate by extending the Bush tax cuts, which keep tax rates on the ultra-rich at 15%, rather than the 36% rate paid by upper-income "wage earning" smucks.

My media conspiracy theory was recently disturbed by Jesse Ventura's new show "Conspiracy Theory", where he stirs up the masses by suggesting powerful people conspire to hide the truth. This is contrary to our lifelong indoctrination by television, which teaches us that politicians, Generals, corporations, and our news media anchors are all saints who tell us everything that happens. Anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously crazy. So I am confused why mega-conglomerate Time-Warner allows its TruTv cable network to permit insane Jesse Ventura to challenge these truths.

One explanation is that it is a popular and profitable show, and often seems silly with staged secret meetings and odd camera angles. Nevertheless, it presents shattering evidence. E. Howard Hunt was a well-known career CIA agent, who went to federal prison for his involvement in Watergate. He was accused of participating in the JFK assassination by two small newspapers. Ventura's show played Hunt's deathbed confession recorded by his son of how he and others killed JFK.

I had never seen that, although it has been floating around the Internet for three years. I was startled it was allowed on corporate TV, but not surprised that all our "legitimate" corporate news networks ignore that story. Surely, their viewers would find it interesting. They may claim that videotape evidence and first-hand testimony by Hunt's son is not solid enough proof to air on their network. However, this did not deter NPR, Reuters, CNN, CBS, NBC, and Fox from rushing to declare Rep. Gabby Giffords dead after the recent Arizona shooting.

One episode on "Conspiracy Theory" showed how major corporations are buying up water rights and pushing communities to privatize municipal water systems, causing consumer water rates to soar. This is no secret, just read about it on the net. Monopolizing water supplies is a great racket because people must have water, and most have no option but to pay whatever their local water monopoly demands.

This helps explain why the USA has not built a major dam in 30 years. Dams control floods, provide cheap, clean hydroelectric power, provide water for crop irrigation, and drinking water. We hear frequent stories of flooding causing billions of dollars in damage each year, most recently in North Dakota and Tennessee. We hear stories of rising food costs due to drought, and shortages of drinking water. We hear stories about the threat of global warming, and why we must urgently phase out dirty coal plants. We hear stories about "peak oil" and the need to reduce our dependence on imported oil, which many people still burn for electricity as home heating oil. We also hear stories about the need for wise government stimulus spending to improve our national infrastructure.

Yet we never hear anyone suggest building more dams, which our growing population obviously needs, if only for drinking water. The only news stories about dams are written by ignorant or faux "environmentalists" demonizing dams by spreading lies about their danger, and proposing their removal. If anyone in Southern Nevada suggested that building Hoover dam was a mistake, local citizens would declare them insane. Yet the Power Elite killed all proposals for more American dams in the 1970s by using their environmental fronts to convince citizens that dams are unsafe or they destroy the environment, or they harm fish and endangered species. There are trade-offs, but given the choice between water, food, and electricity at home, or whitewater rafting in remote areas, 99.9999% of citizens would vote for dams.

Meanwhile, China is building dozens of large dams, for the same reasons the USA should. I am convinced that billionaires have blocked new dam construction, and are covertly involved in dam removal efforts, which serve the interests of the coal and natural gas corporations, and the new water monopolies. Keep this in mind as your water rates soar, and electric rates rise due to depletion of accessible natural gas, coal, and oil deposits. Ask your local political leaders why we are not building dams to solve these problems. They will look perplexed, and might mumble something that everyone knows dams are not a good idea, despite great success with nearly all dam projects. I suspect the Power Elite were far more upset by Ventura's exposé of their water conspiracy, than another bit of hard evidence that they killed Kennedy. Let's see how long "Conspiracy Theory" lasts.

Now that Republicans have taken over the House, I was awaiting drastic budget cuts. They charged into power and immediately avoided the issue by wasting weeks on a senseless PR game to "Repeal Obamacare." It is true that most Americans don't like it, but many because it didn't really reform anything. Nevertheless, there is no way that bill can pass the Democratic controlled Senate, and even if it did squeak through, Obama is sure to veto it. So why are they wasting so much time and effort doing nothing? The only thing they've done is to fire their RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, for leading his party through one of this nation's most successful political turnarounds.

Senseless killings happen all the time, in Iraq and Afghanistan. You probably didn't hear about the shooting that killed two American soldiers yesterday in Mosul, Iraq. That is because your corporate TV filled the airwaves last week with thousands of hours honoring the great "bravery" shown by a few Americans who "sacrificed" by going to a Safeway in Arizona to hear a political speech. Will Obama attend the funeral for these two soldiers too? Will a memorial be built?

My Jan 2 posting resulted in several e-mails. One reader noted the large numbers of Irish immigrants joined the Union Army for a quick adventure that became a nightmare. He also doubted that Lincoln could have assembled a large army prior to declaring hostilities, noting that Congress would have refused funds. That is an excellent point, which suggests the CSA blundered as well.

Since the North had twice the population of the South and ten times its manufacturing capacity, the CSA struck first with a hasty offensive in hopes of seizing Washington DC and ending the conflict. They failed, and that attack rallied the North to Lincoln's cause. Had the CSA remained peaceful and focused on defense, Lincoln may have failed to rally the Union to assemble a large army to invade the South. If Lincoln ordered an invasion with a small army of volunteers with limited provisions, that army would have become bogged down in bloody fighting in Northern Virginia, and Lincoln may have been forced to withdraw and make peace.

If you recall, I noted that the "Power Elite" have begun a campaign to convince Americans the Civil War was only about slavery, and anyone who says it was about states rights is a fool. A perfect example appeared today in one of their key propaganda outlets -- The Washington Post. That article, Five myths about why the South seceded, cherry picks facts. The author presents a few quotes to support his view that it was all about slavery, not local autonomy, yet overlooks the much greater evidence to the contrary. However, he does admit the war itself wasn't officially about slavery, but to preserve the Union.

Others have mentioned that slavery was a dying institution because a superior British method of cheap labor was being adopted -- immigrant labor. The idea is to promote the wonders of America to encourage mass immigration from starving nations. These desperate people cost nothing, and transport themselves to their plantation. They needn't be guarded, fed, clothed, or cared for. If they complain or become lazy, they are fired on the spot. This neo-slavery remains today with millions of Mexicans on American farms and Haitians in Florida sugar cane fields. This form of slavery has been expanded to construction, meat packing, restaurants, hotels, and landscaping. Millionaire owners could pay their volunteer slaves twice as much, but at those rates, they could hire Americans.

This is why neither political party makes an effort to secure our borders or deport illegal aliens. Today's slave "managers" need a continual influx of new slaves as many of their current slaves become too old or "uppity" and make demands. They find the idea of deporting their slaves outrageous, and use their corporate media to proclaim deportations are inhuman and even impossible. They fear that protests by unemployed Americans might end neo-slavery, and they will be forced to hire Americans, thus cutting their annual profits.

The Marine Corps has finally admitted the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is a flawed concept, and that absurd program was just cancelled. G2mil exposed this mistake a decade ago, back when it was called the AAAV. Its justification was never rational, as explained in a chapter in my book, which will soon appear in a French military magazine -- in French!

This is great news for the multi-billion dollar counter-terrorism industry, which has quadrupled in size since 9-11, with little to show for it. As Republicans look to cut budgets, this incident will be used to demand more money instead. This wasn't really terrorism and our massive counter-terrorist force did not stop it from happening, but that will be ignored. They will come up with several vague "links" to anti-government groups, which today is anyone who criticizes the government.

From the little we know, this was just a bored, lonely, and confused young man. Since one of his complaints was the lack of education in his district, he must be a crazed liberal who wanted more social spending. It is also possible that his real target was the federal judge who he killed, and not Congressman who survived. (Yes I know she is a woman, but Congressman is the correct word.) That judge had made some unpopular rulings, and his name was listed as attending the event. If he was the target, the Feds would rather ignore that successful hit, and spin it as an unsuccessful attempt to kill a Congressman.

As I've blogged before, I am against the death penalty the way it is used today because hundreds of innocents have been executed over the years with the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Some people were executed because they were picked out of a line-up by an angry witness, or fingered by a jailhouse snitch who was released in exchange for his testimony, or he "confessed" after 18-hours of harsh questioning, yet later denied that in court. Many Americans have been freed from death row after DNA evidence proved them innocent, a witness recanted, or someone else admitted to the crime. In other cases, they had already been executed. Had they been sentenced to life in prison instead, they would have been freed.

My standard would be "beyond any doubt". Since this shooter was wrestled to the ground at the scene with his gun, there is no doubt he is the killer. With this standard, trials would last but a week and appeals almost non-existent, so killers are executed promptly.

Closing the American POW camp in Cuba was one of Candidate Obama's top selling points. Note that the International Red Cross deemed these "detainees" POWs, but the U.S. Government ignored its commitment to the Geneva Conventions and refused to treat them as POWs as required. In his first day in office, Obama signed an executive order closing Gitmo within one year. Nothing happened for two years, and a series of vague excuses were given. Recall that Obama never promised to free those POWs, just to move them into our established civilian justice system where over 300 people have been convicted of varied terrorist charges since 9-11.

It is obvious that "someone" overruled Obama. Now "they" have provided him with cover by prohibiting the use of Pentagon funds to move them to the USA. "Their" propaganda outlets like the New York Times have spun a tale where Obama still wants to close Gitmo, but can't. In reality, moving those hundred remaining prisoners to the USA should cost nothing. Navy ships routinely visit Gitmo. One of them could haul inmates back to the USA on a regular training mission. If that worries lawyers, Coast Guard cutters could haul them to the USA, just like the drug runners they often capture. They often stop at Gitmo and are funded by the Department of Homeland Security.

Yet another option is to dispatch one of the ten large passenger aircraft used by the U.S. Government to shuttle inmates between prisons in the USA. (above) These are not charters, but a permanent airline manned and funded by the Department of Justice, which transports hundreds of dangerous felons on a daily basis. Obama could order a "ConAir" aircraft flown to Gitmo tomorrow, empty that disreputable prison camp in one hour, and turn off the lights at Gitmo before Congress or the media found out. Whatever one thinks about the treatment of terror suspects, everyone can agree that "someone" has told Obama that he can't close Gitmo, and "their" media has convinced Americans that Obama wants to close it, but is prohibited from doing so.

I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

Lincoln had good intentions, but his effort to end slavery was a disaster. While American negroes were freed after the Civil War, they suffered greatly during the conflict and for decades afterwards. Millions of Americans died from this war, mostly from war induced disease and starvation. Most of "freed" slaves continued working on their plantations because they had nowhere to go in the devastated South. The loss of the Civil War and the resulting devastation caused generations of hatred among Southern whites that was directed toward blacks, resulting in Jim Crow laws and terror groups like the KKK.

Americans of African descent were called negroes back then, which is the most accurate term, but fell into disuse because it sounds too much like nigger, as did the word "niggardly". Negro is still used in Spanish, but in the USA the term "colored" became more accepted. In the 1960s, that word was deemed offensive, unless used by the NAACP or as "people of color" to denote non-whites. Colored was replaced by black, and then by African-American for a while, but black has returned as the most acceptable term for those who donate to the United Negro College Fund. Is it accurate to call a white South African or an Egyptian immigrant an African-American?

American cultural correctness confuses everyone. Spaniards, Italians, and even Arabs are not considered minorities due "affirmative action" quotas in the USA, even though they have historically suffered from racism. One can be 25% American Indian and counted as a minority, even if 75% white. One can look completely white, yet claim black minority privileges if a great-great grandparent was black. There are millions of very black people in India, but they are not blacks if they move to the USA.

Could slavery have been abolished peacefully, just like the polygamy dispute with the Mormons? Slave owners were businessmen who paid for their slaves. Why didn't Lincoln offer to compensate slave owners? Perhaps a property tax on slaves to make slavery less profitable? Perhaps a tax on cotton exports or cotton gins? Such steps would have weakened the power of slave owners over time to allow a consensus for banning slavery.

There is no doubt that suddenly calling for Northern state militias to mobilize and invade the CSA was foolish. Lincoln should have spent a year building a massive army to intimidate the CSA into backing down. (The North had twice the population and ten times its industrial capacity.) If not, a naval blockade to halt cotton exports would have done the trick, and if the Confederates instigated battle, that large, well-equipped and provisioned Union army could have swept the South within a year, especially if the cause of ending slavery was invoked. Most Southerners would not have fought to defend slavery. Instead, Lincoln ignited war with no constitutional authority and little popular support to "preserve the union" with an non-existent "army" of scattered Northern state militias and distant frontier cavalry units.

This is not addressed in our government approved history books, which pretend the CSA started the war by attacking Union troops at Fort Sumter. Union soldiers in the South abandoned their forts and peacefully marched northward as Confederate states ceded. The Union Army commander in San Antonio, Col. Robert E. Lee, assembled his troops in formation. He disbanded the unit and ordered those who wished to remain in the Union Army to march north, and any who wished to join CSA state militias to march back home. During the war, Lee's plantation in Northern Virginia was captured by Union troops and used to bury their dead, which is now known as Arlington National Cemetery.

The small island base in the South Carolina port of Charleston, Fort Sumter, had refused to vacate on orders from Lincoln, until it was bombarded for a few days. Lincoln then unofficially declared war on the CSA by ordering it recaptured, along with other abandoned federal property in the CSA. The states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas elected to join the CSA in secession only after Lincoln announced plans to send an army into the South. So the real cause of the Civil War was Lincoln's order to reclaim abandoned federal property in the CSA.

The President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis, was a West Point graduate who led an American regiment into Mexico during the Mexican-American war. He was a U.S. Senator and a U.S. Secretary of War for four years. As Davis explained in his 1881 memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he believed that each state was sovereign and had an unquestionable right to secede from the Union, but he never supported secession. Yet he was popular and accepted the Confederate Presidency because of a sense of duty, and immediately attempted to make peace by offering Lincoln compensation for abandoned federal property in the South. After Lincoln refused, the CSA realized that defeat by the far more powerful Union was inevitable, unless it launched a hasty offensive to seize Washington DC and end the conflict quickly. The CSA failed, yet that surprise attack demoralized and disrupted the Union Army's organizational efforts for two years.

So why have the Power Elite now targeted the Civil War for revision? They fear the massive job losses and lower wages they inflicted on American workers might encourage "states rights" movements and talk of secession from the USA. The idea of state independence floats around in Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont, and Texas. This is never reported in the media, and whenever organizations form to promote this, they are quickly under investigation by the Feds.

When it was learned that Sarah Palin's husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, she was ordered to denounce the group and describe it as just a club. When Arizonans passed a minor law to deal with mass illegal immigration, the Power Elite aimed its media and business guns at that state. Conventions were cancelled and all white Arizonans labeled as a racists for demonstrating a tiny element of autonomy.

The Power Elite have spent the last two decades trying to add Canada and Mexico to a "North American Union" with some success. They have used "free trade" to ensure to the flow of duty free natural resources from Canada and the transfer of factories to Mexico. Canada is an oil-rich nation and a major oil exporter, yet it citizens pay more for gasoline than those in the USA, which imports 80% of its oil. However, Americans and Canadians strongly oppose their "open borders" effort to allow more cheap labor to migrate northward. Watch your corporate media closely to follow this effort to demolish talk of state rights, autonomy, or state laws against illegal immigration. And watch the ongoing effort to rewrite the Civil War as a war against slavery, rather than Lincoln's disastrous crusade to reclaim abandoned federal property.

Many Americans assume that because a date followed by B.C. means "Before Christ", A.D. means "After Death". Then what about the years when Jesus Christ was alive? Our current year count begins in the year Christ was born -- "In the Year of Our Lord" or "Anno Domini" in Latin (A.D.) It supposed to appear before the date, but usually appears after.