[misrepresentation] the scourge of truth

This blog strongly dislikes political positions based on false premises. It's been shown categorically that the CFR-run SPPNA plans a virtual break up of America. The functioning parts - defence, education, health care and so on - are to be removed from U.S. auspices from 2009 and put in the hands of a NAAC.

Now, the CFR did not specifically state that they would control the NAAC but there's a clear inference in the wording of the report.

Therefore, presidential candidates who are known CFR members or sympathisers and presumably have a brain and are aware of major CFR moves are not acting in the interests of the U.S.A. if they are also acting in the interests of the CFR. You can't have it both ways.

A CFR President will implement the policies of the CFR. It just stands to reason. And the policy of the CFR is the North American Union. Not even Lord Nazh can argue with that. It's in black and white.

Another thing this blog intensely dislikes is not so much bias but outright misrepresentation. The BBC has just reported:

At least 20 people have been killed in a fourth day of gun battles in the Gaza Strip between the rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas. Both groups have called a renewed ceasefire to end the violence in which nearly 40 people have died, but gunfire was still being heard after it began.

This has zero to do with Israel. But accorsing to the same BBC report, the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, repeated his calls for:

...an immediate end to the "unacceptable attacks" on Palestinian Authority installations and personnel, which he said endangered civilians throughout Gaza. Mr Ban also said the rocket attacks on Israel were "equally unacceptable".

Equally unacceptable? Either:

1] Ban Ki-moon is here referring to Palestinian attacks on their own facilities or

1] to Israeli responses to rocket attacks, a separate issue or

2] he doesn't know what he's talking about or

3] the BBC has itself simply lumped together the Palestinian infighting and the Israeli responses to rocket attacks as one and the same issue, somehow causally linked.

Here is the BBC reportage on the chronological order of events:

Four Israelis were also injured by a rocket attack, prompting their prime minister to order "a severe response". Shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said his country's "policy of restraint" could not continue, an Israeli strike on a Hamas training camp in southern Gaza killed four people. In a later Israeli strike, a Hamas militant was killed and two other Palestinians wounded in a strike in northern Gaza, Palestinian sources said.

The lack of a "comma" after "shortly after" is significant here. Olmert's "severe response" is a clear reference to Palestinian rocket attacks which have been continually strafing Israel since the so-called cease-fire.

In other words, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, by placing "unacceptable attacks" on Palestinian Authority installations first on your list, your implication is that the primary responsibility is Israel's for rocket attacks upon themselves.

This is tantamount to lying through your teeth to appease one viewpoint in a conflict. This is not what diplomacy entails.

To make it crystal clear, the order of events were:

1] Palestinians continue to send rockets into Israel;

2] Israel responds severely;

3] In a completely separate issue, Hamas and Fatah continue to kill each other.

[Comments were off today by mistake - something must have happened during publishing - sorry.]