Icke On Obama

THE VOICE OF THE SHADOW PEOPLE ...

...DANGER: LIAR AT WORK

I saw another America in Los Angeles last week – an intelligent America, insightful, aware and determined not to hide in the face of challenge to the most basic of freedoms, both their own and other people’s. It was one of those moments when you saw a glimpse of humanity as we were meant to be, as we once were and will be again. You saw what life on earth could be like if only the manipulators of human perception were removed from power ...

... But this other American was dark of eye and soul – slavishly repeating the words of others from his Teleprompter mind. What he said was such a work of fiction, such a classic of its type, that it is worthy of some analysis for future reference.

Obama:


“For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges.”


Background:


The government and military of the United States has played a unique role in destroying human freedom around the world, funding and arming despots to suppress their own people – including some that it now condemns in the Middle East – so long as it suits the agenda of the Global Cabal that imposes its will via the government and military of the United States, as well as others like Britain.

It is not ‘mindful’ of the risks and costs of military action. Money is never an object when it comes to war, only for people in need within its own borders. It is not reluctant to use force – but it is reluctant, yes, to solve the world’s many challenges. Creating them is its prime mission.

It is truly extraordinary to see the number of wars, military campaigns and interventions by the United States government and military since 1776. They are, demonstrably, with Britain in their slipstream, the bullies of the world.

Oops, sorry … they have ‘played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom’ and been ‘naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges.’

The American military protects children in Vietnam.

Socialism vs. Corporatism by Ron Paul

Ron Paul clears up some of the confusion...

Socialism vs. Corporatism
By Ron Paul
04/27/10

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization. This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market. But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government. In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care "exchanges". Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's "cap-and-trade" legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in "carbon trading." This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

To call the President a corporatist is not to soft-pedal criticism of his administration. It is merely a more accurate description of the President's agenda.

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President's policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term -- corporatism -- forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses. This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; it cannot be the solution.

*****

Hat tip to the Konformist.

Next Up: Killer Food, Legal, Encouraged

Just what is with this Obama guy? Is he Bush III? I mean, really, read this...

***

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

Jeffrey Smith
July 23, 2009
You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith

***

White House Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention; Move Would Bypass Congress

Seems our Mr. Obama, or whatever his name really is, is hell bent on escalating the horrors that the Bush years introduced to us all. What a good little neoZionical putz of a slaveboy he is. He makes my skin crawl. This just in...

- - - - - - - - -

White House Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention; Move Would Bypass Congress
By Dafna Linzer, Peter Finn, ProPublica

Such an order embraces claims by George W. Bush that certain people can be held without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Read more »

In May, President Obama made a speech in which he announced that he was considering preventive detention as a way to handle "detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." Obama never uttered the phrase "preventive detention." But that's what he was getting at -- while adding that "we must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category."

This week, ProPublica co-published a report revealing that the preventive detention plan might actually be issued via executive order, bypassing Congress. The news was chilling. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote this week, "Americans should recoil as one against the idea of preventive detention, imprisoning people indefinitely, for years and perhaps for life, without charge and without giving them an opportunity to demonstrate their innocence."

And yet we've embraced it, asserting that there are people who are far too dangerous to even think about releasing but who cannot be put on trial because we have no real evidence that they have committed any crime, or because we've tortured them and therefore the evidence would not be admissible ... President Obama is O.K. with this (he calls it "prolonged detention"), but he wants to make sure it is carried out -- here comes the oxymoron -- fairly and nonabusively.

In a news week dominated by right-wing sex scandals, celebrity deaths, a 150-year Madoff sentence and a Latin American military coup, Obama's preventive detention scheme was largely overlooked. It cannot be ignored going forward.

Thanks for reading,

Liliana Segura,
Editor,
Rights & Liberties Special Coverage

Obama's First 100 Days: Worse Than Even We Predicted

This is from Prison Planet, an Alex Jones site. It is pretty sad that the only "change" is the person sitting in the chair. Obama is just another Neocon / Zionist / Fascist bastard who will do absolutely not one damn thing to better OUR lives.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-100-days-worse-than-even-we-predicted.html

Obama's First 100 Days: Worse Than Even We Predicted
From protecting Bush officials who ordered torture from prosecution, to maintaining and expanding the American empire, to warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, all have remained and intensified under Obama
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, April 20, 2009

As President Barack Obama approaches his first 100 days in office, the corporate media prepares a new round of fawning idolatry about the Obama administration's "achievements," yet a summary glance at what Obama has actually done in that short time with regard to expanding the Bush police state and the Neo-Con empire is worse than even we predicted.

The day after Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States in November last year, we challenged Obama supporters and the administration itself to follow through on the rhetoric of "change" by starting to dismantle the architecture of the Bush police state and beginning to roll back the unwieldy morass of the American empire. Obama has done neither, and in fact his every action has been about ensuring the Bush police state remains in place, that the people who put it in place are protected from prosecution, and that the empire continues to expand.

We presented Obama and his supporters with a series of issues on which to make progress. While we did not expect Obama to accomplish much in his first few months in office, we at least challenged the new President to take the first steps in reversing eight years of what was a de facto dictatorship and plotting the course for the "change" that was so consistently promised.

We asked the following questions of an Obama presidency;

- Will Obama support Dennis Kucinich's efforts to bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for deceiving the country into a war or will he protect them against such charges like Nancy Pelosi has done?

In April 2008, Obama promised that as President he would ask his Attorney General to "immediately review" potential war crimes that occurred under the Bush White House. Obama or his Attorney General have done no such thing, and every noise they have made suggests that top Neo-Cons will be protected from deceiving America into a war.

Similarly we asked;

- Will Obama bring war crimes charges against Bush, Cheney and others for authorizing torture and will the torture of suspects under U.S. detention, a complete violation of both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, cease under an Obama administration?

As we found out last week, the answer was a resounding NO. Upon the release of the torture memos, Obama's right-hand man, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, told ABC News that top Bush administration officials "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go." In addition, Obama's statement that accompanied the release of the torture memos stated, "In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."

So no retribution for the people who ordered the torture, and no retribution to the people who carried it out, thus setting the precedent that future administrations are free to order torture - safe in the knowledge that they will face no consequences whatsoever.

- Will Obama withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without sending them away again to bomb another broken-backed third world country?

The answer again is a resounding NO. Upon taking office, Obama announced that he would be sending another 17,000, and eventually perhaps as many as 30,000, extra troops to Afghanistan.

Regarding Iraq, after the "withdrawal" of U.S. troops in 19 months, a timescale that has since been put back again, "Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a "residual force" of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions," reported the New York Times.

In terms of bombing another broken-backed third world country, Obama has beefed the U.S. military role in Pakistan beyond that pursued by the Bush administration and "expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan," according to the New York TImes, with an increase in missile attacks by drone aircraft.

Meanwhile, Obama's war chest demands came to a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.

Does any of this sound like a move towards bringing the troops home and rolling back the American empire, as Obama promised before he was elected?

- Will Obama end the warrantless secret surveillance and phone-taps of American citizens?

You'll be shocked the learn that the answer was a resounding NO. Earlier this month, "The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration's position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency's (NSA's) warrantless wiretapping program," reported the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"President Obama promised the American people a new era of transparency, accountability, and respect for civil liberties," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "But with the Obama Justice Department continuing the Bush administration's cover-up of the National Security Agency's dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans, and insisting that the much-publicized warrantless wiretapping program is still a 'secret' that cannot be reviewed by the courts, it feels like deja vu all over again."

- Will Obama cease his support for the Bush-administration backed banker bailouts, hated by the majority of Americans, and target the real cause of the problem - the Federal Reserve - or will he continue to give taxpayers' money to banks who are merely hoarding it all for themselves?

Obama's zealous push for more bailouts, along with increased power for the Federal Reserve and the implementation of global regulations that will effectively end any notion of a free market was perhaps the defining issue of his first 100 days as President. Obama has vigorously promoted the same financial policies that were introduced by the Bush administration in its final few months.

- Will Obama repeal Patriot Acts I and II as well as reversing Bush's signing statement and acknowledging the repeal of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act? Will Obama seek to continue the militarization of America and preparations for martial law through Northcom and the secret government or will he dismantle the police state that has been constructed over the last eight years by the Bush administration?

Despite initial rhetoric about reversing Bush's infamous signing statements, Obama himself stated that he will continue to use signing statements. The Patriot Act and its additions as well as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, both core planks of the Bush police state, remain firmly in place, with no sign of any reversal.

Regarding militarization through Northcom, weeks after Obama's election victory it was announced that, "The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials." Militarization of law enforcement and troops being used domestically in preparation for martial law is continuing apace under the Obama administration.

- Will Obama follow through on his rhetorical support for the second amendment or will he seek to ban guns as he did in Illinois?

Despite Obama promising that he was not interested in going after the second amendment before his election, one of his first actions was to appoint the rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder as his Attorney General. Obama has also falsely blamed the drug war crisis in Mexico on American gun shops. The leaked Obama gun ban list would make millions of Americans criminals for owning weapons such certain types of rifles or pistols. Anti-gun legislation has found its way into stimulus and other unrelated bills as pork barrel. The first steps of the Obama administration with regard to gun control have resulted in record firearm and ammunition purchases across the country.

Upon Obama's election we made a cynical but unfortunately accurate prediction of how the much vaunted promise of "change" would actually manifest itself. The fact is that the "change" began and ended on the day Obama won the election.

- Illegal warrantless surveillance and wiretapping of American citizens will continue under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who ordered torture and those that carried it out will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- Top Bush administration officials who deceived America into a war will be protected from prosecution under Obama.

- The expansion of the military empire through continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and further military incursions into Pakistan will continue and expand under Obama.

- Banker bailouts, reckless spending, inflation of currency through overprinting and global regulations stifling the free market, all of which were initiated under Bush, will continue under Obama.

- The militarization of the United States and the architecture of the police state that was set up under Bush will be preserved and expanded under Obama.

- The attack on the second amendment right to bear arms will continue under Obama.

"The egregious spending will continue, government will balloon in size, American soldiers will be used as cannon fodder for more interventionist wars of the military-industrial complex, U.S. citizens will continue to have their phone calls tapped and their rights curtailed," we forecast last year, "and the Federal Reserve will continue to rule the financial system with an iron fist while the middle class is squeezed out of existence."

Who can deny that all those things have only intensified under the Obama administration?

The honeymoon is over - Barack Obama has proven himself to be nothing more than we predicted all along - another stooge for the global banking syndicate that has controlled every U.S. president since JFK, and nothing more than a black face on the new world order - sworn to continue and intensify the same agenda that the Bush-Clinton-Bush dynasty advanced before him.

Irish bookie calls US race over, pays off on Obama

Well now, when Elf Hellion sent me this piece I was amazed at the confidence in the result that this bookie showed... I mean... damn! Then I read further that they do this a lot, but still... so let's hope (and pray if you're into that) that Paddy's not embarrassed on the day... even though I prefer Ron Paul, who hasn't voted with the corporate scum or been AIPACed... not that he has a chance, but Obama has at least a theoretical chance of actually doing something good.

Thu Oct 16, 3:22 PM ET

DUBLIN, Ireland - The race is over as far as Ireland's biggest bookmaker is concerned.

Paddy Power PLC says it is so sure Barack Obama will win the U.S. presidential election next month that it paid off Thursday on all bets it had taken backing the Democratic candidate. It said it shelled out more than €1 million, about $1.35 million.

"We declare this race well and truly over and congratulate all those who backed Obama — your winnings await you," the company said in a statement.

Paddy Power has a long tradition of winning free publicity by paying off early, particularly on political contests — and it also has a recent record of getting the result spectacularly wrong.

In June, the company paid out early in favor of people who bet Irish voters would approve the European Union's latest treaty in a referendum. The next day, a "no" result sent shock waves across the 27-nation EU, and cost Powers a hefty sum since it ended up paying off both sides of the bet.

The same thing would happen to Powers if it guessed wrong about the U.S. election. The pro-Obama bettors would keep the winnings paid out Thursday, while John McCain backers would cash in, too.

Powers said the biggest winner among the Obama bettors was someone who gambled €100,000 and got back a total of €150,000.

The most visionary bettor, though, was the "punter" who put down €50 on Obama in 2005. At the time, Obama was listed at 50-to-1, so the bettor got €2,550.

Despite calling the contest, the Dublin-based bookmaker said it is still taking new bets on the race. A John McCain victory Nov. 4 on a bet placed Thursday would pay off €5 for every €1 bet. By contrast, each €1 bet on Obama would net just 11 € cents.

___

On the Net:

Paddy Power presidential odds: http://tinyurl.com/43xdfz

Kenn Thomas interview for Winnipeg Sun

Thomas, Kenneth F. to me -- Thanks, Kenn :-)

Kenn Thomas has written more than a dozen books on various conspiracy topics. Murdoch Books published the last one, Conspiracy Files, and another entitled Secret and Suppressed II will be published by Feral House this fall. Thomas operates out of the American Midwest and keeps a post office box in St. Louis, Missouri: POB 2100553, St. Louis, MO 63121. He regularly publishes the conspiracy magazine Steamshovel Press, available for $10 (checks payable to “Kenn Thomas” not “Steamshovel Press.”) His website can be found at steamshovelpress.com, which also offers DVDs of his lectures and television appearances.

Q: What's your take on what the most enduring conspiracies of our time are, and why?

A: The JFK assassination, of course. Just today the two major news items about the current political campaigns have become a mysterious draw-down of security for Barack Obama and an accident in Hillary Clinton’s motorcade that killed a police officer on a motorcycle. Both stories come from Dallas, Texas, which give them a resonance they might not otherwise have had. John Kennedy died in a Dallas motorcade that had lax security.

The JFK assassination endures because during every election season the electorate tries to harken back to a memorable time of prosperity and purpose. JFK represents that unrealized potential, whereas the succeeding presidencies bogged America down in conspiracy and corruption. No one harkens back to the good ol’ days of Richard Nixon, for instance. The Iran-contra and Inslaw scandals mar the memory of Reagan; the Bush and Clinton dynasties brought on the current state of war. Obama directly tries to recapture the JFK chemistry and his candidacy to a certain extent seems like an attempt to reboot Camelot.

Another enduring conspiracy would be the UFO cover up, from before Roswell to the present day. That’s why science-fiction remains such a vital part of the American popular culture and, in fact, conspiracy theory has become some kind of offshoot genre of that. The US space program always includes some level of secrecy. NASA even announces that it sends up secret payloads on some space shuttles.

9/11 will be an ongoing thing, too, especially as more of the people in office when it happened leave office. and the people who came up with all the many crazy theories—like no plane ever hitting the Pentagon--move on to other things. The urge among serious scholars to straighten it out will lead to many revelations over time, perhaps starting with what the reporter Danny Pearle was on to before he was captured and killed.

Q: Why doesn't mainstream media, in your opinion, focus on other aspects of stories like 9/11, and G. Bush's back-room politics. Would more publicity make conspiracies more legitimate in the eyes of some? Or why do you believe people are reluctant to accept these as fact?

The media sells soap via commercials and it’s own scrubbed up reality tunnel via its “news” reports. It has no interest in the truth about anything, let alone conspiracies that may involve power elements it wants to serve. To test this, find a topic that you know something about and watch a newscast about that topic. The distortion will amaze you. The media imposes that same distortion on all topics, since most people are not specialists about any one.

The latest example for conspiracy students involved some JFK assassination memorabilia recently found in Dallas County. The media played up the sensational aspect that it included a transcript of a conversation between Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald—proof positive of conspiracy. So that brings in the conspiracy audience, only to drop the other boot at the need of the story: the transcript was probably a movie script that Dallas DA was working on. They always end on the no-conspiracy angle. Neither scenario had any truth, however. The transcript actually came from a Texas letter, sent to J. Edgar Hoover, and has long been published and well-known to students of the assassination.

Q: Are there are theories without any basis in reality? Do fringe theories, ie; Dinosaurid-like alien reptiles are secretly controlling earth, take-away from, or hinder the development of legitimate or political conspiracies, such as those surrounding the JFK assassination, or the invasion of Iraq?

Well, reality rarely has only a single dimension. I have always believed that the shape-shifting reptilian theory put forth most famously by an author named David Icke, is an insult to reptiles. Nevertheless, some powerful socialites do seem to be have at one time injected themselves with cobra venom as a means of prolonging life, and some of them no doubt developed some rather leathery skin. It’s something worthy of more study. But even the craziest theories serve the purpose of drawing more people into the debate about parapolitics (conspiracy theory), so I allow a wide berth. It’s what people do in lieu of a media that presents the full spectrum of facts and perspectives.

The most notable conspiracy concerning the Iraq war concerns Saddam Hussein’s interest in getting yellow cake uranium from the country of Niger. Documents surfaced establishing this true fact that became discredited. Discredit the document, discredit the fact. This provides the basis of the Valerie Plame scandal and demonstrates clear intent on the part of the intelligence community to undercut Bush’s foreign policy, the Iraq War. Since that seems counter-intuitive to conspiracists who oppose the war, the opportunity to observe that tactic of covert agency became lost on many. But as I say, reality has many dimensions.

Q: What smoking guns exist for the big conspiracies? ie; JFK and 9/11.

The Zapruder film has always been the smoking gun on JFK—a clear film of the grassy knoll shot. This, despite the fact that Life Magazine reversed its frames and Dan Rather made a radio report saying it shows JFK being hit from behind. Forty five years of that kind of coordinated cover up in the media hasn’t been able to wipe away the reality seen in the film.

A document called the Lew Douglas memo triangulates with another one in the National Archives called the Cutler-Twining memo that conclusively proves the existence of MJ12. MJ12 was the secret group supposedly put together by Harry Truman after the Roswell crash. Several “MJ12 documents” exist of questionable provenance, but these two are quite real and their appearance in archives in different parts of the country, uncovered at completely different times, with dates that match perfectly, is as definitive proof as anyone can find about anything.

Congressional testimony exists that pretty much establishes that Dick Cheney gave a stand-down order after the 9/11 events started to happen. That’s a smoking gun only to the idea that Bush and company decided to take advantage of what happened that day, not that they caused it.

Many other smoking guns exist for various things. You just have to sniff the smoke.

Q: Is there anything going on right now, that you think people should be aware of, that is being kept under wraps?

Good heavens, it’s an election year in the US. No doubt many behind the scenes things are going on that will only come out in time. Hillary Clinton has been running as the incumbent, which supports everything said about her husband’s connection with the Bush power bloc. Bill Clinton came to power in part because he covered up an Iran-contra operation in a place called Mena, Arkansas, and he maintains a global profile in partnership with the first George Bush. If Barack Obama prevails as Democratic candidate, questions will emerge about his religion, since he has Islam in his near family background and people worry about the global jihad conspiracy. Even the Christian church Obama attends in Chicago calls itself “afro-centric” and Muslim sympathetic. So expect that to come under close scrutiny.. Many on the conspiracy circuit regarded Mitt Romney’s campaign as a Mormon plot to take over the country. This is not just religious prejudice but a genuine concern about secret groups using non-rational beliefs to manipulate people. Religion always remains ripe with conspiracy.