Infowars Issues Emergency Terror Alert

Threat of a false flag event has never been greater

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Given the fact that the US and Israel are both yearning for a casus belli to launch an attack on Iran, added to recent history where a staged provocation was considered, and in addition to the innumerable examples of false flags overseen by the Obama administration alone, the threat of staged terror has never been greater.

Unlike the plethora of fake terror alerts that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge admitted were issued for political propaganda, this one is very serious indeed.

The American public are being bombarded with the same propaganda in two similar but separate formats, one that Iran is looking to launch a terror attack on U.S. soil, and two that domestic extremists also pose a violent threat.

However, as recent history tells us, it is the government itself which routinely stages and facilitates violent events in pursuit of its political objectives, therefore the same interests should be the number one suspects if and when violent events occur.

US intelligence officials last week upped the rhetoric against Iran during congressional testimony by claiming that Tehran is prepared to launch reprisal attacks inside the United States.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. cited the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil as a sign that, “Some Iranian officials — probably including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

As we documented at the time, according to retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, no information concerning the supposed plot even existed within FBI channels, strongly suggesting the story was manufactured by the Obama administration. The New York Times also reported that the dubious nature of the plot caused “a wave of puzzlement and skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts.” (CONTINUE READING)

Congress Proves Ron Paul Right on Foreign Policy

Greg Buls
Infowars.com
January 2, 2012

Ron Paul has placed American foreign policy front and center in the presidential election. Should we even be considering an alternative to our current policies? Definitely not, we’re told, by all of the other candidates for president, both Democrat and Republican. While they were consistently wrong about the prospects for ‘success’ in both Iraq and Afghanistan, most voters are still listening to them. Most voters don’t yet know that Paul emphatically predicted failure, in detail, on both fronts, while also warning about the inflating housing bubble and its inevitable consequences. When voters learn someone is running who actually predicted the establishment’s giant messes, more eyes and ears will turn to Paul.


Presently, voters are being brow-beaten into thinking that Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions are dangerous. Yet in spite of the constant barrage of negative sentiment from media and GOP minions, Dr. Paul is seeking every opportunity to discuss foreign policy with voters. He knows that voters need more than a sound bite to challenge thinking that’s been entrenched for decades. His work is aided by a series of congressional actions, a pattern which provides inescapable proof of catastrophic foreign policy failure.

Consider the proper constitutional purposes of foreign policy: Avoiding military conflict when possible, and keeping the population safe from foreign aggression. Our current foreign policy explicitly abandons the first objective; it requires us to actively seek and engage in war, ostensibly to insure the second objective, keeping us safe. That is exactly how the policy was sold to the American people: We must fight them over there so that they won’t terrorize us over here. It’s probably not an all or nothing question – fighting them over there does not insure that they cannot come here to attack us. Our borders are essentially open; many nations likely have the ability to bring highly-coordinated terror attacks to our shores, if and when they choose, whether we occupy their lands or not.

But we’re not being attacked. Foiled plots are amateurish and often of dubious origin. Maybe all of the real radicals are staying put, in order to fight us over there. That would suggest that the policy is working as intended. But it would also mean that the policy may be endless – if we leave, they will come here, we are constantly told. If it is not safe to leave now, then when, and how can we know? Perhaps we can successfully defend our footholds there for many years and remain ‘safe’ at home. But at some point the people we are fighting will eventually become convinced that fighting us over there won’t dislodge us, and they will turn to the alternative, attacking us here.(CONTINUE READING)

Ron Paul and the Killing Machine

Mike Whitney
Counterpunch
January 2, 2012


Editor’s note: Ron Paul will not, as suggested below, end Social Security outright, as many liberals fear. His plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,” in other words those currently in the programs could stay in them, but it would allow younger workers to opt out of the Social Security system and its payroll taxes. 

Ron Paul is the only antiwar candidate who has a (microscopic) chance of winning in 2012. He’s also the only candidate who will make an effort to restore the Bill of Rights and reverse Congress’s decision to allow the president to “indefinitely” imprison American citizens without due process. For these reasons alone, Paul should garner the support of leftists, liberals, and progressives. But he won’t, because liberals are convinced that Paul will try to dismantle the social programs upon which the elderly, the infirm, and the vulnerable depend.

These concerns are not without foundation. Paul opposes government meddling in the market and sees Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as steps towards socialism. That means, there’s a good chance that these programs will come under fire if Paul is elected. The question is: How should we balance our concerns about Social Security with our opposition to the war(s)? (CONTINUE READING)

Why Neo-Cons Hate Ron Paul's Honest Foreign Policy

Jeremy R. Hammond
Alt-Market
December 27, 2011

This article, originally titled “Ron Paul: Propagandist Or Prophet?”, was written by Jeremy R. Hammond and published at Foreign Policy Journal

Ron Paul is “the best-known American propagandist for our enemies”, writes Dorothy Rabinowitz in a recent Wall Street Journal hit piece. To support the charge, she writes that Dr. Paul “assures audiences” that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 “took place only because of U.S. aggression and military actions”. It’s “True,” she writes, that “we’ve heard the assertions before”, but only “rarely have we heard in any American political figure such exclusive concern for, and appreciation of, the motives of those who attacked us”—and, she adds, he doesn’t care about the victims of the attacks.

The vindictive rhetoric aside, what is it, exactly, that Ron Paul is guilty of here? It is completely uncontroversial that the 9/11 attacks were a consequence of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The 9/11 Commission Report, for instance, points out that Osama bin Laden “stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.”

Notice that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually deny that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by such U.S. policies as these. Rather, Ron Paul’s sin is that he actually acknowledges this truth. The fact that other political figures choose to ignore or deny this fact hardly reflects poorly on Dr. Paul. Refusing to bury one’s head deeply up one’s arse, as Rabinowitz is so obviously willing to do, is hardly a character trait to be faulted.

From this position of willful ignorance, Rabinowitz then implores her readers that “a President Paul” would “be making decisions about the nation’s defense, national security, domestic policy and much else.” The conclusion one is supposed to draw is that anyone who could actually acknowledge the ugly truth that 9/11 was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy isn’t fit for office; only someone who is willing to delude him or herself that the U.S. was attacked because “they hate our freedoms” is worthy of the presidency. Anyone who wishes to changeU.S. foreign policy is unfit; only a person who is willing to continue the status quo should be allowed a seat in the Oval Office.

Rabinowitz warns that “The world may not be ready for another American president traversing half the globe to apologize for the misdeeds of the nation he had just been elected to lead.” It’s not clear who she has in mind with the “another”, but it’s by now a familiar refrain. “I’ll never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don’t care what the facts are,” President George H. W. Bush declared to the world after a U.S. warship had shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in Iranian airspace, killing all 290 passengers aboard, including 65 children. Surely, any president willing to apologize for the murder of innocent children must not lead the nation. The horror of the thought!

And then there is Dr. Paul’s position with respect to Iran. He recently urged his host in an interview “to understand that Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map.” Here, again, it’s notable that Rabinowitz doesn’t actually dispute this. Dr. Paul is, of course, correct. The claim that Iran has threatened to acquire nuclear weapons to “wipe Israel off the map” is a complete fabrication of Western media propaganda, and mainstream corporate news agencies know it is a fabrication, but repeat it obligatorily anyway. (CONTINUE READING)

Military Industrial Complex: Full Fruition

by Kathleen Wallace Peine

http://dissidentvoice.org
November 29th, 2011

This week Congress is expected to vote on a bill advanced by John McCain and Carl Levin, a Republican and Democrat who united to bring us the foundation needed to propel us fully into a militarized nightmare state similar to what we have been exporting these last few years. It is the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act.

In case you haven’t heard the details (which is likely if you have spent much time watching traditional news), the bill essentially labels every spot on this earth as a battlefield, including the United States. It’s a telling moment when they concede, or, in fact, advance a never ending war, and its present under each rock, according to these lawmakers. It’s certainly the stuff of 1984 (we’ve always been at war with Eastasia). From this notion springs the advancement of military tribunals dealing with all citizens of the globe (once again, Americans included) without the bother of transparency. Detention and disappearance could be the order of the day.

The secretive nature and broad sweeps have already been used on those they deem foreign enemy combatants around the world. As if by fascist playbook, this sort of thing is trial ballooned on “the other” and then brought home for the enjoyment of those who didn’t complain the first time around.

An enormous issue with the militarization and deviation from open aired civilian courts is the very secretive nature of it all. If an individual has truly done a harm that merits intervention, then the light of day should shine on the accusations and stand on their own merits. That tired excuse that the information in these trials needs to be hidden is simply a ploy to avoid oversight and scrutiny. The stories have circulated about local warlords turning in neighbors (who get sent to Gitmo) often for decidedly illegitimate reasons. And then just enough scary terror bogymen really are in residence there to allow the average citizen to go back to sleep, avoiding the uncomfortable realization that some there did nothing wrong, except perhaps be in the wrong place at the wrong time or have enemies with the ear of Uncle Sam. It would be mindless to think it would go down in any other manner here. We aren’t that exceptional, I’m sorry to say.

Not to mention that this further advancement of the Military Industrial Complex must be making those entities who profit off of all of this salivate. As resources dwindle, the decision seems to have been made by the few to loot all that is available, consequences be damned. (CONTINUE READING)