Establishment GOP leaders in St. Charles County, Missouri, shut down a caucus and had Ron Paul supporters arrested in order to avoid enthusiastic Ron Paul supporters from taking over the caucus March 17.

Kony 2012, hyped on the backs of celebrities and do-gooders, is revealed for what it is– a propaganda salvo for a continent wide invasion of Africa. Yes, the mantra War is Peace is once again drumming U.S. soldiers into further conflict.

Research makes clear that KONY is a sophisticated psy-op to muster popular support for what is, in reality, nothing more than a geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis China for oil and mineral resources, as well as an effort to legitimize the U.S. military’s AFRICOM unit in the region through newly-branded “humanitarian” interventions.

It is not only War in the name of “Peace,” but an attempt to empower the International Criminal Courtunder the influence of NGOs and other related globalist corporate interests.

Nobel Peace Prize “winner” Barack Obama has already deployed 100 special forces troops to the central African region back in October 2011, and a resolution in Congress– on the heels of KONY 2012′s viral views of at lest 80 million– seeks to send more forces there for an all out invasion on the pretext of hunting down a shadowy warlord with less blood on his hands than an average African despot.

Top celebrities vying for greater power including CFR member and UN goodwill ambassadorAngelina Jolie, actor George Clooney, media baroness Oprah Winfrey, as well as Africa-obsessed Bill Gates and Bono, have all come out in front of this issue.

CONTINUED at Prison Planet.

According to Jason Russell’s appearance on the Today show several days ago, over 500,000 action kits have been ordered at $30 a piece, meaning this campaign has brought in a minimum of $15M in revenue this week. This is great news: at least 500,000 people are “advocate[s] of awesome” according to the group’s webstore! So where’s that money going? I’ll leave it to Jedidiah Jenkins, Invisible Children’s Director of Ideology:

“Thirty-seven percent of our budget goes directly to central African-related programs, about 20 percent goes to salaries and overhead, and the remaining 43 percent goes to our awareness programs. […] But aside from that, the truth about Invisible Children is that we are not an aid organization, and we don’t intend to be. I think people think we’re over there delivering shoes or food. But we are an advocacy and awareness organization.”

Yes, you heard it from Invisible Children: more money goes to awareness than to Africa.

More detailed breakdown from the Guardian’s Julian Borger, John Vidal, and Rosebell Kagumire in Kampala, Uganda:

“Invisible Children’s accounts show it is a cash rich operation, which more than tripled its income to $9m (£5.68m) in 2011, mainly from personal donations. Of this, nearly 25% was spent on travel and film-making. Most of the money raised has been spent in the US. The accounts show $1.7m went on US employee salaries, $850,000 in film production costs, $244,000 in “professional services” – thought to be Washington lobbyists – and $1.07m in travel expenses. Nearly $400,000 was spent on offices in San Diego.”

Information about how they intend to spend their windfall 2012 revenue of a bare minimum of $15M has not been released, but as I wrote earlier, at least $3000 would’ve gone to flying me to both San Diego and Africa had I allowed them to do so. (Story behind that at the bottom of this post.) If I were Invisible Children, I’d start talking about where this new money’s going. I’m emailing Jason and Ben a link to this post to see if they’re willing to post a financial plan for the year ahead – is there yet another film in store?

RELATED: Kony 2012 charity to release new video addressing criticism of viral campaign

————————————————

Kony 2012 Group Supports Uganda’s Brutal Military Dictatorship

The Daily What
Monday, March 12, 2012

On Kony 2012: I honestly wanted to stay as far away as possible from KONY 2012, the latest fauxtivist fad sweeping the web (remember “change your Facebook profile pic to stop child abuse”?), but you clearly won’t stop sending me that damn video until I say something about it, so here goes:

Stop sending me that video.

The organization behind Kony 2012 — Invisible Children Inc. — is an extremely shady nonprofit that has been called ”misleading,” “naive,” and “dangerous” by a Yale political science professor, and has been accused by Foreign Affairs of “manipulat[ing] facts for strategic purposes.” They have also been criticized by the Better Business Bureau for refusing to provide information necessary to determine if IC meets the Bureau’s standards.

Additionally, IC has a low two-star rating in accountability from Charity Navigator because they won’t let their financials be independently audited. That’s not a good thing. In fact, it’s a very bad thing, and should make you immediately pause and reflect on where the money you’re sending them is going.

By IC’s own admission, only 31% of all the funds they receive go toward actually helping anyone[pdf]. The rest go to line the pockets of the three people in charge of the organization, to pay for their travel expenses (over $1 million in the last year alone) and to fund their filmmaking business (also over a million) — which is quite an effective way to make more money, as clearly illustrated by the fact that so many can’t seem to stop forwarding their well-engineered emotional blackmail to everyone they’ve ever known.

And as far as what they do with that money:

The group is in favour of direct military intervention, and their money supports the Ugandan government’s army and various other military forces. Here’s a photo of the founders of Invisible Children posing with weapons and personnel of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. Both the Ugandan army and Sudan People’s Liberation Army are riddled with accusations of rape and looting, but Invisible Children defends them, arguing that the Ugandan army is “better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries”, although Kony is no longer active in Uganda and hasn’t been since 2006 by their own admission. These books each refer to the rape and sexual assault that are perennial issues with the UPDF, the military group Invisible Children is defending.

Let’s not get our lines crossed: The Lord’s Resistance Army is bad news. And Joseph Kony is a very bad man, and needs to be stopped. But propping up Uganda’s decades-old dictatorship and its military arm, which has been accused by the UN ofcommitting unspeakable atrocities and itself facilitated the recruitment of child soldiers, is not the way to go about it.

The United States is already plenty involved in helping rout Kony and his band of psycho sycophants. Kony is on the run, having been pushed out of Uganda, and it’s likely he will soon be caught, if he isn’t already dead. But killing Kony won’t fix anything, just as killing Osama bin Laden didn’t end terrorism. The LRA might collapse, but, as Foreign Affairs points out, it is “a relatively small player in all of this — as much a symptom as a cause of the endemic violence.”

Myopically placing the blame for all of central Africa’s woes on Kony — even as a starting point — will only imperil many more people than are already in danger.

Sending money to a nonprofit that wants to muck things up by dousing the flames with fuel is not helping. Want to help? Really want to help? Send your money to nonprofits that are putting more than 31% toward rebuilding the region’s medical and educational infrastructure, so that former child soldiers have something worth coming home to.

Here are just a few of those charities. They all have a sparkling four-star rating from Charity Navigator, and, more importantly, no interest in airdropping American troops armed to the teeth into the middle of a multi-nation tribal war to help one madman catch another.

The bottom line is, research your causes thoroughly. Don’t just forward a random video to a stranger because a mass murderer makes a five-year-old “sad.” Learn a little bit about the complexities of the region’s ongoing strife before advocating for direct military intervention.

There is no black and white in the world. And going about solving important problems like there is just serves to make all those equally troubling shades of gray invisible.

All stories linked on Prison Planet.

Footage appears to show “activist” coordinating fake gunfire.

Astounding footage has emerged of ‘Syria Danny’ – the dubious “activist” who appears on mainstream news every week begging for a US or Israeli military invasion – in which he apparently coordinates gunfire and explosions to be staged during his interview with CNN.

.As we have previously documented, ‘Syria Danny’ is a 22-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent from Cambridge. After returning from Homs in summer last year, he lived in London for a few months before returning to Syria in December, from which point onwards he became the poster child for a western military intervention in Syria, begging almost daily on CNN for the United States or even Israel to bombard the country.

The clip above shows Danny being connected to CNN for one of the many interviews the station has conducted within him over the last few months.

While waiting to be connected, Danny says, “Well, let the gunfire sound then,” before subsequently asking someone off camera, “Did you tell him to get the gunfire ready?” An explosion is heard soon after, but Danny doesn’t even flinch.

The person working the camera, Danny himself, and at least one person off camera, clearly appear to be coordinating staged gunfire and explosions to coincide with the CNN interview.

The cameraman then reminds Danny to talk about recovering dead bodies before the interview with Anderson Cooper begins. The talking point about Assad’s forces carrying out indiscriminate violence is strongly emphasized.

CONTINUED at Infowars. Written by Paul Joseph Watson.

Long-running suit claimed residents of Nitro, West Virginia were exposed to the carcinogenic Vietnam-era chemical weapon.

Chemicals giant Monsanto has reached a settlement with US residents who claimed they were poisoned by chemicals used in the manufacturing of the Vietnam-era chemical weapon Agent Orange.

The long-running suit was brought by residents living near a now-defunct Monsanto plant in Nitro, West Virginia that between 1949 and 1971 produced the agricultural herbicide 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacidic acid, a key ingredient in Agent Orange.

The weapon was used extensively during the Vietnam war, killing and maiming an estimated 400,000 people and leading to 500,000 birth defects. In 2005 a US court rejected a case brought by Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

The suit – filed on behalf of tens of thousands of people who lived, worked and went to school in Nitro after 1949 – claimed Monsanto spread toxic substances including dioxins, which have been linked to cancer, all over the town.

The plaintiffs say they were exposed to levels of dioxins 100,000 times higher than acceptable levels. “Dioxin is a known human carcinogen and is so hazardous to human health that no “safe” level of exposure has been established,” the suit claimed.

As part of the settlement, the chemicals firm has set up a 30-year medical monitoring programme. Thousands of people who lived or worked in the Nitro area during the time period covered by the lawsuit will be eligible to apply for benefits. The company said that a $21m fund has been set up to pay for medical testing with a further $63m available over the 30-year life of the screening programme.

In addition Monsanto agreed to pay $9m for the professional cleaning of eligible homes in the Nitro area. The company also agreed to the Nitro residents’ court-approved legal fees and litigation costs.

The settlement made no findings of wrongdoing against Monsanto.

Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president, said: “These settlements ensure that both individual and community concerns are addressed, and services are made available for the people of Nitro. We are pleased to resolve this matter and end any concerns about historic operations at the Nitro plant.”

Nitro has a long history with warfare manufacturing. The town was given its explosive name when it was created in 1917 to service one of the US’s main ammunition plants.

Source: The Guardian.

Anonymous strikes Dutch website promoting pedophilia, releases names and personal information belonging to website users.

This week LulzFinancial, a hacktivist crew associated with the international Internet collective known as Anonymous, hacked into a Dutch website catering to individuals favoring the decriminalization of pedophilia.

(Because of the nature of the pedophile friendly website a link will not be posted. However, at the time of publication, the website in question was unavailable.)

On Thursday, LulzFinancial announced the action on their website:

Greetings Friends,

We’ve been busy over here at LulzFinancial. Today we dropped the d0x on some pedo’s…

(Dox – Personal information about people on the Internet, often including real name, known aliases, address, phone number, SSN, credit card number, etc.)

• Anonymous via AntiSec hacks FTC – rage over ACTA grows
• Anonymous takes down NASDAQ in solidarity with 99 percent, OWS
• Anonymous strikes ‘war profiteering’ tear gas manufacturer Combined Systems
• Anonymous punishes Interpol after Saudi blasphemy arrest
• CIA Tango Down: Anonymous strikes again

Source: The Examiner.

After huge volume of complaints, Fox reporter was forced to do-over post debate breakdown revealing that Ron Paul blitzed the debate in every category.

The dirty tricks campaign against GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul reached new heights during the South Carolina debate last night, with virtual exclusion from the first 40 minutes of the program, poisonous questions in the second half, and a cringe inducing situation during the post debate analysis where Fox pundits were forced to admit that Paul had completely wiped the floor with the other candidates.

During the post debate commentary, Fox reporter John Roberts blatantly excluded Paul from the charts and graphs he presented representing feedback from viewers.

The results of Twitter surveys on which candidate had most accurately answered questions and who had performed the best were displayed with Ron Paul’s name nowhere to be seen.

Almost one hour later, Roberts was called upon to go over the results one more time, after floods of complaints from viewers asking why Paul had been left out.

“John, you caused a fury in my world.” Fox anchor Harris Faulkner began. “I have a bone to pick with you. You left off Ron Paul.” she added, before Roberts attempted to slime out of the fact hat he had totally excluded Paul from his results tally by saying that because Ron Paul won by huge margins in every category, it was unnecessary to report on it!

Roberts then went through each debate topic again with Paul added to the graphic. As he explained the result Roberts downplayed and skipped over Ron Paul’s figures in every category, causing Harris Faulkner to interject.

“John, can I stop you right there because I’m getting real time feedback.” Faulkner said. “Ron Paul did not just do well, he did the best from that chart. I just want to be fair because people are watching for this.” she added.

Roberts then laughed out loud and flippantly said “his bars are bigger than everyone else’s, we report you decide.” before once again mocking Paul’s performance as he continued the presentation.

Watch the unbelievable footage below:

The fact that Ron Paul was the outright winner of  the debate was remarkable, given the fact that the moderators had done their utmost to exclude, smear and misrepresent the Congressman earlier in the night.

The opening portion of the debate was exclusively reserved for Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to attack frontrunner Mitt Romney in an atmosphere that more resembled The Jerry Springer show than a coherent political debate.

Refraining from joining in with such pantomime ridiculousness, Ron Paul patiently waited to be addressed by the moderators… and waited… and waited.

Indeed, during the first 40 minutes Ron Paul was only asked one question, and that was about “scathing attacks” on the other candidates in campaign ads. Refusing to be drawn into what was rapidly becoming something resembling an opening segment of WWE Smackdown, Paul succinctly noted that he believed pointing out legitimate flaws in the other candidates voting records was fair game.

As the exclusion of Paul continued, it even triggered a commercial break discussion between the Fox political panel about how Paul was being sidelined. Analyst Ed Rollins commented, “I thought Paul placed second in New Hampshire and was effectively second in Iowa – but they’ve got him standing way over on the side.”

When Paul was finally asked further questions, they were so leading and laced with underlying venom it defied belief.

With almost every question the Congressman had to begin his answer by correcting the moderators for grossly distorting his position on multiple issues.

Firstly, Paul had to once again explain that there is a significant difference between “defense spending” and Pentagon waste, and that he is not about to decimate military funding, as the moderators suggested.

“You don’t understand there’s a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend — spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad bigger than the Vatican — you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste.” Paul said to thunderous applause.

“I want to cut military money. I don’t want to cut defense money,” Paul said. “I want to bring the troops home. I’d probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That’s how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that’s what we should do,” he contended.

Following that, Fox Moderator Bret Baier then essentially called Paul a terrorist-sympathizer by suggesting that he was opposed to the capture of Osama Bin Laden and that international law should have prevented US forces from tracking Bin Laden down.

“Obviously no, and I did not say that.” Paul retorted, explaining that he voted for provisions to go after Bin Laden following 9/11, and even introduced legislation to keep focused on the target, rather than become embroiled in nation building.

Paul then explained that “there are proper procedures, rather than digging bigger holes for ourselves”, noting that a ten year campaign of bombing Pakistan and repeatedly violating their sovereignty was not something he supported.

Watch all of Ron Paul’s debate answers below:

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, andPrisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Source: Prison Planet.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step. As he has previously, Panetta cautioned against a unilateral strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear facilities, saying the action could trigger Iranian retaliation against U.S. forces in the region. “We have common cause here” with Israel, he said. “And the better approach is for us to work together.” Panetta’s remarks on CBS’ Face the Nation, which were taped Friday and aired Sunday, reflect the long-held view of the Obama administration that Iran is not yet committed to building a nuclear arsenal, only to creating the industrial and scientific capacity to allow one if its leaders to decide to take that final step. – PressTV/YouTube/Washington Post

Dominant Social Theme: Iran is evil. War is in the offing.

Free-Market Analysis:  Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that Iran was not seeking to make nuclear weapons. OK, we can all relax now, right? Not quite. Panetta went on to caution that Iran was seeking a “nuclear capability” and that this “concerned” him – and presumably others as well.

Who are the others, we ask? President Barack Obama? The military? The CIA? Israel? No, we have another hypothesis. We think the current crisis is a manufactured one and that Iran’s “capability” – whatever it is – has little to do with any contemplated war.

There will be war, if there is war, between the West and Persia because the West NEEDS a war. Already, in the West, the alternative media – often a beacon of truth and hope – is explaining there will be war because ISRAEL feels threatened.

But this is not quite true, either. Israel is a creation of the power elite and it is the Anglosphere power elite that is currently seeking war, in our view. It seems to need or want a war to prop up its failing central banking system.

It is the failure of the financial system, proceeding apace, that gives rise to this talk of war, to the military tensions, to the tendentious statements made by Washington, DC and to a lesser extent by European and Israeli leaders.

What other conclusion can be reached? Iran HAS no nuclear weapons. And even if it did, is Iran somehow more evil or unstable than North Korea, which is evidently bent on increasing a nuclear arsenal that it already has built?

But Iran, it is said, can target Israel with nuclear weapons. Yet North Korea can do the same with South Korea. Compare the “tensions” and rhetoric and one has to conclude that a double standard is being applied. It is seemingly a situation where Iran’s ongoing nuclear program is simply a tool designed to unlock wider rhetoric. Here’s a further excerpt from a Washington Post on the subject:

The comments suggest the White House’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear strategy has not changed in recent months, despite warnings from advocates of military action that time is running out to prevent Tehran from becoming a nuclear-armed state. Iran says its nuclear program is only for energy and medical research, and refuses to halt uranium enrichment.

Several Republican candidates have called for a tougher line against Iran, saying they believe it is committed to building the bomb. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon,” said Mitt Romney. “And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.”

Rick Santorum has said that the U.S. should plan a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and “say to them that if you do not open up those facilities and close them down, we will close them down for you.” Iran has opened two dozen of its facilities to international inspectors, but has refused in defiance of the U.N. Security Council to suspend its uranium enrichment.

Panetta did not rule out launching a pre-emptive strike. “But the responsible thing to do right now is to keep putting diplomatic and economic pressure on them to force them to do the right thing,” he said. “And to make sure that they do not make the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon.”

We can see from the above excerpt how strongly the drums of war are beating. Panetta, while admitting that Iran has no weaponized nuclear program, will not rule out a “pre-emptive” strike. The entire scenario seems to be some kind of power elite dominant social theme.

These fear-based themes are essentially tools used by the elites to stampede Western middle classes into giving up wealth and power to global institutions specially constructed for that purpose, such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.

In this case, we are not quite sure why the Pentagon – an elite-oriented institution – has decided to focus so intently on Iran. We are sure, however (as we have pointed out previously), that the powers-that-be are creating an Islamic crescent arc in the Middle East by destabilizing secular regimes and replacing them with Islamic ones.

This is ongoing … and perhaps the malicious rhetoric surrounding Iran is merely part of a propaganda process intended to further demonize the region preparatory to a full-on regional war.

Modern wars need years, even decades, to foment, in our view. In the Internet era, this is even harder because people’s natural skepticism about being manipulated will surely be fueled by the fodder provided by various alternative ‘Net news.

Iran/Western tensions seen through this lens are perhaps preparatory and do not indicate an immediate state of hostilities. On the other hand, the amount of weaponry now emplaced in and around Iran certainly gives rise to concern. Even a war planned for later can be generated sooner by mistake (intentional or not). View the video below and make up your own mind.

In a move that almost defies belief, is so brazen and hypocritical many will not believe it no matter how many State Department officials confirm it, the US has been guarding a terrorist training camp inside Iraq with US troops and is planning to relocated them, possibly in a freshly abandoned US military base in Iraq while D.C. lobbyists work feverishly to have them de-listed, armed, and sent to conduct terrorist operations in Iran.

MEK. Admittedly a terrorist organization, listed by the US State Department as being such, it is fully funded, armed, and backed by the United States, based in France and US-occupied Iraq, and allowed to conduct terrorist operations against the Iranian people. The “War on Terror” is a fraud.

Foreign Policy Magazine has reported in their article, “State Department scrambling to move the MEK — to a former U.S. military base?” fully admits that Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) is a terrorist organization used by Saddam Hussein to attack Iran in the 80′s and was responsible for the death of US military personnel and civilians. Foreign Policy reports that efforts by the Iraqi Army to evict MEK has resulted in armed clashes.

Foreign Policy then reports the United Nations “Assistance Mission in Iraq” (UNAMI) is working with the US State Department to relocate the terrorists within Iraq and possibly at a US military base near Baghdad’s airport.

Despite being listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department (#28 listed as “Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization”) its leadership is harbored in Paris, its rank and file harbored by US troops in Iraq, and the US State Department itself overseeing their continued existence and the continuation of their armed terrorist campaign. Foreign Policy also notes a huge lobbying movement in Washington working to de-list MEK as a terrorist organization, including:

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA),
former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell,
former FBI Director Louis Freeh,
former Sen. Robert Torricelli,
Rep. Patrick Kennedy,
former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano,
former National Security Advisor James Jones,
former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean,
former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani,
former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers,
former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card,
Gen. Wesley Clark,
former Rep. Lee Hamilton,
former CIA Director Porter Goss,
senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss,
Gen. Anthony Zinni,
former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge,
former Sen. Evan Bayh

Indeed, warmongering Islamophobist cheerleader Rudolph Giuliani is taking money from a genuine terrorist organization and lobbying the US government to have it removed from the US State Department list. Tom Ridge is also listed as coddling MEK terrorists, ironically after being named the first “Homeland Security Secretary” from 2003-2005. Lee Hamilton, the vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, is perhaps the most alarming name listed, as it casts serious doubts over the objectivity, integrity, and veracity with which he conducted his “investigation” of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

CONTINUED at Land Destroyer. Written by Tony Cartalucci.