Posts tagged political
Editor’s Note: Never forget the Christmas Truce of World War I, when troops refused to be pawns of empire for one blessed day. May American soldiers declare a grassroots truce every Christmas, and may it be Christmas all year round.
The Christmas Truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western Front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the “Great War” leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public. Stanley Weintraub has broken through this barrier of silence and written a moving account of this significant event by compiling letters sent home from the front, as well as diaries of the soldiers involved. His book is entitled Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce. The book contains many pictures of the actual events showing the opposing forces mixing and celebrating together that first Christmas of the war. This remarkable story begins to unfold, according to Weintraub, on the morning of December 19, 1914:
“Lieutenant Geoffrey Heinekey, new to the 2nd Queen’s Westminister Rifles, wrote to his mother, ‘A most extraordinary thing happened. . . . Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men. . . . It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours.” (p. 5)
Weintraub reports that the French and Belgians reacted differently to the war and with more emotion than the British in the beginning. The war was occurring on their land and “The French had lived in an atmosphere of revanche since 1870, when Alsace and Lorraine were seized by the Prussians” in a war declared by the French (p. 4). The British and German soldiers, however, saw little meaning in the war as to them, and, after all, the British King and the German Kaiser were both grandsons of Queen Victoria. Why should the Germans and British be at war, or hating each other, because a royal couple from Austria were killed by an assassin while they were visiting in Serbia? However, since August when the war started, hundreds of thousands of soldiers had been killed, wounded or missing by December 1914 (p. xvi).
It is estimated that over eighty thousand young Germans had gone to England before the war to be employed in such jobs as waiters, cooks, and cab drivers and many spoke English very well. It appears that the Germans were the instigators of this move towards a truce. So much interchange had occurred across the lines by the time that Christmas Eve approached that Brigadier General G.T. Forrestier-Walker issued a directive forbidding fraternization:
“For it discourages initiative in commanders, and destroys offensive spirit in all ranks. . . . Friendly intercourse with the enemy, unofficial armistices and exchange of tobacco and other comforts, however tempting and occasionally amusing they may be, are absolutely prohibited.” (p. 6–7)
Later strict orders were issued that any fraternization would result in a court-martial. Most of the seasoned German soldiers had been sent to the Russian front while the youthful and somewhat untrained Germans, who were recruited first, or quickly volunteered, were sent to the Western Front at the beginning of the war. Likewise, in England young men rushed to join in the war for the personal glory they thought they might achieve and many were afraid the war might end before they could get to the front. They had no idea this war would become one of attrition and conscription or that it would set the trend for the whole 20th century, the bloodiest in history which became known as the War and Welfare Century.
As night fell on Christmas Eve the British soldiers noticed the Germans putting up small Christmas trees along with candles at the top of their trenches and many began to shout in English “We no shoot if you no shoot”(p. 25). The firing stopped along the many miles of the trenches and the British began to notice that the Germans were coming out of the trenches toward the British who responded by coming out to meet them. They mixed and mingled in No Man’s Land and soon began to exchange chocolates for cigars and various newspaper accounts of the war which contained the propaganda from their respective homelands. Many of the officers on each side attempted to prevent the event from occurring but the soldiers ignored the risk of a court-martial or of being shot.
Some of the meetings reported in diaries were between Anglo-Saxons and German Saxons and the Germans joked that they should join together and fight the Prussians. The massive amount of fraternization, or maybe just the Christmas spirit, deterred the officers from taking action and many of them began to go out into No Man’s Land and exchange Christmas greetings with their opposing officers. Each side helped bury their dead and remove the wounded so that by Christmas morning there was a large open area about as wide as the size of two football fields separating the opposing trenches. The soldiers emerged again on Christmas morning and began singing Christmas carols, especially “Silent Night.” They recited the 23rd Psalm together and played soccer and football. Again, Christmas gifts were exchanged and meals were prepared openly and attended by the opposing forces. Weintraub quotes one soldier’s observation of the event: “Never . . . was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war” (p. 33).
The first official British history of the war came out in 1926 which indicated that the Christmas Truce was a very insignificant matter with only a few people involved. However, Weintraub states:
“During a House of Commons debate on March 31, 1930, Sir H. Kinglsey Wood, a Cabinet Minister during the next war, and a Major ‘In the front trenches’ at Christmas 1914, recalled that he ‘took part in what was well known at the time as a truce. We went over in front of the trenches and shook hands with many of our German enemies. A great number of people [now] think we did something that was degrading.’ Refusing to presume that, he went on, ‘The fact is that we did it, and I then came to the conclusion that I have held very firmly ever since, that if we had been left to ourselves there would never have been another shot fired. For a fortnight the truce went on. We were on the most friendly terms, and it was only the fact that we were being controlled by others that made it necessary for us to start trying to shoot one another again.’ He blamed the resumption of the war on ‘the grip of the political system which was bad, and I and others who were there at the time determined there and then never to rest. . . . Until we had seen whether we could change it.’ But they could not.” (p. 169–70)
The lead researcher behind the monumental study that linked Monsanto’s GMOs and best-selling herbicide Roundup to tumor development and early death is now blowing the whistle on many corporate scientists who are not just close to Monsanto and profit-harvesting GMO crops — many of them actually have or are seeking their own GMO patents. These patents, of course, enable them to make bountiful amounts of cash. Other corporate scientists are on (or ‘were’ at one point) Monsanto’s pay roll, including former Monsanto executive turned Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the FDA Michael R. Taylor.
Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini, a French scientists who has been under assault from Monsanto and pro-GMO scientists, was responsible for perhaps the largest awakening over the dangers of Monsanto’s GMO foods that we have ever seen. Not only did the public begin to further recognize the existence and threat of GMOs thanks to his research, but numerous countries like Russia and others actually enacted a suspension on the import of genetically modified maize due to public health concerns.
This, of course, upset the Monsanto-funded corporate scientists who proverbially ‘unleashed the dogs’ on Dr. Séralini. Even Monsanto released a comment, stating that the lifelong rat study wasn’t sufficient to substantiate any real health concerns. The company itself, amazingly, only conducted a 90 day trial period for its GMOs before unleashing them on the public.
Previous Peer-Reviewed Evidence Highlighting GMO Danger Ignored by ‘Scientists’
It’s important to remember that Séralini’s work may be the most popular within the media, but it’s not the only research linking GMOs and Roundup to serious health effects. Monsanto and fellow goons failed to mention this truth, especially the fact that Monsanto’s Roundup has been associated with over 29 negative health conditions according to peer-reviewed studies available on PubMed. And these conditions are nothing minor. Health effects linked to Roundup include:
- DNA damage
- Low testosterone
- Liver damage
- Endocrine disease
These are serious disorders that result from the very Roundup that is used on crops by farmers worldwide before hitting your dinner table. In fact an increased amount of usage is now needed thanks to ineffective GMO crops that are now being eaten by mutated superbugs that have developed a resistance to Monsanto’s built-in GMO pesticides. Roundup covered crops that eventually land on dinner tables worldwide.
Please note that the debate has been rescheduled for November 5th due to hurricane Sandy.
Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein will sound off once more before Election Day, with both presidential hopefuls now slated to debate live from RT’s Washington, DC studio on November 5.
Tens of thousands around the globe watched earlier this week when broadcasting legend Larry King moderated a debate between the top third-party candidates live from Chicago. As those politicians continue to be shunned by the mainstream media and political establishment alike, though, they remain excluded from presenting their platform to the country on the eve of a historic election. RT aims to make a difference, however, and will host Johnson and Stein to speak their minds on the topics Americans really care about in 2012.
Following the success of this week’s Third Party Presidential Debate broadcast on RT live from Chicago, the top candidates as selected by voters on the Free and Equal Elections Foundation website will move on to a second debate from the nation’s capital, this time answering questions dedicated solely to foreign policy.
“The voters have spoken, and we are pleased to announce that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will advance to the second debate,” Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free and Equal, tells RT.
When Johnson and Stein took the stage to participate in the first third-party debate this year, the candidates sounded off on questions that, while vital to the voting public, were absent from the discussions held between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney during the televised debates that selected only Democrat and Republican politicians to participate.
The debate, which was originally set for October 30, was postponed as a result of Hurricane Sandy.
The second and final third-party presidential debate will be held on November 5 from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, (November 6, 1:00 a.m. – 2:30 a.m. GMT) and will be aired on RT America as well as RT.com and on RT’s YouTube channel.
US Private prisons want You
While economic improvement in the US are slow, it’s still gloom and doom when it comes to the big fiscal picture. Many people are trying to make ends meet in these hard times, but an enormous industry is cashing in.
It’s the business that keeps people behind bars
… Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.
And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.
[link to www.aclu.org]
Mitt Romney was greeted by Polish supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul as his motorcade passed through Gdansk on Monday. Volunteers from the Romney campaign struggled in vain to use umbrellas to block a large Ron Paul banner from sight, Bonney Kapp of CBS News reports.
The Paul supporters’ sign read, “Polish Choice – Ron Paul Kongres Nowej Prawicy.” Kongres Nowej Prawicy stands for “Congress of the New Right” and is the name of a libertarian-conservative Polish political party founded last year.
A July 28 posting on the party’s website called for displaying a banner in support of Ron Paul during Romney’s visit. The post explains that the party believes Paul would be a better choice for the GOP.
I’m concerned by the opening paragraph of a Washington Post article covering Skype’s recent policy changes regarding how they share their user data with the government. Until now Skype has been considered an extremely secure and private method of internet communication.
From the Washington Post:
‘Skype, the online phone service long favored by political dissidents, criminals and others eager to communicate beyond the reach of governments, has expanded its cooperation with law enforcement authorities to make online chats and other user information available to police, said industry and government officials familiar with the changes.’
Some questions should be raised.
Jon Stewart – On JPM and the Senate hearing. The Senators Kissed His Ass! Jon Stewart totally Exposes Sen. Bob Corker from Tennessee!
The elected officials, especially Bob Corker kissed Dimon’s ass when he was at the Senate Hearings.
Remember Dimon wore those “President of the United States” cufflinks during the Senator hearing. He was sending all the Senators a message saying he is in control of the whole political establishment of the U.S. by doing that. He obviously is in control of the Senate, the way they kissed his ass.
Here, in the second video, Jon Stewart shows how the Senators literally Kissed Dimon’s Ass during the hearings.
Jon Stewart totally blows Sen. Bob Corker from Tennessee Away – He exposes him at the end for the Fraud that he is!
Here is a bonus video – Dylan Ratigan explains it all in one Rant! The whole government is owned by the banks and the banks are stealing everyone’s money with all the elected officials allowing it on both sides of the aisle!
No matter what position the video may show, these politicians are all on their knees. This happens to be a Senate hearing, same in the Congress. True in both houses and across aisles to include the Executive branch. Simply put, it like a high school football scrimmage, skins against shirts. Both would like to look good and impress, but they know that they are all part of the same team playing for the same coach. Same mindset between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, between Republicans in office and Democrats in office. And while we squabble amongst our selves over meaningless ideologies, the big wheels keep on turning. Put an ear to the ground. If you do not hear it coming that is because you have already been run over, because those in controlled officials will never bite the hand that feeds, except one.
Regarding Corker, he is a cancer to the people of Tennessee, to individual rights and free people everywhere!
By Lois Beckett
Microsoft and Yahoo are selling political campaigns the ability to target voters online with tailored ads using names, Zip codes and other registration information that users provide when they sign up for free email and other services.
The Web giants provide users no notification that their information is being used for political targeting.
In one sense, campaigns are doing a more sophisticated version of what they’ve always done through the post office — sending political fliers to selected households. But the Internet allows for more subtle targeting. It relies not on email but on advertisements that surfers may not realize have been customized for them.
Campaigns use voters records to assemble lists of people they’re trying to reach — for instance, “registered Republicans that have made a donation,” Yahoo’s director of sales Andy Cotten told ProPublica. Microsoft and Yahoo help campaigns find these people online and then send them tailored ads.
These messages don’t just pop up in Yahoo Mail or Hotmail. Because Microsoft and Yahoo operate huge networks that provide advertising on some of the most popular web destinations, targeted ads can appear when a voter visits a swath of different sites.
Microsoft and Yahoo said they safeguard the privacy of their users and do not share their users’ personal information directly with the campaigns. Both companies also said they do not see the campaigns’ political data, because the match of voter names and registration data is done by a third company. They say the matching is done to target groups of similar voters, and not named individuals.
According to Microsoft, President Obama’s re-election campaign has recently done this kind of targeting, and both national political parties have done so previously.
The marketing site ClickZ, the Wall Street Journal, Slate and others have previously noted the ability of campaigns to target online ads to specific groups of voters. But what has not been detailed is which companies are now making the targeting possible by providing users’ personal information — and which have decided it’s off-limits.
By Preston James
The Secret Transformation of Our Elected Officials and What It Means for The American Republic
This transformation of most of our elected officials once they are seated inside the beltway (DC) is perhaps the greatest mystery of our modern political system.
FEW OBJECTIVE FACTS ARE KNOWN BY THOSE OUTSIDE TOP INNER CIRCLES WITH “BEYOND-BLACK” SECURITY CLEARANCES, BUT THE BEST EVIDENCE SO FAR SUGGESTS THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS TRANSFORMATION IS REAL, AND IS BASED ON A HIGHLY CLASSIFIED “ALIEN AGENDA” USED AS A COMPLEX COVER STORY TO MANIPULATE HIGHER SEGMENTS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND INTEL—AND, IT SEEMS POSSIBLE THAT THIS APPARENT ALIEN AGENDA IS ONGOING, VERY, VERY STRANGE, AND IS ABSORBING ALMOST ALL EARTHLY ASSETS, BRINGING THE WORLD TO UTTER ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, WAR AND CHAOS IN ORDER TO CONVERT THE WORLD INTO A GLOBALIST NWO SYSTEM
Why do so many Congressmen and Congresswomen, and Senators seem to be quickly turned after they are elected and seated, so easily abandoning their Oaths to the US Constitution and passing so many laws which themselves are completely unConstitutional and against everything the Republic stands for? What happens to these folks after they go to work inside the Beltway? Is this transformation strictly a product of peer pressure from other senior legislators who control powerful positions in the Senate and House, or is it based on yielding to the particular social pressures of the political party they belong to?
Ex-Governor Jesse Ventura has written an excellent book, The Democripts and the Rebloodlicans, in which he explains why he believes there is very little difference between the two parties. Gerald Celente the World’s top Trends Analyst has suggested that these two parties are like two different organized crime families families, the Gambinos and the Genoveses.
This political transformation that occurs to elected politicians once they are elected and are seated is a great mystery and this opinion piece is one attempt to clarify these issues and provide some possible answers as to what really happens to transform these folks to so rapidly into individuals who appear to have abandoned “we the people” in order to serve only the Shadow Govt super-elite controllers who occupy the highest positions of the Invisible Secret Shadow Govt. and the NWO Globalist Agenda.
This article is long and complicated and will take many into the ozone of credulity. It will make much more information available than most will want. So, perhaps it is best to skip over the parts that bore you and focus on what grabs your eye and interest.
By Lori Stacey
The real sequence of events leading up to the Rand Paul announcement
Make no mistake about it, the pundits claiming that Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney would be good for his political future in the long-run are absolutely wrong. In my opinion, Rand Paul just committed political suicide and we may never know all the reasons behind his decision or the timing of this disastrous announcement. Rumors had been widely circulating that there were serious death threats upon his father, Ron Paul. There has also long-been claims that many on Ron’s paid campaign staff have been undermining his campaign, all along. At this point, we do not know whether Rand came to this decision as a result of bad people around him giving him terrible advice or if he was the sacrificial lamb trying to take the heat off of his father.
It was somewhat interesting that Rand made a point to mention that his conversation with Romney occurred in Washington. Could this have been his way of confirming four witnesses’ claims of seeing Mitt Romney at the Bilderberg Group’s secretive meeting in nearby Virginia? He also knows that the social conservative base has been hard for his father to win over. Mentioning about how much the Romneys and Pauls have in common regarding family values was a bit odd considering the question but delivering it to a Sean Hannity audience was also quite interesting.
The real sequence of these events seems to have been misunderstood. Let us remember that Rand Paul met with Romney days before Ron Paul sent out an email claiming that he will not have enough delegates to win the nomination. I believe the email was actually an attempt to try to soften the blow of his son’s endorsement that Ron would have to be politically savvy enough to realize would be a huge mistake. As a statesman that has fought his entire career to promote the original principles of our constitution and the individual freedom and liberty of the American people, it would be expected that he probably gives his son the individual respect to make his own decisions as an adult. He probably tried to talk him out of it, but we may never know that part of the story. Regardless, the email may likely have been an attempt to lessen the blow of his son’s decision giving the pundits the reasoning that he did not officially endorse Romney until after his father’s email. Although the public announcement was made after the email, the decision to endorse Mitt Romney was probably made before it.