Admission of Unauthorized Chemical Spraying in St. Louis

America’s Descent into Deception and Tyranny: Agenda Prevails Over Truth

In the Western world truth no longer has any meaning. It its place stands agenda. 
Agenda is all important, because it is the way Washington achieves hegemony over the world and the American people. 9/11 was the “new Pearl Harbor” that the neoconservatives declared to be necessary for their planned wars against Muslim countries. For the neoconservatives to go forward with their agenda, it was necessary for Americans to be connected to the agenda.

President George W. Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neil, said that prior to 9/11 the first cabinet meeting was about the need to invade Iraq.

9/11 was initially blamed on Afghanistan, and the blame was later shifted to Iraq. Washington’s mobilization against Afghanistan was in place prior to 9/11. The George W. Bush regime’s invasion of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) occurred on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11. Every military person knows that it is not possible to have mobilization for invading a country half way around the world ready in three weeks.

The Orwellian “PATRIOT Act” is another example of planning prior to the event.  This vast police state measure could not possibly have been written in the short time between 9/11 and its introduction in Congress. The bill was already written, sitting on the shelf waiting its opportunity. Why? Who wrote it? Why has there been no media investigation of the advanced preparation of this police state legislation?

Evidence that responses to an event were planned prior to what the government said was a surprise event does suggest that the event was engineered to drive an agenda that was already on the books.
Many on the left-wing are immune to evidence that is contrary to the official 9/11 story, because for them 9/11 is refreshing blowback from the oppressed. That the oppressed struck back is more important to the left-wing than the facts.

The right-wing can’t let go of the fantasy either. America in all its purity and wonderfulness was attacked because evil Muslims cannot stand our goodness. “They hate us for our freedom and democracy.” The right-wing vision of a great and good America wronged is essential to the right-wing’s sustaining ideology, an ideology that is prepared to commit violence in order to prove its righteousness.

Implausible stories can be useful to other agendas and thus be sustained by their use in other arguments. For example, the Obama regime’s story of the killing of Osama bin Laden is central to Charles Pierson’s story in the November 16-30, 2012, CounterPunch in which Pierson writes about the growing strains on the US-Pakistan alliance. Pierson writes that bin Laden resided next to Pakistan’s largest military academy and that bin Laden “did go next door every Wednesday to use the pool. If the Pakistani government was unaware of bin Laden’s presence this would mark an intelligence failure of heroic proportions.”

No Guns for Negroes

Part I

Part II

Obama's gift to al-Qaida, support for tyranny, and FBI monitoring of dissent

The Guardian
Glenn Greenwald

Numerous individual events from this week alone signify important trends in US government policy

A Bahraini Shia boy takes part to a demonstration in solidarity with political prisoners in the village of Malikiya, south of Manama. Photograph: Mohammed Al-Shaikh/AFP/Getty Images

This week will likely entail light posting, but here are several items worthy of note:

(1) I can't recall any one news article that so effectively conveys both the gross immorality and the strategic stupidity of Obama's drone attacks as this one from Monday's Washington Post by Sudarsan Raghavan. It details how the US-supported Yemeni dictatorship lies to its public each time the US kills Yemeni civilians with a drone attack, and how these civilian-killing attacks are relentlessly (and predictably) driving Yemenis to support al-Qaida and devote themselves to anti-American militancy:

"Since the attack, militants in the tribal areas surrounding Radda have gained more recruits and supporters in their war against the Yemeni government and its key backer, the United States. The two survivors and relatives of six victims, interviewed separately and speaking to a Western journalist about the incident for the first time, expressed willingness to support or even fight alongside AQAP, as the al-Qaeda group is known.
"'Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans,' Mohammed said. 'If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.'

"Public outrage is also growing as calls for accountability, transparency and compensation go unanswered amid allegations by human rights activists and lawmakers that the government is trying to cover up the attack to protect its relationship with Washington. Even senior Yemeni officials said they fear that the backlash could undermine their authority.

"'If we are ignored and neglected, I would try to take my revenge. I would even hijack an army pickup, drive it back to my village and hold the soldiers in it hostages,' said Nasser Mabkhoot Mohammed al-Sabooly, the truck's driver, 45, who suffered burns and bruises. 'I would fight along al-Qaeda's side against whoever was behind this attack.'"

Similarly, the LA Times has a long article on drone attacks in Yemen and quotes Ahmed al Zurqua, an expert on Islamic militants, explaining the obvious: "The drones have not killed the real Al Qaeda leaders, but they have increased the hatred toward America and are causing young men to join Al Qaeda to retaliate."

History will surely record that one of the most moronic collective questions ever posed is "Why do they hate us?" - where the "they" are: "those we continuously bomb and kill and whose dictators we prop up." Noting the two US drone attacks on December 24 in his country, the 23-year-old Yemeni writer Ibrahim Mothana asked: "Two US drone strikes in Yemen today. Should we consider them a Christmas gift?!" That's exactly what al-Qaida undoubtedly considers them to be.

(2) Speaking of the "why-do-they-hate-us?" question, the Bahraini democracy activist Zainab al-Khawaja has a powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing the extreme brutality and repression of the regime against its own citizens, and explaining the self-destructive though steadfast support for that regime by the US and its close Saudi allies:

"But despite all these sacrifices, the struggle for freedom and democracy in Bahrain seems hopeless because Bahrain's rulers have powerful allies, including Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Blogger Creates Interactive Map of Employees of Paper Which Published Names and Addresses of Pistol Permit Holders

Newsbusters
Tom Blumer

In response to Gannett's Jounal News headquartered in White Plains, New York publishing an interactive map containing the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties (previous related posts are here and here), blogger Robert Cox at NewRochelleTalk.com (HT Instapundit) has produced an interactive map at a post entitled "Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?"

It contains names, addresses, and various forms of Internet presence. Some of his narrative follows the jump:

The map indicates the addresses of all Journal News Employees in the New York Tri-State area. Each dot represents an individual Journal News employee -- a reporter,  editor or staffer. The data does not include freelancers — reporters or photographers — which can be hired without being an employee. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location is a responsible reporter or editor, just that they are a reporter or editor.

Data for all categories is included, but certain information is not available on an individual basis.
To create the map, Talk of the Sound submitted Google searches for the names and addresses of all Journal News employees in the New York Tri-State area. By state law, the information is public record.

To the inevitable objection that Cox has gone over the top, I would suggest that the Journal News obviously started this nonsense -- and if they didn't anticipate that blowback such as this might happen, they should have.

Sorry, Journal News, but you can't just walk all over the privacy rights of thousands of individuals and families and endanger everyone in your reading area in a blatant attempt to, by your own admission, capitalize on a school shooting tragedy -- gun owners who might see their weapons stolen and non-owners who can now be considered "soft targets" -- while automatically assuming that there will be no consequences.

Censorship: Facebook deletes pages of 9/11 activists

Digital Journal
Victoria N. Alexander

Recently, Facebook has removed the pages of about 50 political activists. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage lost his page, as did several other activists. Later, the pages were reactivated.

Several people associated with the alternative news website InfoWars.com also had their pages removed. InfoWars reports,

In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website. Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the “Facebook Team” wrote, “Be careful making about making (sic) political statements on facebook,” adding, “Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don’t antagonize your base. Be careful and congnizat (sic) of what you are preaching.”

The Facebook purge includes those who have posted pro-Second Amendment statements and/or made comments about the report made by the Washington Post /CBS News that another gunman had been arrested in the woods near Sandy Hook Elementary after the shooting. The office of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth reports that Mr. Gage has never made any statements about gun ownership on his page. The AE911 office also confirms that a number of 9/11 activists have been targeted by Facebook. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth produced a documentary last year, Experts Speak Out, which has found large audiences, particularly through a PBS affiliate.

Consequently, many engineers and building professionals now question the official story of the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers. Infowars reports the following individuals have had their pages deleted or suspended: Kurt Nimmo (account suspended) Aaron Dykes (account inactive) Amber Lyon (account suspended) Brandon J. Raub (account inactive) Michael F Rivero (account inactive) Anthony J Hilder (account inactive) William Lewis (account inactive) Richard Gage (account inactive) William Rodriguez (account inactive) Infowar Artist (account inactive) We are Change (account inactive) Wacboston At Twitter (account inactive) Michael Murphy Tmp (account inactive) Robert M Bowman (account inactive) Peter Dale Scott (account inactive) Jason Infowars (account inactive) Mike Skuthan (account inactive) Packy Savvenas (account inactive) Sean Wright (account inactive) Katherine Albrect (account inactive) Update: As of December 28th, the above pages have been reactivated. Facebook has not issued a statement.

The Sandy Hook School Massacre: Unanswered Questions and Missing Information

Global Research
Prof. James F. Tracy

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre.

“[My staff] and I hope the people of Newtown don’t have it crash on their head later.” –Connecticut Medical Examiner D. Wayne Carver II, MD, December 15, 2012

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggests a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry seeking to interpret the event on social media.

Along these lines on December 19 the Connecticut State Police assigned individual personnel to each of the 26 families who lost a loved one at Sandy Hook Elementary. “The families have requested no press interviews,” State Police assert on their behalf, “and we are asking that this request be honored.[1] The de facto gag order will be in effect until the investigation concludes—now forecast to be “several months away” even though lone gunman Adam Lanza has been confirmed as the sole culprit.[2]

With the exception of an unusual and apparently contrived appearance by Emilie Parker’s alleged father, victims’ family members have been almost wholly absent from public scrutiny.[3] What can be gleaned from this and similar coverage raises many more questions and glaring inconsistencies than answers. While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.

The Accidental Medical Examiner

An especially important yet greatly underreported feature of the Sandy Hook affair is the wholly bizarre performance of Connecticut’s top medical examiner H. Wayne Carver II at a December 15 press conference. Carver’s unusual remarks and behavior warrant close consideration because in light of his professional notoriety they appear remarkably amateurish and out of character.

H. Wayne Carver II has an extremely self-assured, almost swaggering presence in Connecticut state administration. In early 2012 Carver threatened to vacate his position because of state budget cuts and streamlining measures that threatened his professional autonomy over the projects and personnel he oversaw.

Along these lines the pathologist has gone to excessive lengths to demonstrate his findings and expert opinion in court proceedings. For example, in a famous criminal case Carver “put a euthanized pig through a wood chipper so jurors could match striations on the bone fragments with the few ounces of evidence that prosecutors said were on the remains of the victim.”[4] One would therefore expect Carver to be in his element while identifying and verifying the exact ways in which Sandy Hook’s children and teachers met their violent demise.

Yet the H. Wayne Carver who showed up to the December 15 press conference is an almost entirely different man, appearing apprehensive and uncertain, as if he is at a significant remove from the postmortem operation he had overseen. The multiple gaffes, discrepancies, and hedges in response to reporters’ astute questions suggest that he is either under coercion or an imposter. While the latter sounds untenable it would go a long way in explaining his sub-pedestrian grasp of medical procedures and terminology.




With this in mind extended excerpts from this exchange are worthy of recounting here in print. Carver is accompanied by Connecticut State Police Lieutenant H. Paul Vance and additional Connecticut State Police personnel. The reporters are off-screen and thus unidentified so I have assigned them simple numerical identification based on what can be discerned of their voices.

Reporter #1: So the rifle was the primary weapon?

H. Wayne Carver: Yes.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

BBC

Doctors say knives are too pointed

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing. A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

The research is published in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all. 

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed. 

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs. 

Kitchen knives can inflict appalling wounds

In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon". 

The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives. 

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established. 

French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth. 

A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses. 

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.
"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime. 

"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect." 

Government response
 
Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives. 

"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches. 

"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so. 

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place. 

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives." 

A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."

Released FBI documents reveal plans to assassinate OWS activists

PressTV

Jason Leopold, an investigative journalist for Truth-Out, has obtained FBI documents - through the Freedom of Information Act - relating to Occupy Wall Street. Most of the pages in the documents are redacted, and show concerns of cyber threats against the financial sector. However, there are questions of assassination plots against Occupy activists in Houston, Texas. Because the documents have redactions, it is not clear who or what group was planning the assassinations.

On page 61, the section reads: “An identified [redacted] of October planned to engage in sniper attacks against protesters in Houston, Texas, if deemed necessary. An identified [redacted] had received intelligence that indicated the protesters in New York and Seattle planned similar protests in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin, Texas. [Redacted] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles.”

The bottom of page 68 and the top of page 69 reads: “On October 13, 2011, writer sent via email an excerpt [redacted] regarding FBI Houston’s [redacted] to all IA’s, SSRA’s and SSA [redacted]. This [redacted] identified the exploitation of the Occupy Movement by [redacted] interested in developing a long-term plan to kill local Occupy leaders via sniper fire.” ragingchickenpress.org

HIGHLIGHTS

According to internal documents newly released by the FBI, the agency spearheaded a nationwide law enforcement effort to investigate and monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. In certain documents, divisions of the FBI refer to the Occupy Wall Street protests as a "criminal activity" or even "domestic terrorism." The Huffington Post

The internal papers were obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice fund via a Freedom of Information Act Request. The fund, a legal nonprofit that focuses on civil rights, says it believes the 112 pages of documents, available for public viewing on its website, are only "the tip of the iceberg." The Huffington Post

Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI’s “Campus Liaison Program” in which the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to “sixteen different campus police officials,” and then “six additional campus police officials.” infoshop.org

Campus officials were in contact with the FBI for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors. infoshop.org

According to the new documents, the FBI began meeting with representatives of the New York Stock Exchange and other businesses as early as August 2011, a month before the Zuccotti Park protests. The Huffington Post

According to the documents, the FBI coordinated extensively with private companies, including banks that feared they could be affected by Occupy protests. The Huffington Post

FACTS & FIGURES

The Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on September 17, 2011 in New York City's Wall Street financial district has been rallying against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the perceived undue influence of corporations on government-particularly from the financial services sector. occupywallst.org

Among the Occupy movement's prime concerns is that large corporations and the global financial system control the world in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority, undermines democracy and is unstable. The Huffington Post

Occupy Wall Street has managed to turn the attention of America’s politicians and citizens to the dismal state of income inequality and economic mobility in the U.S. Think Progress

America’s Hype over WMD: Five Invasion Plots, Three Continents, Identical Lies

Global Research
Felicity Arbuthnot

 “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare…. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” (Winston S. Churchill, 1874-1965, from War Office  minute, 12th May 1919.)

As the sabre rattling against Syria gets ever louder, the allegations ever wilder and double standards, stirring, plotting and terrorist financing (sorry: “aiding the legitimate opposition”) neon lit, it is instructive to look at the justifications presented by US Administrations for a few other murderous incursions in recent history.

This month is the twenty third anniversary of the US invasion of Panama on 20th December 1989, as Panamanians prepared their Christmas celebrations. A quick check reminds the late Philip Agee recalling President George H.W. Bush telling the American people that the threat from Panama (pop: 3,571,185 – 2011) was such that: “our way of life is at stake.” Agee referred to this in his aptly named talk “Producing the Proper Crisis.”(i) Apt then as now. Nothing changes.

The aim of the invasion was to capture the country’s leader General Manuel Noriega and, of course, to: “establish a democratic government.” Regime change.
With the approaching transfer of control of the Panama Canal to Panama (originally scheduled for 1st January  1990) after a century of US colonial stewardship, America wanted to ensure it was in the hands of malleable allies.

Noriega a CIA asset, since 1967 (ii) who had also attended the notorious School of the Americas, at Fort Benning, Georgia, came to power with US backing, but seemingly his support for the US was cooling. To encapsulate a long story, the US kidnapped him and sentenced him to forty years in jail.
Plans to invade were called: “Operation Prayer Book.” It was later re-named “Operation Just Cause”, with General Colin Powell commenting that it was a moniker of which he approved as: ”Even our severest critics would have to utter ‘Just Cause’ whilst denouncing us.” (Colin Powell, with Jospeh E. Persico: “My American Journey”, 1995.)

All military marauding should simply be called: “Operation Silly Name 1, then 2,3,4” etc., until the numbers finally run out.
Twenty seven thousand US troops backed by Apache helicopters decimated much of the small country, with a defence force of just three thousand. George Bush Snr., said he was removing an evil dictator who was brutalizing his own people  (sound familiar?) and that the action was needed to:” protect American lives.” It was also to: “defend democracy and human rights in Panama” – and to “protect the Canal.” Surprise, eh?

Manuel Noriega was released from US jail in 2007, extradited to France which had awarded him the country’s highest honour, The Legion d’honneur in 1987. He remained in jail in France until December 2011, when he was returned to Panama, where he is still imprisoned.

In the near forgotten Panama decimation (unless you are Panamanian) the densely populated, poverty stricken neighbourhood of El Chorillo was incinerated by American actions to such an extent that it became named “Little Hiroshima.”

One woman charged that: “The North Americans began burning down El Chorillo at about 6.30 in the morning. They would throw a small device in to a house and it would catch on fire – then they would move to another, they burned from one street to the next, coordinating the burning on walkie-talkies.”
A US soldier was recorded stating: “We ask you to surrender … if you do not, we are prepared to level each and every building.”
“Everything that moved they shot”, said a city resident.

The dead were consigned to mass graves with witnesses stating that US troops used flame throwers on the dead, noting the bodies shriveling as they burned. Others were bulldozed in to piles.(iii)

There was worse. As the current self righteous, if contradictory statements flow from Washington and Whitehall about Syria’s unproven chemical weapons, proven facts relate to America’s.

“From the 1940s to the 1990s the United States used various parts of Panama as a testing ground for chemical weapons, including mustard gas, VX, sarin, hydrogen cyanide and other nerve agents in … mines, rockets and shells; perhaps tens of thousands of chemical munitions.” (William Blum: Rogue State, 2002.)

Further, on departing Panama at the end of 1999 they left: “many sites containing chemical weapons. They had also: “conducted secret tests of Agent Orange in Panama …” In the 1989 invasion, the village of Pacora, near Panama City: “was bombed with (chemicals) by helicopters and aircraft from US Southern Command, with substances that burned skin, caused intense pain and diarrhea.”
Many analysts felt that Panama was the testing ground for Iraq.

Nine months after the poisoning of Panama, on Hiroshima Day 1990, the strangulating US-driven embargo on Iraq was enforced by the UN, after the US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie had given the green light for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, after Kuwait’s considerable provocation and financial and geographical destabilization.(iv.)

Zionist lobbies seek to restrict Press TV activities in US: William Spring

PressTV

United States Zionist lobby groups seek to limit the activities of Press TV in America over fears of losing the propaganda war, a human rights activist tells Press TV.

This is while the US House of Representatives has recently approved a ‘defense bill’ that includes new anti-Iran sanctions on broadcasting, another almost USD500 million for the Israeli regime’s missile systems and approximately USD89 billion for its war in Afghanistan.

Press TV has conducted an interview with William Spring, a human rights activist from London, to further discuss the issue. Spring is joined by Danny Schechter, editor with the mediachannel.org, from New York, and Omar Nashabi, Al-Akhbar Newspaper, from Beirut. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Perhaps you can tell us about your experiences regarding what Press TV went through regarding Ofcom who took it off its Sky platform based on your repeated requests from Ofcom to give us explanations. Tell us what occurred through your different ventures with Ofcom.

Spring: Initially, I wrote to Ofcom when I knew they were planning this. I said to them that if they went ahead and took Press TV off the Sky platform, I would actually bring a high-court application - which I did.

Initially, my application was based on the fact that it was invasive of my own personal rights. Article 10 allows Europeans to receive information, and this was a high-handed attempt to stop information.

But as I did more research, I was able to tell the high-court a week or so ago, that in fact the entire proceeding is unlawful. Under the European Union directive, they have no right whatsoever to take any channel off the air simply on account of its corporate governance because that was the ostensible reason Ofcom proffered for taking Press TV off the air.

This is all covered by the EU directive. It’s an entirely unlawful act. Ofcom are responsible for an unlawful act as are Eutelsat and these other satellite providers.

I think it’s very important that Press TV target the individuals who are behind this decision because the EU, Catherine Ashton, has said apparently that this isn’t anything to do with the EU.

I’m very dubious about it, anyway; but if that’s so, let’s target the actual directors of these companies.

Press TV: Who do you think is behind it?

Spring: It all fits in with the concept of full-spectrum dominance which was put forward by the neo-cons in the United States back in the late 1990s. They want US domination of the air, land, space and the media.

What we have effectively is a domination which is the US plus the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plus Israel plus Qatar, and this particular bunch of unlikely allies think they can determine broadcasting policy in the West for the rest of us.

It’s outrageous and something has to be done, and I really welcome Press TV’s initiative to take legal action.

Press TV: Which they are going to do...

Let’s pick up on something that [previous guest speaker] Danny Schechter talked about in this context. One of the quickest reactions based on this ban came from the American Jewish Committee (AJC) who has been very quick on the response. They’ve actually applauded the ban by Hispasat, and the executive director of the AJC has come out and said “it’s an important step,” and I’m quoting him, “in Westerner attempts to limit Iran’s influence around the world.”

I’m trying to understand what ‘limiting Iranian influence’ means. Does it mean that Press TV has made such a difference in terms of the impact that it has had? Do you think that’s what he means? Or is it because that revealing the truth based on some of the areas that Press TV places a focus on, that they don’t want? For example, the way that Israel violates itself on Palestinians in the occupied territories?

Spring: Yes, well, actually years ago I used to know a journalist who said to me that George Orwell had said to him that the Ministry of Truth in his book “1984” was based on the BBC, not on the Kremlin.

Unfortunately, we get thoroughly unreliable news from these other channels. What I do find is, and I incur what Danny said, I do find that there is reliable news from Press TV and also to some degree from RT.

US lost more troops to suicide than combat in 2012

PressTV

11, the U.S. military lost 165 soldiers to suicide, a record that narrowly beat the 2009 level of 160. This year things have gotten much, much worse, and up to the end of November the suicide deaths are up to 303.

Putting this in perspective, that’s actually quite a bit more than the number of U.S. troops slain in combat so far in 2012. That figure is 212, though the overall U.S. death toll in Afghanistan is 307, including non-combat deaths.

The military has been desperate to get a handle on the rising suicide rate, making several very public efforts, none of which seems to have accomplished much of anything.

The latest on that is a number of Congressmen pushing for a new law allowing the military to ask “unstable” troops whether they own any personal guns, though as with most of the legislative “solutions” to this problem it seems focused more on adding to the stigma of being considered “at risk” than actually encouraging people to seek help. Antiwar

FACTS & FIGURES

The U.S. military has been struggling to deal with the suicide crisis since numbers began rising in 2004. This year, the average is nearly one soldier suicide a day. NPR

Military and medical leaders have been searching for answers to what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta describes as an "epidemic" of suicides ever since the numbers began increasing among soldiers and Marines. USA Today

As many as 12 active-duty soldiers committed suicide in November, pushing the Army above last year’s record number of suicides, military officials said in December. Army Times

The Army has now had 177 suspected suicides among active-duty soldiers this year. Last year’s total of confirmed suicides was 165. Army Times

Earlier this year, a high-ranking army official wrote, “Suicide is the toughest enemy I have faced in my 37 years in the Army.” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has described suicide in the army as “one of the most frustrating problems.” Think Progress

AHT/DT

U.S. Secret Service Bans Sale of Silver and Gold Liberty Dollars on Ebay

Market Daily News

Mac Slavo: In early 2011 Bernad Von Nothaus was convicted by the US government and identified as a domestic terrorist by Federal prosecutors for minting his own silver and gold coinage, and then offering those coins for sale to clients. He dubbed the  coins “Liberty Dollars” and by doing so brought upon himself the ire of the U.S. Secret Service, Federal Reserve and a host of other government agencies.




According to the government, Von Nothaus was a counterfeiter, though he made no attempts to actually counterfeit U.S. currency, but rather, provide another mechanism of exchange through the use of precious metals.

After Von Nothaus’ conviction, the Secret Service warned they would be confiscating all Liberty Dollar coins manufactured by Nothaus’ company, NorFed.

[Must Read: Paper-Gold Fraud Now Out In The Open]

Since the shutdown of VonNothaus’ operation, many of the coins have been offered for sale or trade on mega-auction site Ebay, and this week the Secret Service took action. They contacted Ebay, which in turn advised sellers of the coins on their site that they could no longer engage in the trade of silver coins with the Norfed Liberty Dollar hallmark:

The United States Secret Service has requested the removal of all Norfed Liberty dollars on the eBay site as counterfeits. … Please do not relist this item(s). We appreciate that you chose to list this coin on our site and understand there was no ill intent on your part. Your listing fees have been credited to your account.

There is nothing special about the Liberty Dollar coins other than the fact that they are pure silver; and, of course, that they actually have intrinsic value as compared to general circulation U.S. legal tender which is, by most accounts, essentially worthless in terms of metal value.

[Must Read: When The “PRICE” of Gold or Silver Means Nothing?]

The government disagrees with this argument, and in a press release issued by the US Department of Justice, said that the trade of such coins amounts to nothing short of terrorism because it poses a direct threat to the stability of the United States:

Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism, U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country, she added. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.

The Secret Service has gotten involved in order to ensure buyers don’t get confused by thinking they are acquiring legal U.S. tender. Apparently they believe that someone who buys a silver coin for $35 may, in a state of confusion, then attempt to exchange it for a $1 soda pop in the open market.

Today they are targeting the Liberty Dollar because it “represents a clear and present danger to the economic stability” of the United States. It wouldn’t be that far a stretch of the imagination to suggest the government could make the same argument for any mechanism of exchange or store of value, especially those which contain gold and silver.

[Related: Silver’s Smoking Guns, Part III: Market Paradox]

They confiscated gold in the 1930′s for much the same reasons. They may very well do it again, but this time you may be a terrorist if you have silver or gold coins at home when they come looking.

Piers Morgan Sets Level of Discourse Advocating Gun Control

Gun Inconsistencies in Sandy Hook School Mass Shooting...

UK Protests Gun Ban - Who will ban guns next?

Female US cop caught on tape giving two women body cavity search during routine traffic stop... and 'using the SAME gloves on both'

Daily Mail

• Angel Dobbs, 38, and niece Ashley Dobbs, 24, were pulled over on State Highway 161 near Irving, Texas


• Trooper searched car for marijuana before requesting invasive cavity search


• Older woman claims search by trooper Kellie Helleson irritated an anal cyst she was suffering causing 'severe pain and discomfort'


• Also suing the Texas Department of Public Safety for failing to act on previous complaints about 'violating' searches

Two Texas women are suing after state troopers subjected them to a humiliating and invasive 'roadside body cavity search' that was caught on video.

Female trooper Kellie Helleson is seen in the footage aggressively searching the private parts of Angel Dobbs, 38, and her niece, Ashley Dobbs, 24, in front of passing cars.

The women, who claim the trooper used the same rubber glove for both of them, were initially stopped by Helleson's colleague David Farrell on State Highway 161 near Irving after he saw one of them throw a cigarette butt out the window.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Invasive: Female trooper Kellie Helleson, left, aggressively searched their private parts

Farrell can be heard in the disturbing video questioning the pair about marijuana though he failed to find any evidence of the drug in the vehicle.

However, he requested the women be searches after allegedly claiming they were 'acting weird.'

The lawsuit states he then tried to 'morph this situation into a DWI investigation,' according to the Dallas Morning News.

Angel Dobbs passed a roadside sobriety test and the women were given warnings for littering.

Pulled over: The women were initially stopped by Helleson's colleague David Farrell on State Highway 161 near Irving, Texas

Angel Dobbs said Helleson irritated an anal cyst she suffers from during the search, causing her 'severe and continuing pain and discomfort.'
The suit said: 'Angel Dobbs was overwhelmed with emotion and a feeling of helplessness and reacted stating that Helleson had just violated her in a most horrific manner.'

The two women are also suing the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Steven McCraw, who they claim ignored previous complaints about 'unlawful strip searches, cavity searches and the like.'

Lawsuit: The women are also suing the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety for ignoring prior complaints about searches

The Dobbs' lawyer Scott H. Palmer said the shocking incident, which was filmed on one of the trooper's dash-mounted cameras, was a roadside 'sexual assault.'

He said the Texas Rangers investigated his clients' complaints but failed to take any action against the troopers.

'You can see what's happening clearly,' he told the Dallas Morning News of the video. 'No one's ever seen the likes of this. We can't let them get away with it.'

 VIDEO  Women given body cavity search during routine TRAFFIC STOP

Massive Psy-op? Obama Can Ban Guns By Himself – And He Will

The Daily Bell

Even without Congress, Obama could act to restrict guns ... Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers. Prospects for gun control legislation intensified in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, as more pro-gun rights lawmakers said on Monday they were open to the possibility while Obama and three cabinet members met at the White House to discuss the subject. – Reuters

Dominant Social Theme: Gun control is necessary now. Too much blood has been spilled.

Free-Market Analysis: We would be all for gun control except for two things: It doesn't work and it seems to be part of what we call directed history. The goal is to reduce the ability of individuals to fight back against world government.

There is almost no doubt more "controls" are on the way. This Reuters article explains how and why. Reuters is a bought-and-paid-for mouthpiece of the power elite, in our view. So when Reuters publishes an article like this, we pay attention.

The thrust of the Reuters article is that President Barack Obama has plenty of power within the executive branch to curtail the purchase and usage of firearms. The article also points out that because Obama has won a second term, he doesn't have to make so many political calculations.

Here's some more from the article:

Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action ...

His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws.

The National Rifle Association, the largest U.S. gun rights group with 4 million supporters, relies largely on its ability to influence lawmakers in order to block legislation.

Obama's appointees at the U.S. Justice Department have been studying ideas since the January 8, 2011, shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and 18 others at a public meeting. Giffords survived but six people died.

Christopher Schroeder, who ran the Justice Department's review, said it looked at possible legislation to send to Congress as well as action the administration could take itself.

"You always look at both, because if you can do it administratively it's certainly a less involved process," said Schroeder, who has since returned to a professorship at Duke Law School.

Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers.

Critics say the system has holes because it does not include all the data it should on those ineligible to buy guns. The FBI, which runs the system, could incorporate more data from within the federal government - using evidence of mental incompetence, for example ...

It is not clear what changes to the background checks would have prevented the mass shooting in Newtown, because the killer appeared to have used weapons his mother bought legally.

Other proposals for executive action by Obama include sharing information with state and local law enforcement about possibly illegal purchases; maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods to help with investigations; and restricting the importation of certain military-style weapons, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1989.

RT uncovers plans for US False Flag against IRAN

Scandal Alert: Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th Amendment

The Atlantic
Conor Friedersdorf

Meet the prominent legislators who think it's okay to throw Americans in jail forever without charges or trial.

Reuters

What everyone must understand is that American politics doesn't work the way you'd think it would. Most people presume that government officials would never willfully withhold penicillin from men with syphilis just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated. It seems unlikely that officers would coerce enlisted men into exposing themselves to debilitating nerve gas. Few expected that President Obama would preside over the persecution of an NSA whistle-blower, or presume the guilt of all military-aged males killed by U.S. drone strikes. But it all happened.

Really thinking about all that may make it easier to believe what I'm about to tell you.

It may seem like imprisoning an American citizen without charges or trial transgresses against the United States Constitution and basic norms of Western justice dating back to the Magna Carta.

It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would be uncontroversial.

It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat the issue with at least as much urgency as "the fiscal cliff" or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for Cabinet posts.

It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention.

But it isn't so.

The casual news consumer cannot rely on those seemingly reasonable heuristics to signal that very old norms are giving way, that important protections are being undermined, perhaps decisively.

We've lost the courage of our convictions -- we're that scared of terrorism (or of seeming soft on it).

News junkies likely know that I'm alluding to a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to allay these concerns with an amendment:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

You'd think the part about American citizens being protected from indefinite detention would be uncontroversial. It wasn't. But the amendment did manage to pass in the United States Senate.

Afterward everyone forgot about it pretty quickly. But not Charlie Savage. He's a journalist at The New York Times. If every journalist were more like him the United States government would be far less able to radically expand the president's unchecked authority without many people noticing.

Here is his scoop:

Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.  

Says Adam Serwer, another journalist who treats these issues with the urgency that they deserve:

Of the four main negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the practice. Both of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty.

There is a complication, as he notes: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States. While I respect that principled stand, the more important thing is that this outcome puts us all at greater risk of having a core liberty violated, and that Senators McCain, Levin, and many other legislators suffer no consequences for failing to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
   
As Serwer puts it, "The demise of the Feinstein-Lee proposal doesn't necessarily mean that Americans suspected of terrorism in the US can be locked up forever without a trial. But it ensures that the next time a president tries to lock up an American citizen without trial -- as President George W. Bush previously tried -- it will be left up to the courts to decide whether or not it's legal."

Don't let the dearth of attention fool you -- this is a scandal. Congress has turned its back on safeguarding a core Constitutional protection and a centuries old requirement of Western justice.

Rage, rage against the dying of the 5th.

County Police Chief Recommends Arming School Personnel

CBS


St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says it is time to talk about arming civilian school personnel following Friday’s massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, comparing it to arming airline pilots after September 11, 2001.

“I see it no differently,” he said. “Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn’t know which airplane he’s getting on, if the pilot is armed or not.”

Fitch said the killing will not be stopped by legislation or laws. “If there’s somebody that’s really hellbent on doing something like this, they’re not going to care what the law is.”

The chief is adamant about his plans but realizes his calls for arming school workers will be met with resistance.

“We touched on this issue with heroin problem with schools. When we first were talking about the heroin problem in St. Louis, many of the school officials ran and they just hid out, they said ‘nope, we don’t have a heroin problem in our schools,’” Fitch said.

“They started to find out some of the students were involved in this and some of the students were dying of heroin overdoses. It forced them to have this discussion and to take action, inviting us into their schools to talk about the heroin problem in St. Louis.”
Concerning the possibility of gun control, Fitch said “it’s just not going to happen,” and called for an increased focus on mental health instead.

“One of the first thing governments tend to cut back on in tight times are mental health services,” he said. “We know this individual has a mental health history in Connecticut, we’ve seen that in all the school shootings, and additional resources would be helpful.
But, last resort, somebody’s got to take action and they got to do it quickly.”

Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sheriff’s Deputy Drops Him With One Bullet

San Antonio Police stand guard near the Mayan 14 Theatres after an incident Sunday night, Dec. 16, 2012.

With one shot, an off-duty sheriff’s deputy took down a gunman who attempted to opened fire at a crowded movie theater lobby during a late night showing of “The Hobbit” in San Antonio, WOAI reports.

Police say a gunman, identified as Jesus Manuel Garcia, chased patrons from the nearby China Garden Restaurant into the lobby of the Santikos Mayan 14 movie theater at around 9 p.m. on Sunday. Garcia, an employee of the restaurant, reportedly walked in the establishment looking for a woman.

When the woman, also reportedly a restaurant employee, wasn’t there, Garcia pulled out a gun and attempted to open fire in the restaurant but his weapon jammed.

“It started at the restaurant and then went into the parking lot and then into the movie theater,” Deputy Lou Antu told 1200 WOAI news.

The commotion sent horrified restaurant patrons into the movie theater lobby, but the gunman followed. He again attempted to open fire, and this time his gun didn’t jam.

 Garcia reportedly shot one man in the chest before Antu says an off-duty sheriff’s deputy working security the theater shot him once, dropping him to the floor.

Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano reportedly chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom and shot him before taking his gun.

“The officer involved, she took the appropriate action to try to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu added.

Due to the off-duty deputy’s bravery, the gunman was not able to make it into the theater where he could have potentially taken many lives.

Police question a man near the Mayan Theater after an incident late Sunday, Dec., 16, 2012.

Police question a man near the Mayan Theater after an incident late Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012.

The gunman and the man he shot remain hospitalized, according to WOAI. Police say a recent breakup set off the man’s shooting spree on Sunday, MySanAntonio.com reports.

Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at a China Garden restaurant next to the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him.

He lashed out by sending her a message saying he planned to go to the restaurant and “shoot somebody,” said Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Raymond Pollard.

Pollard said the woman called to warn restaurant employees, but by the time she saw his message, Garcia was already outside the China Garden firing a Glock 23 at the front door about 9:25 p.m.

If Garcia survives his attempt at mass murder, officials say he will likely face a charge of attempted capital murder as he allegedly shot at the San Antonia police car on Southwest Military Drive as he ran from the restaurant and into the theater.

Moulding Young Minds: American Schools Preaching the Virtues of a War On Iran

Global Research
Patrick Henningsen

I remember my history lessons in school. Among many things, I can recall Patton’s march through France and the Battle of the Bulge, and how we learned about the millions of deaths on, as well as off, the fields of battle throughout history.

All in all, it was a tale of battles won and lost, and as was rightly put by my junior high school teacher - a tale of caution for future generations. But as young students, we were never taught to idiosyncrasies of ‘war-gaming’ a conflict in the future.

Nor can I recall getting lessons in school about using various aspects of asymmetrical warfare to encircle an enemy, or how admirable and clever it is to deploy terrorist units to bomb a country in order to ‘soften it up’ from within.

Unbeknownst to many people, there are school teachers who are delivering pro-war propaganda, indoctrinating young children with violent globalist military stratagem selling the concept of an inevitable war on the people of Iran as well as anyone else deemed as ‘Axis’ powers in relation to western central planning.

Interestingly, and quite horrific in fact, when challenged by his young (and extremely bright) female student over the idea of western pre-emptive intervention against Iran, the teacher addressing these students laid down a nonnegotiable maxim stating:
“… one of the rules (in this discussion) – you can’t do nothing”.

The female student followed his NLP intellectual diversion by rightly pointing out to him:
“But we (the US) are the only country in the world that’s ever used nuclear weapons”.
To which the teacher replies sharply:

“That’s irrelevant.”

It appears also towards the end of the video, that the class was being monitored by the principal’s office, who then summoned the student in question to the office. Orwellian – in the extreme.

This is the generation of children who may be asked – or drafted in to fight a coming war with Iran and others – so is this part of the indoctrination of future soldiers? Maybe.
Certainly here, it’s safe to say that teachers are grooming the next generation of compliant consumer spectators.

Watch the classroom exchange recorded by the student:

'Did We Just Kill A Kid?' — Six Words That Ended A US Drone Pilot's Career

Business Insider
Robert Johnson

The New Mexico desert gets blistering hot, but inside the small windowless container where Brandon Bryant worked as a drone operator for the U.S. Air Force it stays a cool 63 degrees all year long.

Nicola Abé at der Spiegel spoke with Bryant, no longer in the Air Force, who relays a disturbing and tragic scene from his time inside that isolated container in the American desert.

Sixty-three finger numbing degrees and Bryant describes sitting with a group of other pilots looking at more than a dozen computer monitors. The crew are directing drones over Afghanistan 6,250 miles away and the screens jump with a two to five second delay, as infrared video sent from the UAVs whips through the air to New Mexico.

When the order to fire on a target arrives, Bryant paints the roof of a hut with the laser that will guide in a Hellfire missile released by the pilot beside him.

"These moments are like in slow motion," he says to Abé.

No doubt, because on this occasion Bryant says a child walked from behind the building at the last second. Too late for him to do anything else but ask the other pilot, "Did we just kill a kid?"

From der Spiegel:

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

The article follows another widely publicized story from the Marine Times about children killed by Americans on Afghan soil published just weeks ago. While obviously a tragedy for the victims and their families, Bryant describes the incredible toll taken on U.S. troops required to obey orders producing such dire results.

From his mother's couch in Missoula, Montana Bryant talks of his 6,000 Air Force flight hours and says he used to dream in infrared. "I saw men, women and children die during that time," he says. "I never thought I would kill that many people. In fact, I thought I couldn't kill anyone at all."

The three part article digs deeply into the life of a troubled former servicemember and the war-fighting policies that don't look to be changing anytime soon.

Lanza, Bloomberg, Obama, Guns, Psychiatic Meds and Mass Hypnosis: The TV Script

Joe the Philosopher
Jon Rappoport

Mayor Bloomberg is leading the charge to take away guns in the wake of the Newtown child murders. The pressure is on.

Apart from grandstanding, which Bloomberg knows how to do, this is all about deflection from the main event: the killer himself.

Last night, I watched network coverage, wherein, of course, the anchors were in Newtown, standing on the street, “trying to make sense of the whole thing.”

If they’re so interested, along with the public, in figuring out why Adam Lanza killed all those children, you would think, with their enormous resources, they would find out who Lanza’s doctor-psychiatrist was in five minutes and ask him about his patient.

Of course, that’s sacred ground. Patient-doctor confidentiality.

Except the patient is dead.

So much for the networks wanting to know who Adam Lanza really was. It’s all a sham. They just want to keep asking the question over and over, pretending to be in the dark about the whole thing.

They want to “deepen the mystery” and emphasize how futile it is to get into the mind of a killer. They’ve got that rap down. They use it every time one of these mass murders happens.

They know about the psychiatric-drug connection to murders and suicides. But they won’t say the magic words. They’ll just keep biting their tongues.

And “out of respect for the victims,” the drug companies aren’t running ads anywhere near this media coverage. Translation: the companies don’t want to encourage the public to make the connection between meds and murder.

Prozac, murder. Zoloft, murder. Paxil, murder. Ritalin, murder.

Bloomberg is playing the shill for new gun control. He’s the point man of the moment, insisting “the president do something meaningful” right now. It’s an orchestrated little play.

“Let’s ask Michael Moore what he thinks.”

“Oh good, Rupert Murdoch is weighing in against guns.” Yes, he’s providing the “balanced” in “fair and balanced,” so people stop associating FOX News with “right-wing gun advocates” for a few hours.

And the Boston mayor is chiming in, too.

Meanwhile, the public is under the spell of mass hypnosis. Can’t stop watching the tube. Never stops to think, “Hey, why don’t they put Lanza’s doctor on the screen and have him talk about his patient?”

There are other elements of this mass trance. People bolster their belief that what happens in life is out of their hands. “See, it’s just like I thought. We have no power. I have no power. All we can do is grieve and try to heal. Light a candle.”

Notice another odd thing. No one in the tightly bound Newtown community is saying, “We’ve got to get to the bottom of this. We’ve got to find out what this killer was.” If they are saying it, you’re not seeing it on camera.

The people of Newtown can find out in an hour who Lanza’s doctor was. They can march right up to his office or house and knock on the door and tell him to come out and talk.

Why don’t they do it?

They’re still in shock, yes. But they’re also in a hypnotic state, when it comes to doctors. Don’t question the high priest in the white coat. He lives in a different sphere from the rest of us.

Ignorance=grief=healing=being a good citizen.

Here’s a phrase you’re hearing all over the tube from politicians and officials. “We have to come together.” What the hell does that mean? I even heard the police chief say it, in reference to “resolving what happened.” Garble. Pure garble.

No, “coming together” means giving up. It means abject helplessness. It means, above all, no outrage.

Have you see one person on television express outrage?