Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Cultists, Counterfeiters, and Cop-Outs

Bush's Conservative Critics are HELPING THE TERRORISTS!

Isn't it fun to see a mind-wiped cult adherent get caught in the coils of a cult conundrum?

Last month, the Bush White House convened an off-the-record meeting with the GOP's chief herd-poisoners: Talk radio personalities Mike Gallagher, Neil Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, and Sean Hannity.

According to yesterday's New York Times, the purpose of this session was to discuss such issues as the war in Iraq and immigration, and to ensure that these prominent exponents of the Party Line remain true and faithful in their assignment, which is to keep their audiences on the GOP reservation.

At the GOP's grassroots, disaffection has been growing over the administration's incontinent spending habits, the deepening morass in Mesopotamia, and the proposed amnesty for illegal aliens. These issues, as well as other conservative complaints, were brought up during the White House meeting. According to Medved's account, in seeking to parry those criticisms, Bush deployed his most reliable trope.

Reports the Times:

“Mr. Medved wrote about how Mr. Bush spoke about his commitment to his immigration plan in terms of the fight against terrorism. He said the president made a case that if he were to give in to conservative complaints, `the nation's enemies (and the rest of the world) would take away the belief that the president could be bullied, prodded, overwhelmed, and intimidated.'”

Which is to say: If Bush changes what passes for his mind about ANYTHING for ANY REASON – then the terrorists win.

This suggests to me that the Bushevik revolution has succumbed to a form of auto-immune disorder, turning its “you either stand with us or with the terrorists” illogic against those within the ranks who have yet to purge themselves of any thought or impulse not devoted to upholding and sustaining the Dear Leader.

North Korea's Counterfeiters, and Ours

Only someone whose sense of irony is long dead can contemplate the current North Korean “crisis” without indulging in a wry, bitter chuckle.

We can leave aside, for the nonce, the fact that the admittedly horrible regime in Pyongyang has been denounced as an “aggressor” for reportedly test-detonating a nuclear device – by a regime headed by another hereditary tyrant who has conspicuously refused to rule out a nuclear strike against Iran. (It's my view, by the way, that the Bush regime sees the Korean nuclear “crisis” as a back door to war with Iran.)

The irony I find indigestibly rich comes in this discussion of the various forms of organized crime pursued by Pyongyang .

North Korea's rulers “have held off political collapse in the years since the end of the cold war thanks to a web of criminal businesses backed by the power and military might of a well-armed dictatorship,” observes The Australian. Among those illicit enterprises is the production of “counterfeit $100 bills known to law enforcement agencies as [the] Superdollar. US security services have seized $US 50 million ... of the counterfeits since they began appearing in 1989, of a quality so high they are often detected only when they reach the Federal Reserve.”

Which is to say that the counterfeits generated by Pyongyang are nearly as good as those produced by our own regime's counterfeiting arm.

In fact, Irwin Seltzer of the Hudson Institute (a neo-Trotskyite-leaning think tank that generally embraces a bellicose foreign policy) points out that the explosion of Federal Reserve-enabled debt during the reign of Bush the Dimmer has actually done more to compromise our national security than North Korea ever could – and that fact has helped embolden the oligarchy fronted by Kim Jong-Il.

“It is the economic policy of the Bush administration that has hobbled its efforts to veto North Korea's application to join the nuclear club,” Seltzer opines. Washington's profligacy has resulted “in stacks of IOUs held by China,” for which North Korea is a surrogate.

Seltzer, predictably, faults Bush and the adults who script his lines and wipe the drool from his chin for their failure to “call on the American people to make some sacrifices, in the form of higher taxes,” so as to fund the ongoing and ever-expanding War Against Whatever Bad Things We're At War With This Week.

But we're already paying taxes in the form of inflation – the product of the Federal Reserve's officially sanctioned counterfeiting. At least North Korea's evil ruling junta, unlike our own, is smart enough to pay for its ambitions by counterfeiting some other country's currency.

As Bruce Bartlett points out in Impostor, his indictment of George W. Bush for sundry crimes against the Constitution, one inescapable legacy of the Bush era will be the largest tax increase in our nation's history. So deep and vast is the fiscal hole into which we've fallen, that we're likely to see both rampant inflation to monetize the debt, and extortionate tax increases as well. And let's not forget that another significant military engagement abroad will also likely result in the imposition of a “blood tax” in the form of conscription.

Conscience Makes Cowards of Us All

“The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”
(Proverbs 28:1)

Earlier today (October 17), Pro Libertate correspondent Scott Watson reported on a congressional candidate forum held at Meridian, Idaho's Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene.

On hand to address the luncheon meeting were Republican congressional candidate Bill Sali and Constitution Party candidate Paul Smith; the audience included incumbent Representative Butch Otter (who is the Republican candidate for Governor of Idaho) and Senator Larry Craig, who really should retire from politics and find employment as a stand-in for noted sci-fi/horror character actor Michael Ironside.

(Senator Craig)

(Actor Michael Ironside)

During his turn at the microphone, Paul Smith “described 9-11 as an `inside job,' insisting that someone `pulled' Building 7, and that the whole incident was contrived by the government to be a pretext for war and the creation of a police state,” Scott recounted to me. “This made Senator Craig really mad; I mean, he was furious. He got up and walked out of the room. He clearly didn't want even to be in the room when such views were being expressed. He did come back later, but he was still visibly angry. This guy has been in politics for decades, and you've got to assume that he has plenty of practice when it comes to controlling his reactions – but it was plain to see that he was really angry.”

Asked about the reactions of other Republican celebrity politicians in the crowd, Scott said that Rep. Otter “didn't appear to have much of a problem” with Paul Smith's remarks, and that the reaction of candidate Sali – who was difficult to see from Scott's vantage point -- “wasn't so pronounced.” Scott videotaped the event, and as soon as the video is posted on-line I'll provide a link to it.

As I've said before, I consider myself a persuadable skeptic regarding the claims of the 9-11 Truth Movement. But whether or not the 9-11 attacks were an “inside job” -- Operation Northwoods on steroids, as it were – it's beyond serious dispute that the incidents were exploited in exactly the fashion that Paul Smith described.

Smith's audience included two collaborators in the process of turning our republic into a Reich, as well as another who is indecently eager to enlist in the effort.

Few Republican loyalists have displayed greater servility toward Imperator Bush than Senator Craig and Representative Otter, both of whom voted in favor of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) – the legal foundation for a literal presidential dictatorship. Sali's campaign ads – a slurry of regurgitated White House talking points – leave little doubt that if elected, he will gladly become the most docile, dutiful drone in the Collective.

Larry Craig is your typical high-viscosity politician, meaning he's unfit for civilized company. Craig describes himself as a conservative – whatever that etoliated expression means anymore – but it has been Otter's proud claim to be something infinitely more commendable: a constitutionalist. He is much more personable and much more knowledgeable about the Constitution than Craig – and thus much more culpable for betraying it by voting on behalf of the MCA. Otter's was a conscious crime against his oath of office, one that disqualifies him from ever holding another office of public trust.

Craig's retreat in the face of Paul Smith's political heresy was an interesting gesture for many reasons, among them the fact that the Senator's priority was to remain untainted by such blasphemies against the State, rather than trying to understand why views like Smith's have gained so much traction among sober, responsible people. That's because Craig – like practically every other elected official -- apparently views his role as that of representing the regime to the people, rather than protecting the people from the regime.


rick said...


i believe you discredit the awesome mike ironsides when you compare him to...that senator....MEDIC!

great piece. nice to know that the prez actually sits down with his "spokespeople" and tells them what to say. jeesh. i didn't know it was that bad...


Captain Kirk said...


I don't know much about Bill Sali, but if he is the proverbial apple polisher as you are indicating here, then Bill Sali, if elected, will not need to go very far to find himself a mentor. I am referring to Rep. John Doolittle, the regime's representstive here in my little corner of California. About the only thing Doolittle has done of value for us is to keep the Auburn Dam project alive. Otherwise he has been beholden not to us, his constituents, but rather to The Money and its ambassadors like Jack Abramoff and all, without so much as the courtesy of a reach-around.

In the Primary here last spring, the only credible candidate to run against "30 peices of silver" Doolittle was a guy by the name of Mike Holmes, a city councilman in Auburn, CA. I am aquainted with Mike and know his brother Jim Holmes, a Placer County Supervisor, quite well. Echoing back to to a previous blog, besides Dr. Paul, the only other Republicans I'll vote for are the Brothers Holmes. Will, thank you for making me aware of the gangrene that has permeated the Republican Party. From now on, I am going to identify myself as a Constitutionalist and educate myself above and beyond my current level of understanding as to what this document requires of our Government and those that would call themselves our leaders.

rick said...


i'm surprised they didn't invite ann coulter. seems she's all for military tribunals.


she's of the opionion that since it's been done before, why be against it now?....as if what took place in the past was the right and proper course of action.

there's something about apologists that is baffling. they have no foresight in that they do not see the "2nd and 3rd order effects of an action/decision". "it must be ok because I SUPPORT IT!" seems to be their mantra.

kishnevi said...

It's pretty certain that there was no government plot to bring down the Towers. The alleged plotters would only require something less drastic (say one plane into the Pentagon) to achieve their aims, and the Rube Goldbergian variations on the 9-11 claims require too many people and too many chances for exposure to have ever seriously been considered. If you want to commit mass murder on that scale, you want as few people as possible--not scores or hundreds, as would be necessary if the controlled demolition and other elaborations were true. Also, if the government plot did exist, it would (given the identities of those who have controlled the government since January 2001) have included manufactured evidence showing clear traces of Iraqi involvement. Such evidence does not exist, which means this current government was not the source of 9-11.
It's quite possible that some low level FBI/CIA informer was involved, or even instigated the plan; it's almost certain that after 9-11 anyone who had any acts of incompetency to hide would have tried their best to hide them. In that sense there is a government coverup. But nothing more.

rick said...


i believe your logic is flawed. to you it may be certain that there was no govt involvement, but to me, i think there was. there was simply too much info available before the attacks that it was going to happen. stock options, cancelled flights, chartered flights vs commercial flights, and the fact that an air force exercise was running the same day....you've got to be in a state of denial not to smell something rotten in this one. and then there's the secrecy the administration stills clings to.

and to think that too many people would have to be involved so the thought of the govt pulling this off is unlikely therefore there is no govt involvement? well,

...you fail to fathom how evil these folks are. ...or how evil they have yet to become.

as for the demolition, if there was one, if you were the company, or employee of that company that placed charges on that building (let's say it did happen), would YOU come forward and say that you helped placed charges on that building? heck no! not only would you get lynched, but you would also have the govt prosecute you (to cover themselves), and then you'd get fired. heck, you'd be dead before that would happen. it's a self-regulating crime. if everyone kepts his mouth shut then everyone stays out of trouble.

TravisTHeadcase said...

This is a transcript of the actual speech given by Congressional candidate Paul Smith.
Today, October 17, 2006, a date that will live in infamy - the Constitution of the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the Empire of Darkness through the signing of the Military Commissions Act.

The People were appeasing that force and, at the solicitation of American patriots, was still in conversation with the government and it's emporer looking forward to maintenance of peace in our land.

Indeed, six weeks after the towers were pulled, the Patriot Act was thrust upon Congress which, even while ignoring it's collective oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, was decieved into setting the first shackle of our liberty in place

It will be recorded that the time from October 26, 2001 to October 17 2006 makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many years ago. During the intervening time, the powers of Darkness have deliberately sought to deceive the people by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

Satan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the society. The facts of thirty years of abortion speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

The attack today on the Constitution has caused severe damage to American liberty. Very many American lives have already been sacrificed.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American Chrisitans in their (read Christ's) righteousness should perservere to the end having already won an absolute victory in Christ.
With absolute confidence in His resurrection power, let us go boldy forth into the world for our Lord's sake.

Bantam said...


Read http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html to shed some light on the bullcrap the 9/11 theorists are pushing out. Or, if you want a more childish, concise, and profanity-filled article, read: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons