Government Subterfuge?

Posted on October 24, 2011


Many conservative blogs have accused our government of being less than forthright or less than transparent in its domestic and foreign policies. Yours truly is among that those blogs. It appears that we are not alone in our distrust of government and I want to report on three such stories from disparate sources. I say disparate because one author is a well-known libertarian and the other two appear to be anti-globalist, anti-war leftists.

Domestic Policy Subterfuge

The first story that I want to talk about is about domestic government subterfuge and comes to us from none other than our favorite libertarian judge, Andrew P. Napolitano. recently ran a transcript of one of the judge’s famous Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? series.

The judge claims that our government has been, shall I say, less than honest with us over their claims about thwarting home-grown terrorism. He tells us that since the 9/11 attacks, our government claims to have stopped 17 terrorist attacks. There were three other planned terrorist attacks that were thwarted by alert citizens: the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, and the Times Square bomber. According to Judge Napolitano, all the other 17 so-called terrorist attacks that were prevented by government agents, were in fact scams; there never were any attacks planned by terrorist that need to be stopped. The “attacks” were actually planned by the government, which then went out looking for dupes to buy into the plans and then the government would arrest the “mark” and make a claim of thwarting a home grown terrorist. The judge even believes this latest coup of stopping a planned assassination of the Saudi Ambassador to the US, was also a government scam.

I find this very disturbing. What the judge has described seems to fit a pattern with this administration. These set-up terrorist attacks smack  a whole lot like the Fast and Furious fiasco, which I and many others believe was nothing more than a plan to stir-up violence along the border with American supplied guns to give the government an excuse to pass more gun control laws. These fake terrorist attacks, to me, seem to be  way of fulfilling Janet Napolitano’s prophesy that America is more threatened by homegrown terrorist than foreign terrorist. I see this as an a way for the government to justify stronger security measures that infringe on our rights of privacy;  as a way to further the goal of turning America into a police state.

Foreign Policy Subterfuge

Does anyone understand what our governments policies are with regard to  the Middle-East and Africa? If you are like me, you are confused as to what our government’s long-term strategy is for this region of the world. Thanks to Patricia (loopyloo) of MY BLOG, I came to read two articles that were post a few days apart at the Mb50’s “Liquid Mud” Blog. This blog, as far as I can tell, has no political bent. It appears to be operated by an expert in the oil and gas industry and among other things it promotes oil and gas development in the US. It may be that the only reason the two articles I am about to refer to appear on this blog is that both authors have theories  (conspiracy theories?) about Obama’s recent announcement to send troops into Uganda are tied to oil and other natural resources.

Both articles that I am about to discuss are so similar that at first I thought they were two articles by the same author, but they are not. The firs article, Obama, the king of Africa, was written by Pepe Escobar who is a Brazilian author and a journalist. The second article, A son of Africa claims a continent’s crown jewels was authored by John Pilger, an Australian journalist and documentary maker, based in London.

Both authors are convinced that Obama’s recent announcement about send troops to Uganda, South Sudan and Central Africa, to aid in hunting down th leader,   Joseph Kony,  of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) “rebels”is a total ruse. As Pilger points out:”The LRA has been doing its nasty work for 24 years, of minimal interest to the United States.” Escobar and Pilger are in agreement that Obama’s real interest in this region is to thwart China’s growing influence in the region and to gain control over what they believe are massive mineral and oil riches in the area. Pilger goes further with his anti-Americanism and suggest this is just one more step by America in its quest to rule the world. At any rate, I suggest you give these articles a read and judge for yourself if they have anything to offer in understanding our government’s true intentions in the Middle-East and Africa. Me, I’m inclined to believe that Escobar may be on to something.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

About these ads