It is amazing how an inexpensive technological development can render irrelevant billions of dollars of investment. In this case the security apparatus of Homeland Security. When I did the original 3-D printing story about three years ago the printers cost $50,000. Just a few weeks ago, when these printers hit the news big time the printers were $8,000. In this story the printer used was $2,600. I predict, within a year 3-D printers that can print guns will be less than $1000. Clearly dealing with terrorism requires new strategies, a different approach than asking people to surrender their civil liberties, and billions spent on building a huge intrusive security apparat. Click through to see the many pictures which will add to your understanding of what this issue involves.
Below is a summary report by ABC News followed by the various versions of the Talking Points; (2) as a series of US Government actions, I don't think there is anything particularly unique in the sequential revision of the Talking Points except that, in this case, four lives were lost.
Now we know that at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens’s life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then–Libyan prime minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team’s most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m. call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton’s not there. She doesn’t call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.
In the attached essay, my very good friend Mike Lofgren raises the question of whether defense spending is good for the economy. This is a current issue because the threat of defense budget reduction is being countered by arguments asserting that these reductions will push the economy into recession. More generally, the political addiction to defense spending has been a major contributor to our nation's economic decline and our political stagnation — i.e., what I have called Americas Defense Dependency, the subject of an essay I wrote last November for Counterpunch. Mike comes at these issues from a different albeit complimentary and equally important angle.
Readers interested in learning more about this important subject will find the work of the late Professor Seymour Melman of Columbia University to be particularly edifying. In his prescient book, Profits Without Production (Knopf, 1983), Melman explained how the growing militarization of our economy was one of the central causes of the decline in America’s manufacturing competitiveness. This decline started in the 1970s, but Melman showed how it grew out of seeds planted by the permanent military mobilization of a huge defense industry in the 1950s.
The 1960s comedy show Laugh-In included an occasional sketch in which co-host Dan Rowan played a comic general whose tag-line was “war is good for business!” In an ironic echo of that skit, an April 27 Washington Post story delivers the same message: “A steep slowdown in defense spending tied to the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is undercutting the country's economic recovery, new government data released Friday revealed.” An 11.5-percent annual drop in Pentagon spending resulted in slower growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) during the first quarter of 2013 than economists expected.
So did the dozen years of war, with all the deaths, destruction, and expense they entailed, have the perverse silver lining of being good for the economy? Most mainstream economists — who, like cynics, know the price of everything and the value of nothing — would answer in the affirmative.
Gross domestic product, which they tend to treat as a surrogate for economic well-being, is only a tote board of all spending that occurs in an economy. Statistics like GDP are arbitrary, subject to incomplete data, and can mislead us about underlying economic conditions. A dollar spent on a cancer cure has the same worth to the GDP as a dollar spent to bribe an Afghan drug lord. This convention can reach absurd lengths, such as massive hurricane damage possibly increasing the GDP: money must be spent just to get conditions back to the way they were, but it counts it as “growth.”
Based on my almost three decades on Capitol Hill, most of them involved in defense budgeting, I can say authoritatively that military spending evokes an almost mystical reverence among many members of Congress. A $325-billion defense program like the F-35, however technically flawed, typically engenders less floor debate than relatively miniscule domestic programs such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
In light of this blog post, it is evident the official versions of this event is losing more and more and more credibility. If they are lying about how the older brother died, what else are they lying about?
This blogger poses some pointed questions that imply the police account of the death of the oldest Boston marathon bomber is a fraudulent one. While this blogger makes no effort to offer a conspiracy theory positioned from a larger context, other than indicate the cops may be merely covering up their trigger-happy engagement with the suspect, his observation and other questions, at the very end of the post, provides further material for those of us concerned about a wider false-flag conspiracy committed by the US federal government.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev DOA
If he died from the cop's trigger-happy shooting, why does the autopsy picture of the suspect not show him riddled Swiss cheese-like with many more bullets than is evident in the photo? It seems only a limited number of bullets (or “multiple”, as the MD says below), plus bomb blast shrapnel, killed him. The MD below also said his body was not disintegrated, which one would expect of a human body hit by a barrage of bullets coming from many guns. Unfortunately, the blogger says nothing about this. The autopsy picture is reproduced above.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
John W. Whitehead is an attorney and author who has written, debated and practiced widely in the area of constitutional law and human rights.
“Of all the tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”—C.S. Lewis
This is an all-out psy op at this point with bizarre claims of “double agents” and future attacks in the works. Having been caught with their pants down–where the younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, was even photographed while leaving the scene with this backpack intact and spent his week as a normal college student–and and now they are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, including fantastic stories of him and his brother, Tameran, as “double agents”, which is nearly as ludicrous as the original story.
The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon
Le Nouvel Observateur’s Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Originally published 15-21 January 1998
Translated by Jean Martineau
(Editor’s Note: The following article and interview have been suppressed by Google, now a “black-ops” contractor. The background on US backing for the Chechen rebels totally debunks attempts to assign blame for the Boston Marathon bombings to any group other than American security agencies and their domestic and foreign contractors who were very obvious at the scene, before and after the attack we believe they staged. Without adequate background on how we got where we are, real information can easily be “shaken off” as conspiracy.
If you want real conspiracy, read on and see who the very real conspirators are. G Duff for VT)
Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski. It is important for three reasons. First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.
It is amazing how an inexpensive technological development can render irrelevant billions of dollars of investment. In this case the security apparatus of Homeland Security. When I did the original 3-D printing story about three years ago the printers cost $50,000. Just a few weeks ago, when these printers hit the news big time the printers were $8,000. In this story the printer used was $2,600. I predict, within a year 3-D printers that can print guns will be less than $1000. Clearly dealing with terrorism requires new strategies, a different approach than asking people to surrender their civil liberties, and billions spent on building a huge intrusive security apparat. Click through to see the many pictures which will add to your understanding of what this issue involves.
