Open and Shut Case

This Is Ben Ladin As A Zombie. I Am A Coward. During a Halloween parade, a man dressed as a zombie who also represented the Prophet Mohammed was attacked by a Muslim man watching the parade with his son. You would think that the fact the man confessed would make this an open and shut case of assault. You would think that the fact the incident was videotaped would make this an open and shut case of assault. You would think that the fact a policeman saw the incident would make this an open and shut case of assault. You would be wrong. 

Here is what the judge said:

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society

The judge had this to say:

... he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge.

The judge threw out the video tape of the incident, he ignored the testimony of police. Why did he do this? Could his religious beliefs have had anything to do with it?

Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive. But you have that right, but you’re way outside your boundaries or first amendment rights. This is what, and I said I spent about 7 and a half years living in other countries. when we go to other countries it’s not uncommon for people to refer to us as ugly Americans this is why we are referred to as ugly Americans, because we are so concerned about our own rights we don’t care about other people’s rights as long as we get our say but we don’t care about the other people’s say.

The judge's opinion is that if someone offends you, you have the right to beat them up. While there is a legal tradition of what is called "fighting words," modern courts have mostly rejected this. 

While the fear of Sharia Law is to a large degree hysteria, there are cases like this that have me scratching my head. 

While this video has a little historical revisionism at the beginning (the separation of Church and State is not in the constitution), it contains an audio of the judge's decision. 

Told You I Did, Reckless Is He.

The parallels between modern America and a police state become more and more evident each day. Republicans take note, do you really think McCain would have been any different? 

Trends

Simon Black, in his investment newsletter, had some interesting statistics that I thought worth examining:

1) Number of people renouncing US citizenship: Four years of exponential growth. [Source: Bloomberg / IRS]

2008: 146
2009: 742
2010: 1534
2011: 2048 (estimate)

2) Number of Facebook users: Eight years of viral growth. [Source: Facebook]

August 26, 2008: 100 million
April 8, 2009: 200 million
September 15, 2009: 300 million
February 5, 2010: 400 million
July 21, 2010: 500 million
January 5, 2011: 600 million
May 30, 2011: 700 million
September 22, 2011: 800 million
February 4, 2012: 845 million


3) Number of Americans on Foodstamps: A disturbing, tragic long-term growth trend. [Source: USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]

2007: 26.3 million
2008: 28.2 million
2009: 33.5 million 
2010: 40.3 million
2011: 44.7 million

4) Number of FBI/NICS background checks to obtain a firearm in the United States: Eight years of consistent growth.  And baby, we ain't seen nothin' yet. [Source: FBI]

2004: 8.69 million
2005: 8.95 million
2006: 10.04 million
2007: 11.18 million
2008: 12.70 million
2009: 14.03 million
2010: 14.41 million
2011: 16.45 million


5) Number of requests the US government made for Google user data: 4 straight reporting periods of astounding growth. [Source: Google]

6-months ending 12/31/2009: 3,580
6-months ending 6/30/2010:  4,287
6-months ending 12/31/2010: 4,601
6-months ending 6/30/2011:  5,950


6) US federal government budget outlays: a never-ending growth trend of out-of-control spending. [Source: CBO, OMB]

2000 budget: $1.9 trillion
2001 budget: $2.0 trillion
2002 budget: $2.2 trillion
2003 budget: $2.2 trillion
2004 budget: $2.3 trillion 
2005 budget: $2.4 trillion
2006 budget: $2.7 trillion
2007 budget: $2.8 trillion
2008 budget: $2.9 trillion
2009 budget: $3.1 trillion
2010 budget: $3.6 trillion
2011 budget: $3.8 trillion


7) And last but not least, US monetary base as of January 1st each year [Source: St. Louis Fed]

2001: $ 616.7 billion
2002: $ 673.7 billion 
2003: $ 719.6 billion
2004: $ 756.8 billion
2005: $ 793.8 billion
2006: $ 825.2 billion
2007: $ 843.5 billion
2008: $ 851.4 billion
2009: $1,730.2 billion
2010: $2,010.1 billion
2011: $2,057.1 billion
2012: $2,647.7 billion

Simon's purpose with these statistics is to encourage gold purchases. My purpose is different. 

Think about the world we are creating. A world where people are heavily armed. A world where the money supply is going crazy. A world where the government spending is out of control. A world where the government is watching you more and more. A world where people needing government assistance to eat is skyrocketing. 

If you like this world I suggest you vote for Obama or Romney (whoose major policies are not that much different.) If you do not like this world, I suggest you do not vote for Obama or Romney. 

Gulf of Tonkin

Another example of a false flag was the Gulf of Tonkin incident that preceded the Vietnam War. 

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or the USS Maddox Incident, are the names given to two separate confrontations, one actual and one now recognized as non-existent, involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, engaged three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. A sea battle resulted, in which the Maddox expended over two hundred and eighty 3-inch and 5-inch shells, and in which four USN F-8 Crusader jet fighter bombers strafed the torpedo boats. One US aircraft was damaged, one 14.5 mm round hit the destroyer, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed and six were wounded; there were no U.S. casualties.

As you can see from this quote in Wikipedia, it is not even in dispute that part of the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" never happened. The part that did happen is interesting. The intelligence-gathering ship entered waters claimed by North Vietnam. The Maddox fired first. The presence of the ship in these waters was designed to "test Vietnamese resolve." So the Johnson Administration claim that the Vietnamese fired first was a lie. 

Here is a quote from document declassified in 2005. 

At 1500G, Captain Herrick (commander of the Maddox) ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first.

And as for the supposed second incident: 

It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.

US Government's Version of the Journey of the MaddoxWhile the Maddox was in international waters, it was within the waters claimed by Vietnam. The Maddox was sent into these waters on purpose. Was it hoped that Vietnam would attack to give Johnson the pretext he wanted to intervene in the Vietnamese civil war? We do not know—but the pattern of all these wars I have talked about would indicate yes. 

Why don't more politicians stand up against all the wars? The example of Senators Kerry and Clinton show the problem. 

Clinton supported the Iraq war. It was a position that she staked out, probably in consultation with her husband, designed to make her more electable when she ran for president. Support of these wars is all about politics. Ironically her support of the war was a factor in her defeat in the Democratic primaries in 2008. To make it even more ironic, Obama opposed her position, and then once elected adopted it. 

Kerry had a tough choice as well. So he tried to be on both sides of the issue at once. This led to his famous quote, "I was in favor of the war, before I was against it." But that is not exactly what he said:

Voting for or against one particular bill does not tell us a lot about a person's position, but the die was cast of Kerry as a "flip-flopper." He was doomed. 

Why don't politicians stand up when these false flag incidents occur? The career of Wayne Morse highlights this:

While President Johnson’s final resolution was being drafted, Senator Wayne Morse attempted to hold a fundraiser to raise awareness about possible faulty records of the incident involving the USS Maddox. Morse supposedly received a call from an informant who has remained anonymous urging Morse to investigate official logbooks of the Maddox. These logs were not available before President Johnson’s resolution was presented to Congress.

After urging Congress that they should be wary of President Johnson’s coming attempt to convince Congress of his resolution, Morse failed to gain enough cooperation and support from his colleagues to mount any sort of movement to stop it. Immediately after the resolution was read and presented to Congress, Morse began to fight it. He contended in speeches to Congress that the actions taken by the United States were actions outside of the constitution and were “acts of war rather than acts of defense."

Morse’s efforts were not immediately met with support, largely because he revealed no sources and was working with very limited information. It was not until after the United States became more involved in the war that his claim began to gain support throughout the United States government. The controversial Morse was defeated when he ran for re-election in 1968.

Here is a you tube clip about the Gulf of Tonkin incident from 60 minutes, done at that time. President Johnson, Senators Fulbright and Morse are featured. 

Here is another clip that features Admiral Stockdale, who says nothing happened on the second day. 

The example of Wayne Morse is that if you oppose wars, you get defeated. We need more politicians who do not care about this, but value the truth more. And yes, I realize that the term "truthful politician" is an example of an oxymoron. 

Propaganda Gone Awry

This was not done as a parody. Planned Parenthood (San Francisco) actually did this video to try to convince people of their cause. The superhero Dionysus, named for the Greek God of drunkenness, drowns an abstinence advocate, who looks like a dirty old man, then murders abortion protestors with a condom gun, and finally we see the closing credits that utilize condoms as weapons of destruction. This really must be seen to be believed.