Chris Matthews and guests Howard Fineman and Andrea Mitchell started out discussing Obama’s looming VP choice, the various “front runners” on the “short list” (a completely made up list by the media, since no one has a clue, but they make it sound like they do.) and then they switched to discussing McCain’s choices for VP, (which they are equally as clueless about) in particular Joe Leiberman. It went like this:

FINEMAN: Well, I don‘t know. First of all, I think a lot of conservative activists, including Rush Limbaugh, wouldn‘t take Joe Lieberman, either. They respect him. The same with Sean Hannity. But they…

MITCHELL: They wouldn‘t take him. They‘ve already said (INAUDIBLE)

FINEMAN: They said they wouldn‘t take him…

It’s an extraordinary admission that went entirely overlooked. Here are three major media players discussing how conservative media pundits have a powerful role in choosing who will be the Republican choice for VP. The equivalent simply does not exist on the Liberal side. Which Liberal media pundit has that much power? None. An important point to remember in these times.

One of the basic tenets of the modern conservative movement is a hatred for the “mainstream media”. The “conservative wisdom” is that it’s riddled with Liberals and that Liberals control it. Far from the truth obviously.

Yet, by their own logic, Limbaugh is the enemy, since he is a member of the mainstream media who literally has a role in controlling our lives and our government functions. Yet, they don’t seem to mind. It’s about ideology of course. It has nothing to do with the higher ideals of democracy and freedom of the press and everything to do with limiting the message to only those ideals they profess, limiting it to conservative ideas. It’s basic fascism and eliminationism.

And, seeing it referred to in such a blase manner on Hardball was shocking to say the least.

When I was a boy, I would read about how military and press people had control of the process of government in the Soviet Union, and it sent a cold, rippling shiver down my spine that I always remembered.

That feeling has returned.

What separates the idea of a proper democracy from the rabble is one simple thing: the rule of law. The simple idea that everyone is equal and must answer to the laws of the land if they violate those laws or are accused of violating those laws. They must deal with the system and the laws whether they are guilty or innocent. The system and the people will decide. It’s not perfect by any stretch, but it is what we have. And, it’s the lynch pin of law and order in our society. It is also that which keeps the select few from attaining power that is unresponsive to the will of the people and the rule of law. It’s the lynch pin to checks and balances.

So, what happens when people refute the overriding principle that everyone must be subject to equal protection and application of those laws? We literally become that which those who established our Constitutional form of government were fleeing from and refuting. The founders were reacting specifically to the practice within a monarchy of unequal protection under the law, that is: some were able to skirt laws and oversight and the will of the people by being above the law or protected by the monarchy, who were entirely above the law.

Of course, any honest observer knows fully well that the USA has not been a proper democracy for decades and functions today as a plutocracy. We are becoming that which the founders feared.

And, it shall not stand.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Matt Drudge has had “Scott the Snitch” on his propaganda site all day, an attempt to paint former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who has a new book coming out that is not kind to his former employer, as a turncoat. It’s rather interesting for a couple of reasons.

The word “snitch” is a pejorative that means “informant”, and in it’s most popular usage is associated with criminals and mobsters who break with their masters and turn. So, in a sense, Drudge is implying that the White House is mob like. It’s an appellation that isn’t really used in any other context other than refering to informing on others where a crime has been committed to denigrate that person. The appropriate term here would be “whistle blower”. But that doesn’t serve Drudge nor his masters.

And, of course, the White House are following the party attack line, calling McClellan “disgruntled“, or “out of the loop” or insert ad hominem here. No doubt he’ll be “insane” by the end of the media cycle. Look for the Freepers and extremist wing nut blogs to fill that hole with bile.

Keep in mind, the only news here is that it’s a former loyalist saying that the Bush White House chose propaganda over policy. We’ve heard this accusation before. The propaganda over policy issue, and why is was implemented, was a topic on this blog nearly FOUR YEARS AGO, and the facts bare this out. It was an attempt to polarize the public with fear and solidify and maintain power in that manner.

Ultimately, history will tell the story of whether George W. Bush was simply over his head, or a willing puppet who stood by playing golf and spouting propaganda while Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld implemented disastrous policy. Personally, I think Dubya is an ideological tool of Cheney. Not smart enough to engage policy in any meaningful manner, he simply agrees with whatever Dick says and catapults the propaganda like a good doggy.

Not a bad job if you can get it. Alas, the real world is a bit more serious than this piss ant approach to to governing and policy. And, we will pay the price for the insipid, emotional playground politics of this White House.

We already are.

“The BBC has a report on the “Information Operations Roadmap” which…

…calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military’s ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

Here’s a PDF of it. Read it for yourself. This is part of the Rumsfeld plan to control information, as David Miller put it:

The concept of ‘information dominance’ is the key to understanding US and UK propaganda strategy and a central component of the US aim of ‘total spectrum dominance’. It redefines our notions of spin and propaganda and the role of the media in capitalist society. To say that it is about total propaganda control is to force the English language into contortions that the term propaganda simply cannot handle. Information dominance is not about the success of propaganda in the conventional sense with which we are all familiar. It is not about all those phrases ‘winning hearts and minds’, about truth being ‘the first casualty’ about ‘media manipulation’ about ‘opinion control’ or about ‘information war’. Or, to be more exact – it is about these things but none of them can quite stretch to accommodate the integrated conception of media and communication encapsulated in the phrase information dominance. [...]

Traditional conceptions of propaganda involve crafting the message and distributing it via government media or independent news media. Current conceptions of information war go much further and incorporate the gathering, processing and deployment of information including via computers, intelligence and military information (command and control) systems. The key preoccupation for the military is ‘interoperability’ where information systems talk to and work with each other. Interoperability is a result of the computer revolution which has led to the ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’. Now propaganda and psychological operations are simply part of a larger information armoury.

Such is the state of affairs in a country run by the war business. Truth is the first casualty.

Been reading about the North American Union for awhile, and the new currency the “Amero”, it’s been on television, on Lou Dobbs and elsewhere. And, as the dollar slides into oblivion, it seems more and more plausible, and the appearance of a dastardly plan seems more and more obvious at first glance. But, there are other things to consider. If it uses fear to motivate, then beware.

First of all, I have strong opinions on unified conspiracy theories, which the video proffers. It assumes that there is a group of rich people sitting in a room, who are connected in some way, who share holiday meals together or go to the same church or to the same club, who are all colluding towards a “one world government” and doing all these things behind the scenes to end our lives of liberty, control us all and keep us happy with reruns of American Idol and truck loads of Twinkies. And, it doesn’t work like that. It’s more about social movements and media than about conspiring in groups.

Endeavors such as the NAU function like a movement, a mob of like minded people who are working towards common goals, in this case the creation of a unified finacial system. (Whether you agree with the concept of a unified world financial system or not is up for debate.) It works more like how people decide all at once to start using the internet, or go to YouTube. One person to one person and on and on. Like a mob. That’s how the one world government thing is working. Like a focused flash mob. Because that is how media and the transference of ideas works, and the NAU is an idea, while it isn’t being promoted via the mass media, is still a form of media, an idea, that is conveyed from person to person, and has a genesis that goes back to World War 1. It is primarily a financial movement, not a political one. The two are intertwined by their incestuous relationship, there is no doubt. Which is a very important distinction.
The banking movement has always been more of a mob than a group of white guys sitting in a room smoking Cubans and having sex with underage homeless teens while carving up the roles of the workers and deciding how to spend the workers pensions.

Look at how the EU went down over the course of three decades. It was a movement, but it was primarily financial. It was all about establishing the Euro in member countries.. And, where was all the totalitarianism that the unified conspiracy theorists predicted would occur when the EU was instituted? Where is it? Did the constitutions of nations fall because of it? Did the people of Europe lose their liberties because of the establishment of the EU? No. They didn’t.

The NAU, like the EU, is essentially solidifying financial arrangements that already exist anyway. It’s making them official and sanctioned by a government, in this case one it creates itself, which gives it the ability to establish legal sovereignty and thus protection under certain international laws.

But, the ratification of new constitutions which would override established constitutions and thereby scuttle the rights of the people is not something easily done. Look at what happened with the attempted ratification of the EU constitution. It failed because so many nations felt it infringed (either too liberal or too conservatively) upon their national sovereignty and constitutional independence and the rights of the people. Another mob arose to confront the first mob. And, they did battle. It’s a form of democracy, open source, and sometimes unruly.

The video above dives into the paranoid fantasy that there is a group of privileged people in a dark smoky room that has decided to scuttle the US constitution and bill of rights (which is being hammered at by the Bush Administration anyway) and it’s a done deal. And, the reality is: like what occurred in the EU, the scuttling of the US Constitution is an event that would require more than the establishment of the NAU and a new currency. It’s tacit fear mongering in the video. It’s propaganda meant to use fear as it’s primary tool of conversion of thought. It’s a media virus meant to scare.

Fear is a powerful force used to propel emotional reactions in favor of intellectual ideas. Fear alters the media landscape in ways that aren’t apparent to those who watch media without
a critical eye. Fear fosters an emotional response first and foremost and that means that any real consideration of the issues involved – from the presentation of the propaganda (what’s it’s primary motivation? are the facts correct? is it presented in a logical manner or a fallacious manner?) to the discussion and debate of the ideas within- is left forgotten in the dust of the initial emotional reaction.
That’s the primary function of propaganda. To disrupt the thoughtful consideration and discussion of ideas and media and replace it with an emotional response that squelches discussion and consideration.

From this view point, the primary movement that is afoot in the world today is a corporate financed right wing Christian based extremist movement that wants to establish an American Empire.

The primary mistake in the video that I see is that it attempts to connect this movement to the One World Government one, as if they are one and the same, and that is incorrect. They are two movements that are vehemently opposed to each other on a number of fronts but work together out of necessity.

The video assumes that when David Rockefeller (who is a member of the banking establishment) tells Aaron Russo about an “event” that will occur (9/11) that Rockefeller knew this because of his involvement in the banking “one world government” movement. And, that assumption is erroneous. It’s incorrect. Like many people, Rockefeller was aware of the extremist movement that had been ballooning under the surface – of right wing corporate based pro-war, pro-American Empire movement. Hardcore extremist believers in the privatization of the military forces of the USA and it’s allies, who wished to solidify their power and economic reach by the creation of a situation that is irreversible, one that creates the inevitable need for the US and it’s corporate military personal to be in the Middle East for the foreseeable future. A permanent private corporate military presence in the Middle East to replace the lost US military bases which were abandoned in Saudi Arabia due to internal pressures within that totalitarian regime. (Not to mention the fact that the Saudi Arabian oil reserves are nearing the end of their long term usefulness.)

Does the banking and one world government stand to gain from the establishment of a permanent US presence in the Middle East? Of course. Money creates strange bedfellows to be sure.

Think for a moment what type of reaction would occur in the USA – on the left and the right – if the NAU were established and it was even perceived – whether it was true or not- that the establishment of the NAU would scuttle and US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Can you imagine the popular uproar?

The assumption that this information is being kept under raps in order to foment a totalitarian regime is a bit over the top. Like most things of this nature, the press is asked to not react and not assist information until it is more documented and understood. The same thing was done in the establishment of the EU.

Informed citizens around the world understood in the early 80′s that the EU was going to be established. It wasn’t an issue that was widely understood or seen in the media worldwide until the early 90′s. Was there a conspiracy there to take away the rights of Europeans and control their lives? Doesn’t appear to be does it?

It’s easy to see conspiracy in emotional contexts based in fear. What we don’t know can hurt us. At least in our minds.

The real issue here is how much control do we want banks to have in our world? Is the creation of economic unions in our best interests?

And, as far as liberties are concerned: As long as we remain vigilant and fight for what we believe in, and stay informed and aware, our rights should remain secure.

Any and all affronts to our rights will be met and challenged. That much is clear.

It’s always been a brilliant move, and this time it’s likely Karl Rove’s parting gift to the faltering Bush Administration. For weeks we patiently waited for General David Petraeus’ testimony before Congress as to whether the surge in Iraq was a success or a failure. It mattered not that it was already a forgone conclusion that the General was to state that the surge was indeed a success, even if there was information that said it was mixed at best, major programs need to be scrapped entirely, or worse, and the war proper was an ongoing financial disaster.

But, truth be told, that’s not where the real action was for the public relations obsessed Bush White House and the noise machine. For, it was also a forgone conclusion that many on the left would react against the surge being proclaimed a success. They would do this vocally and in public and were deeply preparing to do so, as John Edwards did when buying ads to counter Bush’s speech, and as Move On did with it’s “betray us” ad in the New York Times.

Since the very first days in office the public relations m.o. for the Bush White House has always been to wrap Dubya in the military uniform, and to surround him with members of the military whenever possible. But, never have they used a member of the military in uniform to take their political hits and then used that uniform to deflect those hits by saying: “You’re attacking a man in uniform! How unpatriotic!”

It’s important at this moment to remember that it was the Bush White House that placed General David Petraeus into the political waters in the first place and then had the unmitigated gall to yell “shark!” and point fingers. Of course, the plan was always to meld Petraeus into Bush. As Mark Silva put it:

Tonight, the Petraeus plan becomes the Bush plan.

Alas, the Bush speech was met with mostly disdain for its lack of stating anything new, its predictability and its total obviousness in the face of expectation. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say, and he said it. Disappointing to say the least. Why? Because it was all a ruse. The hopes of the White House marketing mavens were dashed upon the rocks, their expectations of the public rallying around the man in uniform and transferring that warm and fuzzy moment onto the president lost in the smoke of the all too political atmosphere that permeated the situation once the conservative noise machine got wind of the Move On ad.

It took the White House a week to actually respond to it themselves, their minions doing such a good job of diversion, disinformation and distortion. But, in the end, when the president did speak upon it, lowering himself to do so, the true nature of it all became clear. And, as all fascists do, they pushed the fear button, and the cowards stood up to be counted, fearful of criticizing the man in uniform who is speaking for the president.

It was brilliant in that regard. A beautiful ruse. Because in the end, we’re not talking about how the Republicans in the US Congress blocked legislation that would give overworked and outstretched US soldiers a bit more leave, or how democratically elected Parliament of Iraq has asked the US to set a timetable to leave Iraq, to not occupy Iraq indefinitely, but the US has refused, or how the Prime Minister of Iraq has asked the US to remove Blackwater operatives from his country, the White House plays deaf and dumb, because the law doesn’t apply to everyone and the dispute rages on and on. We’re not talking about those issues are we?

Democracy struggles at home and abroad because democracy is not the plan. It’s a ruse.

Keith Obermann has the last word on this.

Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air expressed this confusion:

“[Mohammed] confessed to 29 plots in all, including the Richard Reid shoebomb plot and planned assassinations of the pope and . . . Jimmy Carter?”

These extremists come to believe their twisted rhetoric that Democrats are on the side of Al Qaeda and so they literally can’t understand why Mohammed would want to assassinate his own allies like President Carter.

The irony is twofold: It’s not only as Glenn states that right wing extremists can’t believe that a terrorist would want to assassinate a “Liberal ally”, it is also that they are literally supporting the terrorist agenda (the assassintion of a former US President) of one “sworn enemy” (the terrorists) to “fight” their other perceived “sworn enemy”: everyone who disagrees with them. Of course, this contradiction is entirely lost on them, being so completely immersed in an ass backward ideology rooted in hatred.

Continues Glenn Greenwald in his post entitled “Support for al-Qaida plots on large right-wing blog”:

Here, one of the largest right-wing blog communities which pretends to be opposed to Al Qaeda is expressing support for Al Qaeda murder plots against former U.S. Presidents. The significance is overwhelming and self-evident, and many American journalists have shown how commendably eager they are to transcend partisan differences and rise up in righteous condemnation against this sort of “sick” bile.

And, several important factors distinguish this story from the HuffPost story, making it more meaningful. Unlike Huffington Post, which deleted the comments in question, Johnson has left them on his blog. Even more significantly, Johnson actively and regularly deletes comments he does not like, which lends some credibility to the notion that he approves of these comments, or at least does not find them sufficiently offensive to delete them, the way he does with scores of other comments.

It is worth restating that if the shoe were on the other foot and the comments on a Liberal website were calling for the assassination of a former US President – George H.W. Bush for example- you can be damn sure that the lizturds at LGF would be wetting their pants over it, Little Grubby Fingers trembling as they typed each word, calling for Liberals to be swinging from the trees for expressing such “traitorous” views. The headline would read something like: “Liberal website supports assassination of US President”, or something akin to it. We’ve seen this before. Last week, Bill Maher said:

“But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.”

Maher’s statement above was misrepresented all over the right wing blogsphere variously as: