So who then facilitated, financed, and orchestrated the wars? Follow the money and you have the answers. Stalin?? Nothing but a thug-puppet, his particular 'ism', a construct as well.

Whoever makes the loans, orchestrates wars.

One more for the road: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/01/today_i_briefed.html

Bruce Schneier, whom I consider to be the supreme overlord in my line of work, was asked to brief six members of Congress on the actions of the NSA, because the NSA refused to.

This is so surreal that somebody should investigate if this whole affaire is being orchestrated by John Cleese...

Look to the people who have everything to gain from remaining hidden who are orchestrating this bleak future of surveillance, control, and thought-crime?
How can people do anything but do nothing with 'eyes wide shut' without freeing themselves from the programming that makes each generation more willing to accept anything that may come in exchange for creature comforts from a vending machine or television and an illusory hope of a future?

I got yer point, but the answer is in asking the sensible questions, the simple ones that any journalist knows and fails to press: Who, what, why, when, and where only work if you have no ulterior motives for gathering and transferring information.

Who wants drones everywhere and whom are they to be deployed against, what do they want drones for, why do they want to use them, when, where, you get the gyst?

To answer your inquiry, the only way they can implement this surveillance/domination/fascist future is to create the environment ripe for it, that being a world full of humans unable to think clearly, practically, and critically. In case you are unaware, the stage is being prepared through the same brand of disinformation and misdirection the goddamn Nazis used to dupe Germany, it's simply more sophisticated and polished nowadays.

The world is fast becoming a collection of easily manipulated and controlled idiots, morons, imbeciles and dysfunctional humans...easily convinced of anything they are fed.

Thank God the pep-rally for political pundits and fans of the next big election have died down on the Videosift for it means to me that the far 'left' and 'right' are beginning to realize they have been hoodwinked. Apolitical extremism gives me hope and scares the shit outta me at the same time, because the puppet-masters mean business and have an agenda, and you and I... HUMANITY, are not in their buddy-club.

So the devil's antics are based in human years? I don't understand how the greatest of ALL angels gets "willier" over the course of 2000 some years when his existence is outside the restraints of time and space.

Same thing with God and His evolution of ideals. The law and then forgiveness and blah blah blah; slaves, no slaves; anathema, no anathema; burn shit to the ground for sins, don't stone the "prostitute". It doesn't make sense. None. At all.

Unless God ISN'T omnipotent, omnipresent, and/or benevolent. He can't be all of those things and yet so ignorantly rule creation within the context of human civilization pre-information age. Sorry, but if you don't see this pattern, you're living in denial. Either that or the idea of these beings is true and the Bible is the Devil's work.

Oh SNAP, didn't think about that in all of your squabbling, did you? The arguments over what to canonize; burning of Biblical apocrypha; human courts judging anathema over naysayers who were believers in God themselves; King James' toying with the text; and the list goes on and on. Lies! If God be love, Jesus saves and by faith be known, these historical truths makes your "holy" text anathema!

My bet is that the Devil knows the Bible because the Devil orchestrated it. If I believed in that sort of thing, that's what would make the most sense to me. But I suppose reason plays no part in the smoke and mirrors of gods and monsters.

Here's a bigger picture of mandatory " health insurance" , one that resembles another failed institution's successes and failures through extortion with the goal of diverting capitol to private coffers.

Fuck birth control, I don't feed myself as influenced by the corporate media machine's saturation diet of shit food but the majority of unhealthy, overweight, drones in sector EVERYWHERE do-The bulk of health care expenses in the U.S. are squandered on correcting or marginally forestalling the inevitable cascading failures associated with these poor diet habits fostered by the machine. The SAME machine owns the insurance companies, the medical establishment, down the fucking line.

Chicago 1921-1923- New York, Boston, hell pick a city on the east coast.
The mafia invented it, gangster fucks perfected it, it continues under the guise of the Affordable (fuck you, I have my own insurance) Care Act.

If people, were not such fucking imbeciles, they'd see through the simple veil of graft and extortion these suited, elected (joke) criminals use to continue to divert attention away from the obvious criminality of their ruse.

Get me started on eating healthy and the lack of availability and inaccessibility of the healthiest of raw materials...of how staple crops have been hijacked and genetically coded with ONE goal preeminent: To increase the profits of the monopolies that control the food supply.

The fastest way to fix the problem of affordable health care, is to fix the broken habits of dumb-ass humans who allow themselves to be bent-over and ass-fucked into thinking they need insurance AT ALL!

Teach people that their diets are being being systematically and fundamentally altered to keep them in this loop and the insurance companies and the cunts who make the laws that benefit them, will collapse under the weight of their own, orchestrated illusion.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

John Williams is a fantastic composer.

Some people might call this heresy, but personally I think he should be ranked up there with Beethoven and Tchaikovsky for grandiose orchestral music.

He's certainly the greatest composer of the modern era.

Freedom of Information provides a way for peeps to feel warm and cozy about their government acting unilaterally to ends deemed necessary by a small cadre of monkeys, while providing the mechanism for unchecked bullshit to continue unhindered.
OH, it also makes for marginally effective tabloid journalism, creating overnight sensations through banal, pompous delivery seasoned with an over-abundance of narcissistic swagger.

"CIA releases information"......Oxymoronic??! Haven't peeps with the ability to dissect newsspeak and "official statements" known that the CIA orchestrated the Iranian coup for over 30 years?

For the tiny morsels cretins like Cenk use to further distract increasing numbers of folks with regurgitate editorializing, the huge chunks of abuse of power sit rotting on a Nation's dinner plate, served nightly by whores of media everywhere. Cenk, yer a tool.

Drug lords using the press (Bozo the Limey Clown) to orchestrate the next consolidation/acquisition...

Ambassador Wooooolsey....Towing the party-line of "Create the problem, provide the solution." Some people simply need to be kicked in the face with their own bullshit...

Fuck Morgan, he demands his guests answer his bullshit questions and recoils from the same courtesy in every interview he orchestrates. The only way to deal with a choad like this is to over-shout him and disrupt his program....Like Alex Jones does so well-Someone needs to shut this errand-boy's shit down-I know, how about everyone stop watching CNN (or all television altogether)...only way to kill this pieces of shit like this-IGNORE them with your time and money.

and if THEESE folks hadn't invented, stumbled-upon, or otherwise orchestrated these wonderful (mostly toxic) phenomena, they would have eventually appeared anyhow.....Including Algebra, Calligraphy, and the game of polo.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits in the lamestream media mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.” Al Gore and Henry Waxman have become masters at this. Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Once he ventures outside of his specialty, he’s just a run-of-the-mill leftist loon.

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”), a fact totally lost, or grossly misrepresented, by global warming religionists.

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat.

Contrary to morons such as Al Gore (who will never agree to debate the topic, so fearful is he of getting his clock cleaned), scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, temperatures have flat-lined. They are now at 14.5 degrees Celsius which is exactly where they were in 1997. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term.

On a daily basis, politicians, like Obama, and pundits mindlessly bump their gums about global warming, uh... "climate change" (the term employed when the earth stopped warming), without having the slightest idea what they are talking about. Malloy is just the latest in a long line of demagogic politicians trying to capitalize on the scare. Most simply parrot the line about a "so-called "consensus of scientists," without the slightest knowledge of the science or data, or point to extreme weather events as “proof.”

Science does not operate on the basis of consensus, but provable fact and hard DATA that is replicable. No one can prove that C02 causes warming, apart from the other forces that are chiefly determinative of climate--solar output, cosmic rays (and their effect on cloud cover), the earth's elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, etc. The earth's climate cycle has been in place for eons and is not being altered by any significant degree by anthropogenic CO2. In fact, 99% of the people who believe in the "global warming crisis" cannot even tell you what the current globally-averaged temperature is, nor how much it may have risen over the past century (or any other time frame for that matter). Nor do they know that the current globally averaged temperature is 1-2 degrees C below what it was during the Medieval Warm Period, when human activity could not have been a factor.

Neither temperatures nor sea level rise are accelerating. Temperatures haven't risen since 1997. And even the U.N. predicts just an 8.5" to 18.5" sea level rise by 2100 (2007 IPCC Report), far below the 20 feet predicted by Al Gore, or the 35 feet predicted by Joe Lieberman in 2002. In fact, sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 7" per century since the end of the last age 12,500 years ago, so the U.N.'s predicted range is likely to fall at the low end.

Weather stations around the world are notoriously unreliable, many placed in locations now near asphalt parking lots, etc., replicating the urban island heat effect. Calculating the globally averaged temperature in an enormously complex task. compounded when scientific frauds like Phil Jones and Michael Mann (of the infamous "hockey stick" graph) hide, and would not supply, their data because it does not support their predetermined conclusions of anthropogenic global warming. (Climategate). This is not surprising, however, since thousands of scientists stand to collectively lose billions in federal research grants if the hoax is exposed (more than $80 billion has already been spent on such research, nearly 500 times what oil companies have spent to fund so-called “skeptics”).

The fact is: even if the earth's temperature is rising marginally, from natural forces, it will be far better for mankind than falling temperatures. It will result in higher crop yields and less death around the world. More than twice as many people die of extreme cold than extreme heat. The scientific evidence clearly shows that we have had no increase in extreme weather events. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, summed up the latest science on weather extremes when he wrote that “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change....There's really no evidence that we're in the midst of an extreme weather era - whether man has influenced climate or not,”
Pielke also explained that the data does not support linking Hurricane Sandy to man-made global warming. “Sandy was terrible, but we're currently in a relative hurricane 'drought'.” But that doesn’t stop politicians from trying to make political hay from them.

Much of the gum bumping about "global warming" may be attributed to the political aspirations of Al Gore who hoped to ride an environmental white horse into the White House. It all comes down to a politically-motivated overreaction to a 0.35 degree C increase in globally-averaged temperatures in the period from 1978-1997. Since 1998, as Mr. Hart correctly points out, temperatures have flat-lined or declined. What this amounted to was a hyperbolic response to a temporary and cyclical climate phenomenon, which has been replicated a myriad of times in human history.

The climate history of the 20th century, by itself, contradicts the CO2 equals warming hypothesis. From 1913-1945, CO2 was not a factor and temperatures rose slightly. And from 1945-1977, temperatures fell in the face of rising CO2. It was only in the period from 1978-1997 that temperatures and CO2 rose simultaneously. But since CO2 is likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, we will have periods of both rising and falling temperatures in the face of rising CO2.

The scientific travesty is that many politicians are trying to transform CO2 into a “pollutant” requiring draconian federal regulations whose only effect will be to stifle economic growth. CO2 is a harmless trace element constituting just 0.039 per cent of the earth's atmosphere (390 parts per million by volume). It's what humans and animals exhale and its presence helps plant production. 500 million years ago, CO was 20 times more prevalent in our atmosphere. The aim is to convince the uninformed that carbon dioxide is the equivalent of carbon monoxide, a highly toxic gas.

With time and historical perspective, the global warming crisis will turn out to be the greatest scientific fraud in history. But that won’t politicians from exploiting it in the short term. Obama has already wasted billions trying to fix a non-problem.
And now he’s even orchestrating the mindless followers of a new secular religion to march on the Mall to advance this silly agenda.

Uhhh, only stupid for the 98% who don't control the playbook...Golds' a fine standard for a system un-orchestrated by thieves and cunts.

He doesn't recognize the state of Israel, so the point of arguing the state of Israel is completely moot for him, THAT is the reason. He's not anti-semitic in the sense that he hates jews, he just doesn't recognize the state of Israel, no? That is not the same thing. It definately isn't interchangeable with any other nationality, as his problem is specifically with Israel.
This is much like how the Israeli government for the longest time refused to talk to the Palestinian leadership because it didn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state.
Let him discuss something else, ANYTHING else, with an Israeli person and you can be sure he'd be up for it.

He walked out from that debate because he got ambushed by the event organisers, who knew full well that he would not agree to any debate involving Israel and Israelis debating Israel, but decided to deceive him into participating by misleading him into believing the event was about something it was not. Had they been straightforward about this then he'd declined the invitation and the end result would be the same, he would not have participated. Instead, they orchestrated this whole debacle with the sole intent of gaining some publicity, and perhaps to cast him in bad light while they're at it. There was no other outcome from this, they knew he wouldn't participate and invited him anyway, making sure there would be cameras there to capture everything on film. That is shameful.

>> ^criticalthud:

amazingly, there are actually people on here questioning whether or not Karl fucking ROVE would stoop to cheating.
the man who has orchestrated more bullshit propaganda, flat-out lies, political strategies of un-cooperation and disinformation, war and mass murder.
YES, Karl fucking ROVE would rig an election.
He clearly believes he is ABOVE THE LAW
and for the most part, HE IS.


Exactly. One has to admit that this is entirely plausible, and that time lines certainly stack up. Karl's conniption fit on FOX about his certainty that Hamilton County would go Romney, even though Romney lost the county by 4% or so.

As to why he didn't try this in 2004, I would suggest it was because the tide was so severely against republicans in that year. As with this year, Obama would have won whether or not he lost Ohio.

Hopefully Anonymous will release some hard numbers and details. Karl Rove has been doing this for half his life, some time in prison might change that.