Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Breitbart's 'possible' death gun shown at United States Senate hearings!
I said, "possible" not "probable"...but the headline did get to you, didn't it!
The other day I cross- posted a video that suggests and/or hints at some foul play in the death of Andrew Breitbart (you can watch the video here). Certainly I was surprised and shocked at Breitbart's sudden death considering his age and I was not aware of any medical problems. Another observation that didn't make much sense to me was the fact that reports came out almost immediately that he died of natural causes with no indication that an autopsy was performed...now how many people are reported of having died of natural causes when they are in their early 40's? Strange isn't it? In any event, maybe it was my imagination running wild but immediately upon learning of his death I thought foul play was involved, especially after having stated at the recent CPAC meeting in Washington, DC that he was about to release some incriminating videos of Barack Husein Obama. Without ever having heard of a sophisticated dart gun my first thoughts were that such an item existed. This thought was amplified when I heard that Andrew was seen walking outside his home shortly prior to his death. As the days passed I tried to put those wild dreams to rest. But as suddenly as I forgot they were reincarnated in the video below. The dart gun scenario does exist! Not only is it an item designed for clandestine use, it was openly discussed at some hearings in front of the United States Senate (I say Senate, because I recognized Senator John Tower from Texas and Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona...and with those two identified it would put the time frame in the early 60's possibly 1960 or 61.) So before chastising me about my wild-ish dreams check out this video and let your imagination run wild. ~ Norman E. Hooben
The other day I cross- posted a video that suggests and/or hints at some foul play in the death of Andrew Breitbart (you can watch the video here). Certainly I was surprised and shocked at Breitbart's sudden death considering his age and I was not aware of any medical problems. Another observation that didn't make much sense to me was the fact that reports came out almost immediately that he died of natural causes with no indication that an autopsy was performed...now how many people are reported of having died of natural causes when they are in their early 40's? Strange isn't it? In any event, maybe it was my imagination running wild but immediately upon learning of his death I thought foul play was involved, especially after having stated at the recent CPAC meeting in Washington, DC that he was about to release some incriminating videos of Barack Husein Obama. Without ever having heard of a sophisticated dart gun my first thoughts were that such an item existed. This thought was amplified when I heard that Andrew was seen walking outside his home shortly prior to his death. As the days passed I tried to put those wild dreams to rest. But as suddenly as I forgot they were reincarnated in the video below. The dart gun scenario does exist! Not only is it an item designed for clandestine use, it was openly discussed at some hearings in front of the United States Senate (I say Senate, because I recognized Senator John Tower from Texas and Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona...and with those two identified it would put the time frame in the early 60's possibly 1960 or 61.) So before chastising me about my wild-ish dreams check out this video and let your imagination run wild. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Friday, March 2, 2012
China: 40 years after Nixon... In the overall scheme of things has anything changed?
by Norman E. Hooben
Its been now forty years since President Nixon was given the credit for opening the doors to China. I remember the event quite clearly although at the time I had no idea what the future would bring regarding this new era of diplomacy with an otherwise unknown, or in some sense, a restrictive society. My own feelings at the time was of a country where its own citizens were held hostage by a totalitarian government with a proletariat workforce (Marxism). Though China has taken on some of the idiosyncrasies of capitalism I don't think in the overall scheme of things much has changed. Sure tourism has opened the door for westerners to get a glimpse of the great wall but there's still a wall that separates us ideologically that gives meaning to the phrase, "East is east and west is west and never the two shall meet." So in the commentary that follows my first concern is the use of the word friendship in the title. Are we really friends or are we taken advantage of during these times of complacency in American culture amplified by weak leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
While the author attempts to paint a pretty picture of our relationship with China you might want to read some other opinions.
Seeds of 1972 blossomed into Sino-US friendship
The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Yu Jincui based on a written interview with Chas Freeman, a retired diplomat who now chairs a global business development firm, Projects International, Inc. He was the principal US interpreter during President Nixon's path-breaking visit to China in 1972. yujincui@globaltimes.com.cn
Its been now forty years since President Nixon was given the credit for opening the doors to China. I remember the event quite clearly although at the time I had no idea what the future would bring regarding this new era of diplomacy with an otherwise unknown, or in some sense, a restrictive society. My own feelings at the time was of a country where its own citizens were held hostage by a totalitarian government with a proletariat workforce (Marxism). Though China has taken on some of the idiosyncrasies of capitalism I don't think in the overall scheme of things much has changed. Sure tourism has opened the door for westerners to get a glimpse of the great wall but there's still a wall that separates us ideologically that gives meaning to the phrase, "East is east and west is west and never the two shall meet." So in the commentary that follows my first concern is the use of the word friendship in the title. Are we really friends or are we taken advantage of during these times of complacency in American culture amplified by weak leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government.
While the author attempts to paint a pretty picture of our relationship with China you might want to read some other opinions.
1. Is China trying to poison Americans and their pets?The following from: Global Times
2. China is the enemy: Their plan to conquer America and the West.
Seeds of 1972 blossomed into Sino-US friendship
This month marks the 40th anniversary of former US President Richard Nixon's icebreaking visit to China.
I had lived in China - in Taiwan - and studied Chinese there, but the Nixon visit in 1972 was my first time on the mainland. One cannot gain much impression of a place when one is limited to official meetings and sightseeing. Still, Beijing and Shanghai then preserved a great deal of the traditional architecture and character that modernization has erased. I had the sense of stepping back in time and into a society that worked at a slower pace than the outside world.
In 1972, China was in the last throes of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). China was internationally isolated and estranged from both the Soviet Union and the US, both of which it saw as threatening to attack it. China was desperately poor. It sought economic autarky and was not a factor in the global economy. Both Chinese and Americans viewed the Nixon visit to Beijing as a strategic turning point, but neither had any idea how far-reaching its effects would be.
For Americans, who watched the events in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai on television, the President's visit to China was a voyage of discovery to a land few had known and almost none had seen since the establishment of the People's Republic of China 23 years before. Chinese were told to stay off the streets and keep their peace during the visit. They made no fuss of the visit but were aware that something extraordinary was happening.
The immense prestige of Chairman Mao was invoked to legitimize the strategic reorientation that the visit accomplished. Most but not all Americans and Chinese applauded the statesmanship and vision of their leaders. A few on both sides could not overcome past feelings of enmity and were opposed.
The forces that have made China a respected participant in global governance and a major factor in the global economy were first unleashed in February 1972. Within six years, the very limited Sino-US interaction that the Shanghai Communiqué facilitated led to the process of reform and opening-up that has transformed China, its role in the world, and the world itself.
The Nixon visit showed that China and the US were capable of rising above the major differences we had at the time and cooperating for mutual advantage. February 1972 saw the beginning of a process of rapprochement in which, with much hard work by both sides, the differences between us steadily narrowed.
In the following 40 years, we have developed habits of cooperation to replace the mutual isolation of the past. We have gone from enmity to partnership in almost every field of human endeavor. We have come to respect each other, even as we sometimes differ.
Today, there are still a few serious disputes between the US and China but there is far better mutual understanding, differences are much less, and constructive dialogue takes place between us at all levels. The relationship begun by a few officials on both sides in 1972 has grown to have deep roots in the two peoples.
The past 40 years have brought enormous progress in our relations. There will continue to be incidents, arguments, and twists and turns as we move forward but I see no reason that the next 40 years should not register even more progress.
As the recent visit of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping to the US illustrates, our leaders now consider it entirely normal to visit and talk to each other. Both Americans and Chinese have come to understand how important it is for our two countries to explore ways to work together to the common advantage. In 1972, we had no relationship at all. Now we are interdependent. Our interactions, non-existent or indirect 40 years ago, are now the most consequential in the world.
We have come a very long way from the hostile relationship of 40 years ago and we should by now have learned not attribute malevolent intent to each other when our only basis for doing so is speculative or a priori reasoning.
I had lived in China - in Taiwan - and studied Chinese there, but the Nixon visit in 1972 was my first time on the mainland. One cannot gain much impression of a place when one is limited to official meetings and sightseeing. Still, Beijing and Shanghai then preserved a great deal of the traditional architecture and character that modernization has erased. I had the sense of stepping back in time and into a society that worked at a slower pace than the outside world.
In 1972, China was in the last throes of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76). China was internationally isolated and estranged from both the Soviet Union and the US, both of which it saw as threatening to attack it. China was desperately poor. It sought economic autarky and was not a factor in the global economy. Both Chinese and Americans viewed the Nixon visit to Beijing as a strategic turning point, but neither had any idea how far-reaching its effects would be.
For Americans, who watched the events in Beijing, Hangzhou, and Shanghai on television, the President's visit to China was a voyage of discovery to a land few had known and almost none had seen since the establishment of the People's Republic of China 23 years before. Chinese were told to stay off the streets and keep their peace during the visit. They made no fuss of the visit but were aware that something extraordinary was happening.
The immense prestige of Chairman Mao was invoked to legitimize the strategic reorientation that the visit accomplished. Most but not all Americans and Chinese applauded the statesmanship and vision of their leaders. A few on both sides could not overcome past feelings of enmity and were opposed.
The forces that have made China a respected participant in global governance and a major factor in the global economy were first unleashed in February 1972. Within six years, the very limited Sino-US interaction that the Shanghai Communiqué facilitated led to the process of reform and opening-up that has transformed China, its role in the world, and the world itself.
The Nixon visit showed that China and the US were capable of rising above the major differences we had at the time and cooperating for mutual advantage. February 1972 saw the beginning of a process of rapprochement in which, with much hard work by both sides, the differences between us steadily narrowed.
In the following 40 years, we have developed habits of cooperation to replace the mutual isolation of the past. We have gone from enmity to partnership in almost every field of human endeavor. We have come to respect each other, even as we sometimes differ.
Today, there are still a few serious disputes between the US and China but there is far better mutual understanding, differences are much less, and constructive dialogue takes place between us at all levels. The relationship begun by a few officials on both sides in 1972 has grown to have deep roots in the two peoples.
The past 40 years have brought enormous progress in our relations. There will continue to be incidents, arguments, and twists and turns as we move forward but I see no reason that the next 40 years should not register even more progress.
As the recent visit of Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping to the US illustrates, our leaders now consider it entirely normal to visit and talk to each other. Both Americans and Chinese have come to understand how important it is for our two countries to explore ways to work together to the common advantage. In 1972, we had no relationship at all. Now we are interdependent. Our interactions, non-existent or indirect 40 years ago, are now the most consequential in the world.
We have come a very long way from the hostile relationship of 40 years ago and we should by now have learned not attribute malevolent intent to each other when our only basis for doing so is speculative or a priori reasoning.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The death of Andrew Breitbart...don't rule out murder.
Now some pundits will jump at the suggestion that foul play was involved with the death of Andrew Breitbart or maybe they'll dismiss it as totally insane. Not me however, it was the very first thought that came to mind... and why would I even think such? Back during the elections of 2008 I was personally targeted with two separate threats...one on the Internet and the other via a late night phone call...and yes, I did report the call to the police. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Video from YouTube click here to read contrasting comments.
Video from YouTube click here to read contrasting comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)