No exagero si te digo que este disco es hoy por hoy uno de esos discos de culto -como ya ocurrió con Cynic y su "Focus" de 1993-. Y es que estos tios le dan un giro de tuerca al concepto Thrash, mezclando acertadamente el estilo europeo del Thrash con el de Norteamérica.

Como curiosidad en este tema podrás disfrutar del entonces desconocido batería John Macaluso, hoy uno de los bateristas de más renombre que ha tocado con Starbreaker, Mullmuzzler, MCM, Riot, Holy Mother, TNT, Masterlast, Yngwie J. Malmsteen y Ark.

[dailymotion id=x5tp2o]

The King John Rap 

King John ruled England in 1215 

An unpopular man, lazy and mean. 

Imagine him pacing his castle’s tall tower 

Believing he had absolute power. 

Absolute power. 

Absolute power. 

King John believed he had absolute power. 

John wanted to rule in Poitou in France. 

He needed much cash to give it a chance; 

So John taxed his barons to pay for the fight, 

But the barons said, ‘No! You don’t have the right.’ 

‘You don’t have the right!’ 

‘You don’t have the right!’ 

The barons told John, ‘You don’t have the right!’ 

‘I’m the king,’ answered John. ‘I can do what I like. 

I can tax – I can kill – put your head on a spike. 

I can take all your money, your lands, any hour. 

I’m the king thanks to God! I have absolute power!’ 

Absolute power! 

Absolute power! 

King John believed he had absolute power! 

The barons rebelled to prove they had might. 

Without their support the king could not fight. 

Absolute power just wasn’t a starter. 

The king had to bow to Magna Carta. 

Bow to the charter! 

The barons’ great charter! 

The king had to bow to Magna Carta! 

(Source: http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/downloads/pdf/up1_hand1.pdf)

	New York Federal Reserve president Timothy Geithner attended Bilderberg 2008 along with Ben Bernanke the Federal Reserve Chairman, Henry Paulson the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Jean-Claude Trichet the president of the European Central Bank, Robert Zoellick the president of the World Bank and other high profile bankers.

Fresh off of the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting, it looks as if New York Federal Reserve president Timothy Geithner is set to push a new agenda in the world of central banking that was likely decided upon at Bilderberg. Geithner yesterday, wrote an article in the Financial Times calling for a global regulatory banking framework. In addition, Geithner called for the Federal Reserve to have an instrumental role in this new framework. Geithner cites all of the problems that were actually created by the central bankers in the first place as the rationale for having greater centralized power. It is interesting Geithner decides to write this piece right after the Bilderberg Meeting where some of the most powerful figures in the world of central banking attended. Not only did Geithner attend, but the attendee list included Ben Bernanke the Federal Reserve Chairman, Henry Paulson the U.S. Treasury Secretary, Jean-Claude Trichet the president of the European Central Bank, Robert Zoellick the president of the World Bank and other high profile bankers. With the who’s who of central banking attending the Bilderberg Meeting, it is highly unlikely that what Geithner is proposing in his Financial Times article was not discussed at the Bilderberg Meeting. It is no secret that the true objective of the Bilderberg Meeting is to steer the world into accepting a global government. By establishing a new global regulatory banking framework, this will inch the planet ever closer to a one world currency operating in a cashless society where microchips are used to facilitate transactions. Make no mistake about it, this system will not be good, because it will be controlled by a bunch of criminal psychopaths like the one’s who attended the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting.

In his Financial Times article, Geithner wrote the following:

The institutions that play a central role in money and funding markets – including the main globally active banks and investment banks – need to operate under a unified framework that provides a stronger form of consolidated supervision, with appropriate requirements for capital and liquidity. To complement this, we need to put in place a stronger framework of oversight authority over the critical parts of the payments system – not just the established payments, clearing and settlements systems, but the infrastructure that underpins the decentralised over-the-counter markets.

Because of its primary responsibility for the stability of the overall financial system, the Federal Reserve should play a central role in such a framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and in other countries. At present the Fed has broad responsibility for financial stability not matched by direct authority and the consequences of the actions we have taken in this crisis make it more important that we close that gap.

Finally, we need a stronger capacity to respond to crises. The Fed has put in place a number of innovative new facilities that have helped ease liquidity strains. We plan to leave these in place until conditions in money and credit markets have improved substantially.

A bank run, circa 1933.

What Geithner is proposing is entirely insane but this is the same tactic that the financial elites used to establish the Federal Reserve back in 1913. They created a crisis and said that the crisis happened because they didn’t have enough power to prevent it. The Panic of 1907 which was used to justify the passage of the Federal Reserve Act was actually caused by JP Morgan and assorted elite financial interests. They did this so they could use the crisis as an excuse to centralize their control and power over the banking system. Through the Federal Reserve, banks were finally consolidated under its umbrella through the Great Depression which was deliberately caused by the tight monetary policies implemented the central bank. Throughout the 1920s money was made plentiful, but following the stock market crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve tightened the money supply which put hundreds of community banks out of business and allowed the central bankers to consolidate control over the nation’s banking system.

Geithner is using the excuse of the current financial crisis that was caused by the Federal Reserve and the world’s assorted central banks in order to again consolidate more power for the banking cartel. It is simply history repeating itself, only this time it is on a much larger scale.

Below is another blurb taken from Geithner’s Financial Times piece:

Since last summer, we have lived through a severe and complex financial crisis. Why was the financial system so fragile? What can be done to make the system more resilient in the future?

The world experienced a financial boom. The boom fed demand for risk. Products were created to meet that demand, including risky, complicated mortgages. Many assets were financed with significant leverage and liquidity risk and many of the world’s largest financial institutions got themselves too exposed to the risk of a global downturn. The amount of long-term illiquid assets financed with short-term liabilities made the system vulnerable to a classic type of run. As concern about risk increased, investors pulled back, triggering a self-reinforcing cycle of forced liquidation of assets, higher margin requirements, increased volatility.

What Geithner doesn’t say in his article is that the current global financial crisis was caused by the Federal Reserve and the world’s various central banks. Alan Greenspan intentionally set interest rates at incredibly low levels after the 9/11 attacks. This encouraged lenders to lend out money using all sorts of creative financing packages. It also encouraged borrowers to borrow money from the lenders because of the cheaper money. These policies lead to the continued devaluation of the U.S. Dollar and the U.S. housing crisis which have been the main drivers behind most of the economic problems we are currently seeing.

Geithner wants us to believe that giving the Federal Reserve and the rest of this private banking system more power is what’s needed to resolve all of the economic problems that were caused by the central bankers themselves. How stupid does Geithner and the rest of the global elite think we are? We have a historical track record of central bankers creating economic problems and bringing in phony solutions to expand their control. We need decentralization and free markets to resolve the economic problems that have been created by these people, not more centralized power.

If all of this wasn’t bad enough, Jim Tucker from the American Free Press speaking on the Alex Jones show today stated that one of his Bilderberg sources revealed to him that the global elite are planning to push forward their cashless society grid agenda with the use of implantable microchips. The implantable microchips would be sold as a way for people to easily move through the militarized control grid that they’ve setup via the bogus terror war. Tucker also mentioned that we would see the media hyping the phony terror war and specifically the phony “white Al-Qaeda terror threat” as a way for them to continue the justification of the enslavement grid. Assuming Tucker’s Bilderberg source is providing accurate information, this agenda that Geithner is pushing in his Financial Times article is right in line with their well documented plans to get rid of cash. The central bankers would need a global regulatory framework for the banking system so they can move closer to a global currency operating in a cashless society.

This is some incredibly scary stuff. Of course there was not one word of the 2008 Bilderberg Meeting in any major U.S. media outlets. The corporate controlled media maintained a blackout on any coverage of this incredibly important yearly meeting of the global elite. It is pathetic when citizen journalists like the ones at InfoWars, PrisonPlanet and RogueGovernment provide the best coverage of what is one of the most important geopolitical meetings of the year. Either way, the commentary from Geithner as well as the information from Tucker’s Bilderberg source seems to indicate that the global elite are getting ready to further centralize the banking system in order to establish their one world cashless society grid. These criminals must be exposed and their system of global corruption and tyranny must be defeated. Let’s tell these bastards that they can take their cashless society grid and their implantable microchips where the sun don’t shine.

Updated June 6, 2008

Last night, a bewildered Alex Jones issued a 10 minute report to George Noory on the internationally renowned talk radio show Coast to Coast AM regarding the Bilderberg meeting scheduled to begin today. Though Jones is accused of being a globalist "shill" the fact that he is allowed such close proximity to the elite group should cause the public to take notice.

Apparently, the Chantilly, Virginia location will be the second 2008 meeting of the Bilderbergs in the last 30 days. Their first meeting was in Vouliagmeni, Greece, 8-11 May 2008. Details follow courtesy of Bilderberg.org forum posted May 17th:

Bilderberg 2008 met. Vouliagmeni, Greece, 8-11 May 2008
Bilderberg have met this past weekend!
A rough translation of this Greek page follows

Στην Aθήνα συνεδριάζει η Λέσχη Bilderberg των ισχυρών της γης!
http://www.patris.gr/articles/132651

Bilderberg Club meets at the place of the powerful in Athens

In Greece (in a Vouliagmeni hotel), is currently happening, according to information, the world Congress of secret Club "Bilderberg", which is brought proapofasj'zej for the chances of world, but also this is where Prime Ministers are nominated. It should be stressed, that according to the infamy that circulates round the club Bilderberg, they play for some reason, the role of an 'informal world government'.

Some say indeed, that anything important that has happened in the planet the last 51 years, has first been discussed and organised in her meetings.

The Club, meets for four days each year in different cities, countries and 120 politicians, businessmen, journalists only from the 30 until 35 selected NATO countries participate.
Participants are prohibited to speak to the press or to anyone else and anything they learn there they are not allowed to mention where they heard it. Further, they even go as far as to deny that they were there.

It is prohibited for them to tell their home Parliaments of their countries, if they are politicians, too.

Big Greek interests are there in the list of persons that participates in the meetings of the club in question. According to information, in the meetings of club "Bilderberg" from 1988 up to 2007 have participated Kostas Karamanli's, Giorgos Alogoskoy'fis, the Nto'ra Mpakogja'nni, the Ste'fanos Ma'nos, Giorgos Papandre'oy, Theodoros Pa'gkalos and Anna Djamantopoy'loy.
The only Greek journalist that has taken part in the meetings of club, is Alexis Papahela's. In the meetings at the same time, they appear to participate the General Director of Coca - Cola, Giorgos Dayj'd and the professor of university Athens Loukas Tsoykala's and two shipowners.

Babel Fish Translation
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr

Bilderberg researcher and journalist Jim Tucker and Alex Jones outside the Marriott in Chantilly, VA, June 4, 2008.

Broadcasting from the Westfield Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Va., Jones reported his concern about this second meeting and the fact that it is an extreme deviation from the group's normal rituals. Jones' adamant belief is that there will be a confirmed decision within the powerful group when to launch the attack on Iran. This will supposedly usher in World War III resulting in the final implosion of the American economy. Major factions of radical Islam are already under their control according to the unusually subdued reporter. Jones and Noory also sounded baffled at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent incendiary remarks about the United States. Indications are that Iran's president is forcing a confrontation with the U.S. according to both newsmen.

Speculations of "infighting" between the elites surrounds the alleged fact that Sen. Barak Obama was already the Bilderberg's 'chosen one' for the next U.S. President, yet, Sen. Hillary Clinton refused to concede as of a week ago because of fears that her opponent might be assassinated, like Robert Kennedy. Now, confirmed reports are that Sen. Clinton will drop out of the race on June 7th just one day prior to the close of the Bilderberg meeting on Sunday, June 8, 2008. Jones believes that this situation is indicative of an 'internal break' within the elite ranks since it is not clear how their political scenario will be played out according to other internal sources.

Rumors abound that Sen. Obama will clinch the Presidency with Sen. Clinton as his Vice-President. Sometime within the first year he will be assassinated which will pave the way for Hillary Clinton to be installed into the most powerful seat in the land to further the evil agenda of the real power in America: the global Jewish elite.

Respected Bilderberg researcher and author Jim Tucker will also be reporting on the U.S. meeting.

Whitewraithe~

I can't find it on line so can’t comment. However, politicians don’t usually write their own press releases and opinion pieces are generally their own thoughts but may or may not be in their own words, even if its got their name above them. A personal tribute is a different matter, if it says it’s a tribute by someone then it ought to be by them and that’s what I was expecting when I saw this in the first edition of Mindfood: 

The Right Honourable Helen Clark recalls the extraordinary life of “Sir Ed” and why the late mountain conqueror, explorer and humanitarian will always loom large in the New Zealand consciousness.

BY The Honourable Helen Clark | Mar 17, 2008

After the death of a highly respected public figure a Prime Minister has a fine line to tread between what's required by the official role and political opportunism. I though Clark got it right after Sir Edmund’s death but I don’t think she has with this tribute.

Media reports gave me the impression that Clark knew Sir Ed well so when I saw the headline in the magazine I expected a personal insight with a few anecdotes. Instead, it’s an impersonal account that any journalist could have written from cuttings.

So is it her personal tribute or one written by her staff? I’d expect a Prime Minister to be busy enough without writing tributes, and it certainly doesn’t read as if it was written by someone who knew Sir Ed. That doesn’t mean she didn’t write it; but why bother doing it if she couldn’t make it personal; and why would an editor want a tribute from the PM if it didn’t tell us anything more than could have been covered by someone who hadn’t known the subject?

Does it matter? Prime Ministers and former academics aren’t necessarily renowned for deathless prose so it may well be her own words , and if so it reinforces the impression of someone who lacks warmth and the personal touch. If it isn’t her writing then she’s done the magazine and its readers a disservice and it would show she hasn’t learnt from the forged painting episode.

Ian Wishart makes a great deal of this in Absolute Power.  I’ve read the book and agree with commentators who say it is the right wing equivalent of Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men in that both authors appear to have started with a point of view and found the evidence, to back it up.

However, I think Wishart makes a fair point about "paintergate". It wasn’t just one painting when she was a busy Prime Minister (which wouldn’t have made it right, but might have been easier to understand); she eventually admitted to about half a dozen art works over 20 years and when confronted with it didn’t seem to understand she’d done anything wrong.

It’s not like signing a bottle of wine because the label clearly shows who made it. The signature on a painting or other work of art is part of its provenance and in the absence of any indication to the contrary it’s a statement that it is the signatory’s work. You’d think a Minister of Arts would know this and understand its importance.

You’d also think that anyone who was asked to produce various works of art over a 20 year period might have come up with several acceptable alternatives to paying someone else to produce them then signing them as if they were her own. Why not say she couldn’t paint but offer to help the charities in another way? Or say she couldn’t paint but was happy to donate someone else’s work; or simply do a daub?

 That she didn’t certainly isn’t a hanging offence and I think the police were correct in concluding that the consequences of charging her for forgery would have far outweighed the alleged crime. But what she did was wrong and she didn’t appear to accept that; so when I read the impersonal tribute I wondered if it was really written by her or one of her media team because if she didn’t really understand what was wrong with forging art, she might not also understand you shouldn’t put a by-line to a tribute written by someone else.

It's been pointed out on his blog that Absolute Power is the headline title in Bennetts, just over the road from the Beehive.

One can't help feel just a little sorry for Hagar. Wishart's going to help bring down an entire government without breaking the law. Hagar broke the law, and can at best claim the scalp of the Leader of the Opposition.

I wonder which one will be remembered?

This is a revised and updated third edition of this classic work of wide-ranging scholarship. Republished and with a new preface by the author, it will be essential reading for all students of Fascism and international history.

Order Seizure of Power from Amazon for $152.00

Speaking of Ian Wishart, I just checked out the Dymocks site. Absolute Power is the no. 2 book being sold in NZ across all categories.

It's enough to make you wonder how many books Hager might have sold had his book not been based on stolen material and made up interpretations.

I guess the list to the right might not mean much to some people, (well, it's not no. 1 after all) but it's going to sound pretty bad to Ms Clark on election night.

Come to think of it, the fact that I can't name that date today, 5 months into the election time controls, plus the fact that only Helen herself knows when that date might be, speaks volumes as to the truth of the books title.

Congratulations Ian, it's long overdue and clearly desperately needed.

Wishart is a journalist who cut his teeth in the 1990s exposing the Winebox affair when he worked for TVNZ before setting up his own publishing house, Howling at the Moon, which published his first and most famous book, The Paradise Conspiracy, as well as many subsequent books by himself and others.

The basic hypothesis of Absolute Power will be well known to anyone who reads Wishart’s Investigate magazine. Prime Minister Helen Clark is, he claims, corrupt and is in a marriage of convenience. Many of the details he gives to support his thesis are unsubstantiated baloney and say far more about his own obsession with Helen Clark than about her.

There is a market for this kind of trash and Wishart mines it well.

Many sleazy people move through the pages of Absolute Power, but mostly they are his shadowy “informants,” not those his book sets out to destroy, who include not just Helen Clark, but also senior police officers such as commissioner Howard Broad and his offsider Rob Pope.

This is nonetheless a readable book despite the Mickey Spillane-style purple prose the author writes in. The target audience of anti-Labour diehards will enjoy it immensely, though the cast of characters in some chapters is so vast, and the detail so intricate, that it often becomes hard to keep track of who is allegedly doing what to whom.

Three whole chapters are devoted to Wishart’s obsession with the private lives of the prime minister and her husband. Other chapters are equally obsessed with attempting to destroy police commissioner Howard Broad, another Wishart target for some time now.

For some reason of Wishart’s mindset, it was allegedly disgraceful and also Clark’s fault that former commissioner Peter Doone lost his job when the car his partner was driving was stopped by a police patrol for having its lights off on election night in 1999, but Broad did not lose his job when he allegedly went through a police roadblock in 1992. Whether or not the Broad allegation happened, Labour was not the government in 1992, something Wishart overlooks. As he overlooks, exaggerates or fantasises about many things in this book’s 336 pages and 18 chapters.

Helen Clark is an elected politician and so has to live with a book like this. Wishart is on rather shakier ground in his pursuit of the personal lives of people like the police commissioner.

While Nicky Hager's turgid, almost-as-conspiratorial Hollow Men helped to bring about the downfall of National leader Don Brash, Absolute Power is unlikely to cause similar problems for Helen Clark. Unless I missed it somewhere, it contains no smoking gun, just a restating at great length of material Wishart has canvassed before. The mainstream media's only interest in it to date was over the 1992 claims about Howard Broad.

It is good that we live in a democracy where someone like Ian Wishart can write such conspiratorial innuendo and smut. If we lived in the kind of country Ian seems to believe we do live in, Ian would be the first in front of the firing squad. But we don’t.

Wishart has a naïveness which is somehow appealing in a journalist, all too many of whom are bitter and cynical. This doesn’t mean I believe every word he says, or even many of them. I think he lives in Fantasyland. The X Files was and may still be his favourite TV show. But this will have no effect on his blogosphere and talkbackland fans who want to believe his every conspiratorial word, and have already made Absolute Power a bestseller.

Absolute Power, The Helen Clark Years, by Ian Wishart, Howling At The Moon, $34.99. At all bookshops. **

Whatever one might think of Wishart and some of his views he was a very good journalist. He is a better writer than Nicky Hagar.

Given that Wishart says he has taken information in the public domain it will be interesting to see the construction he has placed on it.

This is likely to prove more interesting than the fantasy constructed by Hagar in his 'book' The Hollow Men.

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

It is the emphasised words which are most often quoted today. Acton wrote his dictum in response to the promulgation of papal infallibility of which he was no fan, though an influential Catholic layman himself.

The sentiment is however as relevant today in the context of any person, especially one in the privileged position of being in a leading governance position, e.g. a politician, particularly one who is seen by many as being overweening.

Ian Wishart, he of Investigate magazine and John Tamihere interview 'fame' has written a book, Absolute Power, about Helen Clark. This is not a hagiography such as Brian Edwards biography of some years back.

It attempts, Adam understands to establish just who Helen Clark really is.

Inventory2 has an initial mini-review of the book, at KeepingStock.

Adam would draw attention also to his recent post on Hubris Syndrome, which he thinks has broken out in New Zealand. Indeed, he suggests that Bill Ralston in his Herald on Sunday column has identified a collective outbreak afflicting the entire Labour Government.

Cast & Credits

Directed by Clint Eastwood. Screenplay by William Goldman; based on the book by David Baldacci. MPAA: Rated R for violence, sexuality and language. Runtime: 121 min.

I don't like the idea of "Big Brother" being able to track my every move, but WHAT DO YOU THINK?

And why does Fireman Sam continue to let his young niece and nephew dine in her establishment when she's constantly setting fire to it?  Rather than take his position in the local community seriously he prefers to wait for the inevitable accident to happen and then just lecture everyone afterwards.  Seems he's just trying to keep the people of the village of Pontypandy within the iron grasp of Emperor Sam through fear and intimidation, they all know that if a fire occurs and only incompetent Elvis is there to save them then will surely perish.

So why is Bella's restaurant named Rivoli's?  I have a theory.

Emperor Sam in his bid for supreme power needed proof of the savage danger of fire, an icon, a victim.  Rivoli was the name of Lasagne's late husband.  She lost him in a tragic firework accident, he'd bought a magnificent firework that lit the sky in the shape of a loveheart with which he intended  to surprise Lasagne.  He'd bought it from a man with a handlebar moustache and a habit of twirling it whilst muttering gleefully under his breath.  It was his gift to her on their fifth wedding anniversary, a token of his undying love.

He told her to go to the upstairs back window and look to the skies.  Patiently she looked into the night sky as her husband below lit the firework.  She patiently waited a bit longer.  Suddenly the garden below her exploded in ravenous flame, it streaked between the fences like napalm.  In the throws of wildest panic she dialled the emergency services, 999.

Elvis arrived minutes later and bravely fought the nonexistant flames in the cafe itself and dashed upstairs to get Bella out.  As he rushed back downstairs with Bella over his shoulder in the well rehearsed Fireman's Lift, she screamed at him.

"My-a husband, he's still-a outside in the fire!"

"Oh, bloody hell mun" panicked Elvis "Where's Sam when you need him?"

Where indeed was Sam?  Visiting a sick Aunt?  On a well deserved holiday?  It mattered not where he was, rather where he wasn't.  And he certainly wasn't in Pontypandy.  He needed to prove he was indispensable.

When Sam arrived back in the village we can't be sure what happened.  We can however assume that there was a conversation with Bella that went something along these lines:

"Oh Sam, it all happened-a so fast.  And Elvis, he-a... he-a tried, but he just couldn't save him."

"I know Bella, I know."

"Oh Sam, I..."

"Hush now, Sam's here now lovely.  You now know the dangers of knock off fireworks don't you?"

"Yes-a."

"Don't worry, Sam's not going to be leaving here again, I'll make sure that nothing like this happens ever again."

""Oh Sam..."

"Shush now, at least one thing's come out of this, you can start using your maiden name again.  I always did like the sound of it, such a pretty sing-songy name, Bella Lasagne."

"Yes-a Sam..."

Presumably he then proceeded to take advantage of her in fragile state of mourning.  He probably cackled himself to sleep at night for weeks on end, his perfect scheme bestowing him complete power over the village.  Bastard.

Truism of the maxim by British historian, Lord Acton –  

‘Power tends to corrupt

and absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

Without real and meaningful check-and-balance for such overbearing power,  

“Things can go wrong, very quickly, dangerously, catastrophically and on a mega-scale,

when it is corrupted into unbridled arrogance of power”.  “I believe that the country should have a strong government but not too strong".

“We need a strong opposition

to remind us if we are making mistakes.

When you are not opposed you think everything you do is right.” Truism:An undoubted or self-evident truth; especially: one too obvious for mentionA truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device.In logic, a proposition may be a truism even if it is not a tautology, a restatement of a definition, or a theorem derived from axioms that are generally held to be true. In fact, some would say that such analytic propositions should not be regarded as truisms.In philosophy, a sentence which asserts incomplete truth conditions for a proposition may be regarded as a truism. An example of such a sentence would be: "Under appropriate conditions, the sun rises." Without contextual support — a statement of what those appropriate conditions are — the sentence is true but uncontestable. A statement which is true by definition ("All cats are mammals.") would also be considered a truism.Often the word is used to disguise the fact that a proposition is really just a half-truth or an opinion, especially in rhetoric. 

Pakistan is on the brink: unpopular president General Pervez Musharraf has imposed a state of emergency, sacked the Supreme Court, shut down the media and basic freedoms, and imprisoned democratic opposition leaders. The general blames his actions on an imagined coalition of terrorists and independent-minded judges -- but his real fear may be losing absolute power.Elections are planned for January 2008 -- they must not be postponed. But martial law and the imprisonment of democratic opposition leaders don't make for a free and fair vote either. So we're calling on the international community -- particularly the US Congress, which has voted Musharraf billions of dollars in military aid over the last six years -- to use all its leverage for swift elections and restoring constitutional protections. Click below to sign our petition immediately, then tell your friends so they can do the same --http://www.avaaz.org/en/emergency_pakistanWe just received this email from Asma Jahangir, head of the Pakistani Human Rights Commission and the UN's Special Rapporteur for freedom of religion worldwide. Now under house arrest in Lahore, she's one of many Pakistanis urgently asking the world community to raise our voice:

There is a strong crackdown on the press and lawyers... The Chief Justice is under house arrest (unofficially). The President of the Supreme Court Bar (Aitzaz Ahsan) and 2 former presidents, Mr. Muneer Malik and Tariq Mahmood have been imprisoned for one month under the Preventive Detention laws...There are other scores political leaders who have also been arrested. Yesterday I was house arrested for 90 days... the President (who has lost his marbles) said that he had to clamp down on the press and the judiciary to curb terrorism. Those he has arrested are progressive, secular minded people, while the terrorists are offered negotiations and ceasefires.Lawyers and civil society will challenge the government and the scene is likely to get uglier. We want friends of Pakistan to urge the US administration to stop all support of the instable dictator, as his lust for power is bringing the country close to a worse form of civil strife... --Asma JahangirLahore, Pakistan

General Musharraf claims that martial law is necessary to combat extremist terror. But it just doesn't add up. Musharraf retains strong links with the Pakistani Taliban (see PS below). His emergency powers are being directed only against the democratic opposition, free press and judiciary – just days before a scheduled ruling on whether Musharraf could run for president while remaining army chief. In an August poll, too, Pakistanis rated "ensuring an independent judiciary, free press and free elections" as their top priority.Right now, leaders around the world are deciding how to respond. The General is dressing up his crackdown in the rhetoric of "anti-terrorism" because Musharraf and his military supporters depend on foreign military aid and international recognition to maintain their legitimacy. That's why we have to speak out now.The world can't ignore the threat of chaos in Pakistan, or the voices of our fellow democrats there. Let's come together as we did on Burma, and move our governments to act. In these crucial early days, the voice of the world's people has tremendous power. Let's use it. Sign the petition and tell your friends today -http://www.avaaz.org/en/emergency_pakistan

—Barry Goldwater

R.

"Jefferson's Manual" is an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, and is included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in the manual, however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

Feel free to download it, print out TWO copies, fill in your relevant information in the blanks (name, State, notary is optional), and send in a letter today. We're sending this wave in to Republican House Rep. Ron Paul who has spoken in favor of impeachment. There's also extra credit for sending a DIY Impeachment to your own representative.
Get the PDF to send in, and DIRECTLY initiate the impeachment of Bush:
•Regular Version [pdf]•

•Extra Credit (your representative) [pdf]•

•For folks in District of Columbia [pdf]•

•District of Columbia Extra Credit!! [pdf]•

Here's a view of my petition and cover letter, sent to Jenny Brown Waite, Feb 2, 2007

Pre-War Intelligence Acts `Inappropriate,' U.S. Finds (Update4)

By Tony Capaccio

Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Defense Department officials prepared pre-war intelligence reports that may have exaggerated links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the Pentagon inspector general said today.

Two offices set up under then-Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq produced reports that formed the basis for the administration's key pre- war claim that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of mass destruction to the terrorist group.

These actions were authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, Inspector General Thomas Gimble told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

While ``not illegal or unauthorized,'' the actions ``were inappropriate'' because they did not ``clearly show the variance with the consensus of the intelligence community,'' Gimbel said.

Committee chairman Carl Levin called Gimbel's report ``devastating.'' Feith's operation produced what amounted to ``an alternative analysis,'' prepared ``without the knowledge of the intelligence community,'' that was used ``to back a decision to go to war,'' Levin said.

The committee released only the two-page executive summary of Gimble's review, which was prepared at the request of Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Relationship

Levin and other critics contend that assessments produced by the Pentagon office were skewed to portray an active pre-war relationship between Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist organization, while the intelligence community saw virtually none. Following the U.S.-led invasion, al-Qaeda operatives did become active in Iraq, targeting U.S. forces and helping to foment sectarian violence.

``The Feith office is the one that produced the key alternative analysis which provided that material,'' Levin said in an interview. ``It was key, it was vital, it was what the White House used to make the linkage to terrorist groups.''

Gimbel cited a briefing given in September 2002 at the White House to National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. The briefing, given without Central Intelligence Agency approval, purported a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that ``was not supported by the available intelligence,'' Gimbel said.

`Undercut' CIA

Gimbel said Feith's staff did not present CIA findings and further ``undercut'' the intelligence community by presenting a slide that said ``there were fundamental problems'' with the way the CIA and other analysts assessed information about the alleged Iraq-Iran link.

Levin said he planned to have his staff pursue this meeting, which came as the Bush administration was building the case for war that it would present to Congress and the United Nations.

He said he would have his staff interview the Feith analysts who briefed Hadley and Libby and would seek interviews with these two officials as well. He did not say whether he intended to question Feith.

Feith, now a professor of national security policy at Georgetown University in Washington who's writing a book on the Iraq war, said the report shows ``everything we did was lawful and authorized and we did not mislead Congress.''

``The issue of the appropriate process for policy people to use to criticize intelligence work is minor compared to the key conclusions,'' Feith said in a written statement.

Republicans Dissent

Republicans on committee often disagreed strongly with Levin and the report's findings.

``I strongly disagree,'' Christopher Bond of Missouri, said. ``How can something that is `authorized' and `legal' also be `inappropriate?' That doesn't pass the common sense test.''

James Inhofe of Oklahoma dismissed most of Gimble's report as depicting a ``turf battle'' between competing bureaucrats.

``These matters have been scrutinized at least three times in the last three years by bipartisan, nonpartisan groups,'' Inhofe said. The Senate Intelligence Committee, for example, ``unanimously reported that it found that this process, the policy-makers' probing questions, actually improved the CIA's process,'' he said.

Said Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss: ``I'm trying to figure out why we are here. We are beating this horse one more time.''

Gimbel, in his summary, said that, in future, the Pentagon's closer relationship with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, set up in 2005, will ``significantly reduce the opportunity for inappropriate conduct of intelligence activities outside of intelligence channels.''

White House, Pentagon Response

White House spokesman Dana Perino told reporters today she couldn't describe the relationship between Feith and President George W. Bush but that Bush ``has long acknowledged that the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq was inaccurate.''

Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Finn, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said ``these matters have been scrutinized at least three times in the last three years by bipartisan and non- partisan groups,'' and now the Pentagon Inspector General has concluded that the activities of Feith's office `` were legal and authorized.''

Defense Secretary Robert Gates responded ``I have a problem with that,'' when Levin asked his views on the Feith operation during Gates' confirmation hearing in December.

Levin said the report is valuable because it casts new light on the material the administration used to justify the war.

``If we are not going to repeat the mistakes of the past, there has got to be accountability,'' Levin said. ``You just repeat mistakes if there is no looking back and trying to find out what the facts were and holding people accountable the best way we can.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 9, 2007 15:58 EST

Technorati Tags: Bush WANTED

First, I shudder to think what Spc. Sheck’s superiors are going to do to him for saying this, on the record, to a reporter.

And second, as Atrios noted, “Don’t trouble your beautiful mind, Spc. Sheck. No one knows why we invaded Iraq, and no one really knows why we’re staying. Just stay safe.”

12 Comments»

1. Spc.Sheck is merely saying what many in the military now believe.

   The Military Times newspapers conduct an annual poll of the military, and here are the results for the military’s view of Iraq in 2006:

   The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

   For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

   When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

   Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

   Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003.

   The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

   In other words, this is the view of leadership people of the military. A friend, who I believe is in a position to be knowledgeable, commented on this poll that this is the attitude of the Colonels, Lt. Colonels and Majors - the battlefield leadership.

   Specialist Sheck probably heard similar comments from his leaders in the unit and knows he’s safe.
   Comment by Tom Cleaver — 12/30/2006 @ 12:50 pm

2. Maybe the Bush Crime Family has nothing left to turn to but honesty: “We’re here to take your oil and make money off it for ourselves.”
   Comment by Ed Stephan — 12/30/2006 @ 12:51 pm
3. As the world reflects on the death of Saddam the dicator, it also worth recalling the words of President Bush on dictatorship:

   “A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.”
   - President George W. Bush, July 26, 2001.

   “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”
   - President-elect George W. Bush, December 18, 2000.

   “You don’t get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier.”
   - Texas Governor George W. Bush, July 1998.
   Comment by AvengingAngel — 12/30/2006 @ 1:57 pm

4. I believe the gang in Crawford is thinking up just such a line to spout to Spc. Sheck and his brothers in arms as I write this. Whatever it is, the lie will be even less believable than all the others.
   Comment by petorado — 12/30/2006 @ 1:58 pm
5. Don’t forget the really significant symbolism of the date of his hanging, and think about what it means. During the festival of Eid, nobody is supposed to be punished. For the Shiites, Eid starts on Sunday this year- so Saddam’s hanging date wasn’t a problem… The Sunni Eid, however, started a day earlier, on Saturday.

   So the Shiites deliberately killed Saddam on a Sunni holy day. Petty, provocative, and pathetic. And we are busy defending these people why, exactly? They are deliberately trying to stir up the pot, yet again, with the Sunnis, and we are playing blind enablers to that.
   Comment by Castor Troy — 12/30/2006 @ 1:59 pm

6. Am I sorry that SH is now dead? Not so much. Do I think it is a major turning point or will somehow make things better? No. Anyone who thinks it is or will needs to put down the drugs and get to rehab.
   Comment by ET — 12/30/2006 @ 2:08 pm
7. The US Constitution states clearly “Congress alone has the right to declare war.” After 911, the spineless 109th do-nothing assholes gave the power to declare war to GW…..as grave an error anyone could ever make.
   This stupid, stubborn, petulant and egomanical idiot wants to add more troops telling all of us he is incapable of thinking or hearing anything but his own madness in the face of sure defeat.

   The 110 Congress needs to rescind the enormous powers given this idiot and take control again. They may have to impeach the Bush/Cheney team to do it, but do it they must! George Bush has been given the powers of a king, but possesses the mind of a 12 year old spoiled brat. This loser has never won anything in his life, he even went broke in the oil business. If it were not the fact he is a member of the Bush Crime family, he would be on welfare or in jail. Jail is where he belongs.

   SH is no longer an issue, he has not been one for a long time. Trust the corporate media to play it up, but it means nothing but more death and destruction. Killing him on a holy day is just more fuel to the fire, and the place is burning down and killing Americans and Iraq people daily. For what? Give Haliburton more money? Keep the price of gasoline up???
   Cement WW III and cause more global destruction? That makes the gunmakers and war contractors richer. What a hell these people have created.
   Comment by Marilyn — 12/30/2006 @ 2:34 pm

8. My response to Republicans who try to justify the war in Iraq: the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

   Those who had good intentions allowed those without to create this Hell.

   Thanks, Castor Troy, for the info about the holidays. I wondered why they were suddenly rushing to execute him.
   Comment by ml — 12/30/2006 @ 2:56 pm

9. Sorry to disagree, but I think Hussein is an issue, and will continue to be an issue for some years to come.

   Yes—Saddam is gone, but only in the human form. CT alludes to the belief that the Shia executed a Sunni on a Sunni “holy day.” This merely inflates the concept of martyrdom to an even more volatile degree. Al-Maliki and his Shia friends have once again failed to recognize that although Saddam is no longer in command of his military force, that force still exists in subtlety. Example—if one former member of the Republican Guard walks into a crowded Shia marketplace, blows himself to Allah, and takes 60 or 70 infidels with him (Sunni belief has it that the Shia are not “true Muslims”), how long will it take to whittle the odds down to a more manageable size?
   Comment by Steve (all ReThugs are cordially invited to pound salt and die) — 12/30/2006 @ 2:58 pm

10. I’m sure we’re going to see this TV ad soon:

    Big beaming W on TV:

    “Sure, I had to wreck the country, put it in debt, wreck the military, kill a whole buncha people, and then there’s what I had to do to Iraq…

    But I think my weewee has grown a whole 1/4 inch!

    Would I do it again? You betcha!”

    Flash to overlay:

    Get your own bigger weewee with 120 monthly payments of 10 billion dollars. Some lethal side effects will occur.
    Comment by Glen — 12/30/2006 @ 3:06 pm

11. Best enlarger ad I’ve seen, Glen#10.

    And second, as Atrios noted, “Don’t trouble your beautiful mind, Spc. Sheck. No one knows why we invaded Iraq, and no one really knows why we’re staying. Just stay safe.”

    Yep, don’t even bother to aim, just stick your weapon over the wall and shoot. If an officer gets too gung ho, well, that why grenades roll.
    Comment by Dale — 12/30/2006 @ 3:24 pm

12. Dear Spc. Sheck

    Thank You for your BRAVERY…
    Your willingness NOT ONLY to SERVE OUR COUNTRY
    But to BRAVELY SPEAK OUT like a TRUE PATRIOT
    when you can plainly SEE WHAT’S WRONG…

    We were ALWAYS in IRAQ for OIL INTERESTS…
    Dick Cheney was SUMMONED to SAUDI ARABIA
    last November and sternly ordered to keep YOU
    and other members of the Military there for SAUDI INTERESTS.

    You NO LONGER HAVE A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, Sir.
    Rather, You have a KING for a commander, now…
    PLAIN AND SIMPLE:
    SO MANY of you have died for this reason!!!
    The White House is IGNORING all advice to pull you out…
    EVEN to PROPERLY EQUIP YOU AND YOUR FELLOW SOLDIERS…
    They will IGNORE the IRAQI STUDY GROUP…
    THEY HAVE IGNORED THE ELECTIONS…
    THEY CASUALLY TAKE THEIR TIME making ANY kind of DECISIONS
    While they play STAY THE COURSE IN CAMOUFLAGE…
    They soon will be ordering more of your BUDDIES to the battlefield…
    WE THE PEOPLE WANT YOU HOME SPC. SHECK
    YOUR OWN MOTHERS AND FAMILY HAVE TO SEND YOU SILLY STRING…
    NOT YOUR OWN COMMANDERS…
    Can you say that about the SOLDIERS FOR HIRE????
    Your Commander’s EGO will not allow the OIL FIELDS to fall into SUNI CONTROL…
    Take heart that Little by Little…
    The Truth is EMERGING…

    WE WANT YOU HOME SPC. SHECK…
    IT’S DICK CHENEY AND KING ABDULLAH WHO THINK OTHERWISE…
    Comment by Sanchez — 12/30/2006 @ 9:02 pm

Not only is there an original book version of Seagraves' book, but an online version of it as well. Much of what Seagraves says about dinosaurs has already been debunked, including the Piltdown Footprints -- poorly preserved dinosaur prints found in Glen Rose, Texas carved into human footprints by practical jokers, who did this only to attract tourists to the area for profit.

The Introduction

The first part shows the introduction to the book. It gives out some questions about the dinosaur and claims that all the questions can be answered especially by those who believe and accept “The Letter of the Law” -- a strict reading and believing of the Bible to be “The Word of God” and accept it as God's Authority on all matters, never mind the very, many matters in which the bible tells nothing about, including dinosaurs. It won't be answered that way. Time and time again, the Bible has been used the wrong way; to lie, kill, destroy, and to achieve, even abuse absolute power. Seagraves here is using the Bible to lie and make people believe the lies him and other creationists tell for decades.

Biblical Framework

The next part is the so-called Biblical Framework section where Seagraves tells of the Great Flood that once covered the earth as told in Genesis 6:11-18 KJV. Here Seagraves mentioned 2 claims made by skeptics, who says there's no way can Noah fit all 90 million+ species of organisms past and present into the ark and there was no Worldwide Flood. Seagraves works his magic delivering lies and stupidity and gives an example of how big the ark is and how it is built to float free about 22 ½ feet above the mountains without lodging onto anything. But, that does not explain how (without invoking groundless miracles) did the ark deal with the violent waves bashing the sides of the ark if there was such a violent flood as told by creationists.

The Animals

The Animals section deals with how many animals there are, while Seagraves slams Ernst Mayr, an evolutionary biologist who dealt with the study of birds and how animals are directly related to each other through speciation. Seagraves claims that Noah never bothered to take sea life on board since they all live in the water even though some did perished in the violent waters of the flood and become fossils. If that's the case, the worldwide flood would have destroyed ALL sea life, including coral, sharks, and all those that live in only saltwater and those that live in only freshwater since all forms of water will mixed together and make it totally unfit for any organism to live in. How would Seagraves explain that without invoking groundless miracles that don't logically explain one darn thing?

Since “all flesh died that moved upon the earth” according to Genesis 7:21, then Seagraves assumes Noah must have took up a total of 30,000 species of animals on board in the ark after he narrowed down the animals population after he separated the water creatures from the surface dwellers. This still doesn't explain how did Noah put all those animals into a 450x75x45 ark even if the animals were all baby size.

[grouper=mtg/mtgPlayer.swf?gvars=vurl~http%3a%2f%2fgrouper.com%2frss%2fflv.ashx%3fid%3d1624117_rf%7e1063132_vfver~8_ap~1_extid~-1;321;265]

Put together some pics and a Great song by Less Visible! Apparently Google has added some ads after my video, guess that's what you get for a free service:)
Add a video comment to this video