Top Government Insider: Bin Laden Died In 2001, 9/11 A False Flag
- Thread starter ax1
- Start date
ax1
Legend
Dennis Kucinich's Campaign to Impeach Obama Over Libya War
Mar 22, 2011 7:28 PM EDT Fresh off his battle with the House cafeteria over an olive pit, the quixotic Ohio congressman is blitzing the media with his latest passion—whether President Obama's war on Libya is an impeachable offense.
With Congress on recess this week, most lawmakers have fled the Beltway for their home districts. But not Invalid Link Removed. When he and I spoke on the phone Tuesday afternoon, the antiwar über-liberal was ping-ponging around Washington, deep into Day 2 of his media assault on President Obama's decision to Invalid Link Removed. "Somebody has to be here to try to get our troops back and stop these wars!" he told me brightly.
The Ohio congressman has cast himself as a leading antagonist since Saturday, when, during a conference call of the Democratic caucus, he asked if Obama's failure to consult Congress before green-lighting the disturbingly named " Invalid Link Removed" qualified as an impeachable offense. "I raised the question of are there constitutional limitations on executive power," he explained matter-of-factly. "This is an urgent debate for this country to have."
Invalid Link Removed
But a member of Congress can't lob the I-word into the political pool without causing a few ripples. Sure enough, as soon as word of Kucinich's musings leaked, the media came calling. And rather than tamp down the controversy, the congressman eagerly kick-started the "urgent debate" on presidential overreach with damn near anyone who'd have him: MSNBC, CNN, the website Raw Story, The Alyona Show (a production of the Russian news network RT), and, most delightfully, Bill O'Reilly. Although no more enlightening than his other sit-downs, Kucinich's four and half minutes on The Factor did provide the mesmerizing spectacle of a Fox News host pummeling a Democrat while offering bellicose support for the Obama White House.
But that's the thing about Kucinich: He has long exhibited a deep appreciation of political theater and is arguably among its most endearing practitioners. Unlike so many demagogic bomb-throwers, he is neither hateful nor scary nor particularly partisan. He's just… goofy. Indeed, what distinguishes the quixotic ex-mayor of Cleveland from the ordinary Capitol Hill rabble isn't that he is so left wing or so outspoken or even that he is constantly being compared to a Keebler elf—though all of those things are true. It's that Kucinich embraces his reputation as America's favorite dotty uncle and even seems intent on fanning the flames now and again. This is, after all, the man who has boldly proclaimed himself "America's Most Courageous Congressman."
Give him, at the very least, points for consistency: In June 2008, as George W. Bush's term was winding down, Invalid Link Removed, saying the 43rd president had manufactured a false case for war and violated U.S. and international law by invading Iraq. Even Nancy Pelosi kept her distance from that one. Now he's making a case against a president of his own party, telling O'Reilly: "You have to come to Congress if you're going to attack another country. He didn't do that, that's not a small matter." And some on the left agree with him.
Kucinich's four and half minutes on The Factor provided the mesmerizing spectacle of a Fox News host pummeling a Democrat while offering bellicose support for the Obama White House.
But let us set aside for the moment Kucinich's quirkier political positions, such as his professed desire to establish a Department of Peace. We're talking here about a two-time presidential candidate who, in the course of an October 2007 primary debate, wound up chatting with NBC's Tim Russert about having seen a UFO while kicking it at Shirley MacLaine's house in Washington state. Two months later, the candidate again set tongues wagging by attending a fundraiser hosted for him by Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine's headquarters in Los Angeles. A presidential hopeful, however hopeless, publicly snuggling up to one of the nation's most notorious smut peddlers? Somehow he comes across as almost charmingly obtuse.
Even Kucinich's personal life has taken on an air of unreality. In January, Invalid Link Removed against two companies connected with the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria because of a 2008 incident in which he bit into veggie wrap and split a tooth on an insufficiently pitted olive. The case of Kucinich v. The Rogue Olive had political watchers from coast to coast snickering long after the suit was settled.
Then, of course, there's Mrs. Kucinich. Shortly after the congressman's 2004 presidential odyssey, he met, wooed, and wed a drop-dead gorgeous British gal 31 years his junior. Now director of public affairs for the Committee for Responsible Physicians, Elizabeth Harper Kucinich is a 6-foot willowy redhead with a peaches-and-cream complexion (and a pierced-tongue!) who could easily be mistaken for a fashion model. Kucinich, to put it gently, is not. The couple first met in early 2005 when Elizabeth, then working for a think tank pushing monetary-policy reform, visited Kucinich's office. It was, both say, love at first sight. They met a second time that May, and Kucinich proposed. Three months later, they were married. Now, every time a picture appears of Kucinich and his stunning bride, all of Washington shakes its head in wonder.
But however much Kucinich's antics prompt mass eye-rolling, they also succeed in drawing public attention to whatever issue he's touting. This week's impeachment brouhaha, for instance, pushed the question of a president's military prerogatives firmly into the spotlight. And, of course, all that media love impresses the folks back home in Ohio and, more generally, ups Kucinich's profile. For a rank-and-file Dem with politics so left wing he'll never amass broad-based support, Kucinich has made quite a name for himself on the national stage.
This is not to suggest that Kucinich is not genuine in his beliefs and passions. But neither is he above exploiting those passions when the situation calls for it. No sooner had Kucinich turned on Obama last weekend than his staff had woven the issue into a high-octane fundraising plea featured on the congressman's reelection website: Give now or risk losing the only truly brave voice in Congress!
Just because the guy is crazy doesn't mean he isn't also crazy like a fox.
Michelle Cottle is a Washington reporter for The Daily Beast.
Mar 22, 2011 7:28 PM EDT Fresh off his battle with the House cafeteria over an olive pit, the quixotic Ohio congressman is blitzing the media with his latest passion—whether President Obama's war on Libya is an impeachable offense.
With Congress on recess this week, most lawmakers have fled the Beltway for their home districts. But not Invalid Link Removed. When he and I spoke on the phone Tuesday afternoon, the antiwar über-liberal was ping-ponging around Washington, deep into Day 2 of his media assault on President Obama's decision to Invalid Link Removed. "Somebody has to be here to try to get our troops back and stop these wars!" he told me brightly.
The Ohio congressman has cast himself as a leading antagonist since Saturday, when, during a conference call of the Democratic caucus, he asked if Obama's failure to consult Congress before green-lighting the disturbingly named " Invalid Link Removed" qualified as an impeachable offense. "I raised the question of are there constitutional limitations on executive power," he explained matter-of-factly. "This is an urgent debate for this country to have."
Invalid Link Removed
But a member of Congress can't lob the I-word into the political pool without causing a few ripples. Sure enough, as soon as word of Kucinich's musings leaked, the media came calling. And rather than tamp down the controversy, the congressman eagerly kick-started the "urgent debate" on presidential overreach with damn near anyone who'd have him: MSNBC, CNN, the website Raw Story, The Alyona Show (a production of the Russian news network RT), and, most delightfully, Bill O'Reilly. Although no more enlightening than his other sit-downs, Kucinich's four and half minutes on The Factor did provide the mesmerizing spectacle of a Fox News host pummeling a Democrat while offering bellicose support for the Obama White House.
But that's the thing about Kucinich: He has long exhibited a deep appreciation of political theater and is arguably among its most endearing practitioners. Unlike so many demagogic bomb-throwers, he is neither hateful nor scary nor particularly partisan. He's just… goofy. Indeed, what distinguishes the quixotic ex-mayor of Cleveland from the ordinary Capitol Hill rabble isn't that he is so left wing or so outspoken or even that he is constantly being compared to a Keebler elf—though all of those things are true. It's that Kucinich embraces his reputation as America's favorite dotty uncle and even seems intent on fanning the flames now and again. This is, after all, the man who has boldly proclaimed himself "America's Most Courageous Congressman."
Give him, at the very least, points for consistency: In June 2008, as George W. Bush's term was winding down, Invalid Link Removed, saying the 43rd president had manufactured a false case for war and violated U.S. and international law by invading Iraq. Even Nancy Pelosi kept her distance from that one. Now he's making a case against a president of his own party, telling O'Reilly: "You have to come to Congress if you're going to attack another country. He didn't do that, that's not a small matter." And some on the left agree with him.
Kucinich's four and half minutes on The Factor provided the mesmerizing spectacle of a Fox News host pummeling a Democrat while offering bellicose support for the Obama White House.
But let us set aside for the moment Kucinich's quirkier political positions, such as his professed desire to establish a Department of Peace. We're talking here about a two-time presidential candidate who, in the course of an October 2007 primary debate, wound up chatting with NBC's Tim Russert about having seen a UFO while kicking it at Shirley MacLaine's house in Washington state. Two months later, the candidate again set tongues wagging by attending a fundraiser hosted for him by Larry Flynt at Hustler magazine's headquarters in Los Angeles. A presidential hopeful, however hopeless, publicly snuggling up to one of the nation's most notorious smut peddlers? Somehow he comes across as almost charmingly obtuse.
Even Kucinich's personal life has taken on an air of unreality. In January, Invalid Link Removed against two companies connected with the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria because of a 2008 incident in which he bit into veggie wrap and split a tooth on an insufficiently pitted olive. The case of Kucinich v. The Rogue Olive had political watchers from coast to coast snickering long after the suit was settled.
Then, of course, there's Mrs. Kucinich. Shortly after the congressman's 2004 presidential odyssey, he met, wooed, and wed a drop-dead gorgeous British gal 31 years his junior. Now director of public affairs for the Committee for Responsible Physicians, Elizabeth Harper Kucinich is a 6-foot willowy redhead with a peaches-and-cream complexion (and a pierced-tongue!) who could easily be mistaken for a fashion model. Kucinich, to put it gently, is not. The couple first met in early 2005 when Elizabeth, then working for a think tank pushing monetary-policy reform, visited Kucinich's office. It was, both say, love at first sight. They met a second time that May, and Kucinich proposed. Three months later, they were married. Now, every time a picture appears of Kucinich and his stunning bride, all of Washington shakes its head in wonder.
But however much Kucinich's antics prompt mass eye-rolling, they also succeed in drawing public attention to whatever issue he's touting. This week's impeachment brouhaha, for instance, pushed the question of a president's military prerogatives firmly into the spotlight. And, of course, all that media love impresses the folks back home in Ohio and, more generally, ups Kucinich's profile. For a rank-and-file Dem with politics so left wing he'll never amass broad-based support, Kucinich has made quite a name for himself on the national stage.
This is not to suggest that Kucinich is not genuine in his beliefs and passions. But neither is he above exploiting those passions when the situation calls for it. No sooner had Kucinich turned on Obama last weekend than his staff had woven the issue into a high-octane fundraising plea featured on the congressman's reelection website: Give now or risk losing the only truly brave voice in Congress!
Just because the guy is crazy doesn't mean he isn't also crazy like a fox.
Michelle Cottle is a Washington reporter for The Daily Beast.
ax1
Legend
Invalid Link Removed
March 13, 2012
Invalid Link Removed
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on March 13, 2012 12:28 AM
Ｔｈｅ ＬＲＣ Ｂｌｏｇ
In some places, such as Maine and Minnesota, Ron Paul is likely to outperform the straw polls in terms of proportion of delegates won. As Lew Rockwell has noted, Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed, Ron Paul activists are sometimes able to take control of the local machines.
Sometimes, however, the opposite apparently happens. As The Washington Times Invalid Link Removed, Paul actually underperformed his vote tally in Wyoming with local caucuses over the weekend.
If you've ever been a Ron Paul delegate, you know that the GOP central committees will employ every trick in the book to avoid having to seat Ron Paul delegates. They will freely ignore their own bylaws, apply rules in such a manner as to only exclude Paul delegates, and will liberally employ intimidation tactics through verbal abuse, and even physical manhandling of delegates.
In the end, if everything else fails, they'll attempt to get you to switch your vote by begging you to be a "team player" and by claiming that Romney is electable and that your dissent will keep Obama in power.
They did it in 2008, and some Ron Paul delegates switched their vote to the "electable" John McCain at the national convention, as I Invalid Link Removed.
I described my own Invalid Link Removed in 2008 here. Trust me, they'll do everything they can to intimidate, harass or just plain exclude you. Be ready for it.
The video shows what is probably a fairly typical experience for many delegates:
［ｙｔ］VEM3f4x4yzM&feature=player_embedded#!［／ｙｔ］
March 13, 2012
Invalid Link Removed
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on March 13, 2012 12:28 AM
Ｔｈｅ ＬＲＣ Ｂｌｏｇ
In some places, such as Maine and Minnesota, Ron Paul is likely to outperform the straw polls in terms of proportion of delegates won. As Lew Rockwell has noted, Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed, Ron Paul activists are sometimes able to take control of the local machines.
Sometimes, however, the opposite apparently happens. As The Washington Times Invalid Link Removed, Paul actually underperformed his vote tally in Wyoming with local caucuses over the weekend.
If you've ever been a Ron Paul delegate, you know that the GOP central committees will employ every trick in the book to avoid having to seat Ron Paul delegates. They will freely ignore their own bylaws, apply rules in such a manner as to only exclude Paul delegates, and will liberally employ intimidation tactics through verbal abuse, and even physical manhandling of delegates.
In the end, if everything else fails, they'll attempt to get you to switch your vote by begging you to be a "team player" and by claiming that Romney is electable and that your dissent will keep Obama in power.
They did it in 2008, and some Ron Paul delegates switched their vote to the "electable" John McCain at the national convention, as I Invalid Link Removed.
I described my own Invalid Link Removed in 2008 here. Trust me, they'll do everything they can to intimidate, harass or just plain exclude you. Be ready for it.
The video shows what is probably a fairly typical experience for many delegates:
［ｙｔ］VEM3f4x4yzM&feature=player_embedded#!［／ｙｔ］
ax1
Legend
Obama Plays Bin Laden Card In Re-election Effort
Long dead patsy still comes up trumps for establishment
Steve Watson
March 14, 2012
The Obama 2012 campaign has launched it’s reelection campaign by drawing on the mythical version of events played out last year following the supposed assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
The campaign will release a 17 minute video later this week, narrated by hollywood actor Tom Hanks, as an opening salvo in the struggle to win a second term for the president.
An action movie-style teaser clip released yesterday solely highlights the so called Bin Laden raid and features vice president Joe Biden and former president Bill Clinton talking up the event.
“He took the harder and more honorable path,” Clinton says, adding “When I saw what had happened I thought to myself, I hope that’s the call I would’ve made”.
Biden adds “The entire national security apparatus was in that room and the President turns to every principal in the room ‘what do you recommend I do?’ and they say ‘It’s a close call, Mr president’. As he walked out of the room it dawned on me: he’s all alone. This is his decision.”
The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, the man behind Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Guggenheim also worked with Obama during the 2008 campaign.
Watch the clip below:
As we Invalid Link Removed in the aftermath of the Bin Laden raid last year, there were Invalid Link Removed with the White House narrative, with officials seemingly not able to get their story straight with each other. Since that time the story has continued to change.
The White House situation room gathering, that is so lauded in the Obama reelection piece, is also a complete fabrication. Indeed, it soon emerged that Obama, far from wrestling with a painstaking decision, was out Invalid Link Removed just twenty minutes before the raid took place.
Former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer Invalid Link Removed in his book, describing the official story of the raid as a “fairy tale”.
The dramatic photos of Obama, Hillary Clinton and other high ranking officials supposedly watching the raid as it happened, were Invalid Link Removed. In reality, Obama and his staff saw virtually nothing whatsoever of the mission that allegedly led to the assassination of Bin Laden, because according to CIA director Leon Panetta, there was a 25 minute blackout of the live feed which was cut off before the US Navy SEALS even entered the building.
In addition to the dubious situation room pictures, it also emerged that the images of Obama that appeared in Monday morning’s newspapers after he had announced the death of Bin Laden the previous night were also Invalid Link Removed.
Recently leaked emails from intelligence gathering outfit Stratfor also detail the fact that officials there had received inside information that Invalid Link Removed and that Bin Laden’s body had been taken to Dover air force base in Delaware.
Nevertheless, the Bin Laden card continues to be an invaluable asset to the Obama campaign.
Vice President Joe Biden once again drew on the Bin Laden myth at a reelection campaign fundraiser Monday, telling an audience “This guy’s got a backbone like a ramrod”.
“He said, ‘Go,’ knowing his presidency was on the line,” Biden said. “Had he failed in that audacious mission, he would’ve been a one-term president.”
John Kerry, who hosted the event, told the crowd “Osama bin Laden is dead. General Motors is alive.”
In recent months as his approval ratings have been Invalid Link Removed, Obama has turned to the Bin Laden boogeyman story out of desperation.
In December, when a journalist asked Obama about Republicans accusing him of employing a foreign policy of “appeasement” The president Invalid Link Removed by saying “ask Osama Bin Laden and the twenty to thirty top al qaeda leaders that have been taken out of the field whether I engage in appeasement”.
Long dead patsy still comes up trumps for establishment
Steve Watson
March 14, 2012
The Obama 2012 campaign has launched it’s reelection campaign by drawing on the mythical version of events played out last year following the supposed assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
The campaign will release a 17 minute video later this week, narrated by hollywood actor Tom Hanks, as an opening salvo in the struggle to win a second term for the president.
An action movie-style teaser clip released yesterday solely highlights the so called Bin Laden raid and features vice president Joe Biden and former president Bill Clinton talking up the event.
“He took the harder and more honorable path,” Clinton says, adding “When I saw what had happened I thought to myself, I hope that’s the call I would’ve made”.
Biden adds “The entire national security apparatus was in that room and the President turns to every principal in the room ‘what do you recommend I do?’ and they say ‘It’s a close call, Mr president’. As he walked out of the room it dawned on me: he’s all alone. This is his decision.”
The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, the man behind Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Guggenheim also worked with Obama during the 2008 campaign.
Watch the clip below:
As we Invalid Link Removed in the aftermath of the Bin Laden raid last year, there were Invalid Link Removed with the White House narrative, with officials seemingly not able to get their story straight with each other. Since that time the story has continued to change.
The White House situation room gathering, that is so lauded in the Obama reelection piece, is also a complete fabrication. Indeed, it soon emerged that Obama, far from wrestling with a painstaking decision, was out Invalid Link Removed just twenty minutes before the raid took place.
Former Navy SEAL Chuck Pfarrer Invalid Link Removed in his book, describing the official story of the raid as a “fairy tale”.
The dramatic photos of Obama, Hillary Clinton and other high ranking officials supposedly watching the raid as it happened, were Invalid Link Removed. In reality, Obama and his staff saw virtually nothing whatsoever of the mission that allegedly led to the assassination of Bin Laden, because according to CIA director Leon Panetta, there was a 25 minute blackout of the live feed which was cut off before the US Navy SEALS even entered the building.
In addition to the dubious situation room pictures, it also emerged that the images of Obama that appeared in Monday morning’s newspapers after he had announced the death of Bin Laden the previous night were also Invalid Link Removed.
Recently leaked emails from intelligence gathering outfit Stratfor also detail the fact that officials there had received inside information that Invalid Link Removed and that Bin Laden’s body had been taken to Dover air force base in Delaware.
Nevertheless, the Bin Laden card continues to be an invaluable asset to the Obama campaign.
Vice President Joe Biden once again drew on the Bin Laden myth at a reelection campaign fundraiser Monday, telling an audience “This guy’s got a backbone like a ramrod”.
“He said, ‘Go,’ knowing his presidency was on the line,” Biden said. “Had he failed in that audacious mission, he would’ve been a one-term president.”
John Kerry, who hosted the event, told the crowd “Osama bin Laden is dead. General Motors is alive.”
In recent months as his approval ratings have been Invalid Link Removed, Obama has turned to the Bin Laden boogeyman story out of desperation.
In December, when a journalist asked Obama about Republicans accusing him of employing a foreign policy of “appeasement” The president Invalid Link Removed by saying “ask Osama Bin Laden and the twenty to thirty top al qaeda leaders that have been taken out of the field whether I engage in appeasement”.
ax1
Legend
Our ‘UN’ Marines: “Moving Towards the Sound of Chaos” in new recruitment ad
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
March 15, 2012
Hollywood and Madison Avenue have always played a crucial role in elevating the U.S. military’s public image. Their latest bombastic effort entitled, “Towards the Sound of Chaos”, is perhaps one the boldest efforts yet in advancing the modern mythology of the military’s newly celebrated humanitarian interventionalist modus operandi.
The film’s voiceover thunders heavy: “Where chaos looms, the few emerge. Marines move toward the sounds of tyranny, injustice and despair — with the courage and resolve to silence them. By ending conflict, instilling order and helping those who can’t help themselves, Marines face down the threats of our time.”
It’s nothing less than an over-blown, fictional, made-for-cinema story showcasing MV-22 Ospreys, trucks and Amphibious Assault Crafts loaded-up with thousands of props made to look like boxes marked “AID” - ready to strike in a humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarian AID boxes are escorted by hundreds of ground troops charging the beach head at full speed, in what appears to be a ridiculous WWII Normany-style, D-Day invasion scene, meant to be taking place in a desert somewhere in Africa, or the Middle East. Other hard to believe, over-the-top cinematic shots include aerial views of platoons charging across the desert floor reminicent of Star Wars’ Attack of the Clones, and Ospreys unloading infantry which looks straight out of James Cameron’s sci-fi hit movie, Avatar.
Over the years, Americans have become accustomed to seeing these theatrical depictions of military escapades overseas, but few have actually stopped to consider that what they are watching is a level of fictional sensationalism that far surpasses anything produced by Joseph Goebbels during Hitler’s reign in Nazi Germany, and far and away past the very best pieces of militarized propaganda produced during Joseph Stalin’s Soviet military police state.
In a cynical and somewhat racist move, the advert clearly features Black African American soldiers in extreme close-ups and also in the final shot of the film, clearly working extra-hard to target that demographic in America who ironically, are suffering most from what this advert describes as “despair” and a genuine lack of hope – currently dogged with record-breaking unemployment numbers.
Curiously, the only place in this advert where the US flag is visible is on the side of the AID boxes, and nowhere does it say “US Marines” – only “Marines”, possibly because the US Marines seem to be undergoing a rebrand - as the ‘UN Marines’, this according to Invalid Link Removed- who now say that’s who our boys are actually working for (see video below).
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria
Our military and defense heads seem to be a little confused about to whom their allegiance actually lies - with the US Constitution and a Congressional approval - or with ad hoc international coalitions, the UN, Arab League and of course, NATO.
Like it or not, we are presently moving closer towards a world government-type authority, one which has all but usurped our own national sovereignty.
Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
March 15, 2012
Hollywood and Madison Avenue have always played a crucial role in elevating the U.S. military’s public image. Their latest bombastic effort entitled, “Towards the Sound of Chaos”, is perhaps one the boldest efforts yet in advancing the modern mythology of the military’s newly celebrated humanitarian interventionalist modus operandi.
The film’s voiceover thunders heavy: “Where chaos looms, the few emerge. Marines move toward the sounds of tyranny, injustice and despair — with the courage and resolve to silence them. By ending conflict, instilling order and helping those who can’t help themselves, Marines face down the threats of our time.”
It’s nothing less than an over-blown, fictional, made-for-cinema story showcasing MV-22 Ospreys, trucks and Amphibious Assault Crafts loaded-up with thousands of props made to look like boxes marked “AID” - ready to strike in a humanitarian intervention.
Humanitarian AID boxes are escorted by hundreds of ground troops charging the beach head at full speed, in what appears to be a ridiculous WWII Normany-style, D-Day invasion scene, meant to be taking place in a desert somewhere in Africa, or the Middle East. Other hard to believe, over-the-top cinematic shots include aerial views of platoons charging across the desert floor reminicent of Star Wars’ Attack of the Clones, and Ospreys unloading infantry which looks straight out of James Cameron’s sci-fi hit movie, Avatar.
Over the years, Americans have become accustomed to seeing these theatrical depictions of military escapades overseas, but few have actually stopped to consider that what they are watching is a level of fictional sensationalism that far surpasses anything produced by Joseph Goebbels during Hitler’s reign in Nazi Germany, and far and away past the very best pieces of militarized propaganda produced during Joseph Stalin’s Soviet military police state.
In a cynical and somewhat racist move, the advert clearly features Black African American soldiers in extreme close-ups and also in the final shot of the film, clearly working extra-hard to target that demographic in America who ironically, are suffering most from what this advert describes as “despair” and a genuine lack of hope – currently dogged with record-breaking unemployment numbers.
Curiously, the only place in this advert where the US flag is visible is on the side of the AID boxes, and nowhere does it say “US Marines” – only “Marines”, possibly because the US Marines seem to be undergoing a rebrand - as the ‘UN Marines’, this according to Invalid Link Removed- who now say that’s who our boys are actually working for (see video below).
Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria
Our military and defense heads seem to be a little confused about to whom their allegiance actually lies - with the US Constitution and a Congressional approval - or with ad hoc international coalitions, the UN, Arab League and of course, NATO.
Like it or not, we are presently moving closer towards a world government-type authority, one which has all but usurped our own national sovereignty.
ax1
Legend
New Fukushima Cessium-137 Threat
Kurt Nimmo
March 16, 2012
The corporate media is again ignoring a major and potentially catastrophic development at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
Invalid Link Removed reported on March 15 that “that the clarity of water inside the spent fuel pool of the No. 4 unit may have deteriorated based on a survey conducted by a camera,” according to Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator.
TEPCO said “visibility in the pool is only about 1 meter, far less than the approximately 7 meters needed to work at removing nuclear fuel from the pool as part of the process of scrapping the four reactors severely damaged by last year’s nuclear accident.”
One month ago, TEPCO was able to see approximately five meters into the spent fuel pool water.
The spent fuel rods pose considerable hazard. In order to reduce “decay heat,” the rods must remain submerged in circulating water. If exposed to air, they combust and release large amounts of radioactive cesium-137.
Following the earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima plant last year, the Japanese government Invalid Link Removed the amount of radiation released into the environment, including Invalid Link Removed from the fuel pool at reactor 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Sends Four Anti-Mine Ships To Strait of Hormuz
Ships would clear waterway if Iran tries to block strategic oil choke point
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 16, 2012
Kurt Nimmo
March 16, 2012
The corporate media is again ignoring a major and potentially catastrophic development at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.
Invalid Link Removed reported on March 15 that “that the clarity of water inside the spent fuel pool of the No. 4 unit may have deteriorated based on a survey conducted by a camera,” according to Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator.
TEPCO said “visibility in the pool is only about 1 meter, far less than the approximately 7 meters needed to work at removing nuclear fuel from the pool as part of the process of scrapping the four reactors severely damaged by last year’s nuclear accident.”
One month ago, TEPCO was able to see approximately five meters into the spent fuel pool water.
The spent fuel rods pose considerable hazard. In order to reduce “decay heat,” the rods must remain submerged in circulating water. If exposed to air, they combust and release large amounts of radioactive cesium-137.
Following the earthquake and tsunami that damaged the Fukushima plant last year, the Japanese government Invalid Link Removed the amount of radiation released into the environment, including Invalid Link Removed from the fuel pool at reactor 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Sends Four Anti-Mine Ships To Strait of Hormuz
Ships would clear waterway if Iran tries to block strategic oil choke point
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, March 16, 2012
With the USS Enterprise on its way to bring the number of US aircraft carriers located in the Persian Gulf up to three, the Navy has announced it will send four additional mine countermeasure ships to the Strait of Hormuz as tensions with Iran rise.
“Four additional mine countermeasure ships are being dispatched to the region in addition to further airborne mine countermeasure helicopters, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a Navy budget hearing Thursday,” Invalid Link Removed.
No date has been set for the deployment of the ships, but they will join the USS Enterprise, currently on its way to the Fifth Fleet area of operations, along with the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Abraham Lincoln, both of which are already patrolling the Strait of Hormuz.
“I came to the conclusion we could do better setting the theater,” Greenert told the committee while recounting a recent trip through the waterway on the USS John C. Stennis, which was under the watchful eye of Iranian naval vessels. “I wanted to be sure … that we are ready, that our folks are proficient, they’re confident, and they’re good at what they do in case called upon.”
The deployment of the anti-mine ships Invalid Link Removed that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were preparing Iranian marine commandos to place mines along the strategic oil choke point.
While a temporary closure of the Strait would send oil prices soaring, analysts believe the US has the capability to clear the waterway of mines within a 24-48 hour period, meaning crude supplies would not be significantly disrupted.
However, yesterday’s news that that the Invalid Link Removedwithin months has Invalid Link Removed that the decision on attacking Iran before the end of summer has already been green lighted.
However, yesterday’s news that that the Invalid Link Removedwithin months has Invalid Link Removed that the decision on attacking Iran before the end of summer has already been green lighted.
As the US lines up its military hardware in the Persian Gulf, political pressure has also intensified.
Invalid Link Removed, Hillary Clinton recently demanded that Russia send a warning to Iran that upcoming 6 nation talks represent the “last chance” for a diplomatic solution before war plans are activated.
Economic pressure is also building to a crescendo, with Invalid Link Removed global financial transaction service this weekend, a move that makes it impossible for Tehran to conduct international trade via conventional methods. Iran’s economy has been under sustained attack for months, with western sanctions largely responsible for a Invalid Link Removed.
Invalid Link Removed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has now for the first time secured a majority of votes in the cabinet to go to war with Iran.
In an attempt to combat sentiment in Israel Invalid Link Removed to a strike on Iran, Netanyahu is now preoccupied with “preparing public opinion for war against Iran,” Invalid Link Removed.
ax1
Legend
***Breaking News!***
New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness
Brandon Turbeville
March 18, 2012
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Invalid Link Removed stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Invalid Link Removed
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.
Invalid Link Removed exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.
The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recentInvalid Link Removed and the foregone conclusion of a Invalid Link Removed, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 16, 2012
PART I - PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III - EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
For the whole bill visit official Whitehouse link below:
Invalid Link Removed
New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness
Brandon Turbeville
March 18, 2012
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Invalid Link Removed stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Invalid Link Removed
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.
Invalid Link Removed exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.
The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recentInvalid Link Removed and the foregone conclusion of a Invalid Link Removed, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:EXECUTIVE ORDER
NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
PART I - PURPOSE, POLICY, AND IMPLEMENTATION
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
PART II - PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1) (2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1) (2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
PART III - EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
(c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
For the whole bill visit official Whitehouse link below:
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Sarkozy: Prosecute and Imprison Readers of “Extremist” Websites
Kurt Nimmo
March 23, 2012
French president Invalid Link Removed didn’t wait long to exploit the terror rampage of Mohammed Merah. Soon after Merah’s death in a stand-off with police, Sarkozy said French citizens who visit “extremist” websites should be treated the same way as those who look at child pornography.
“Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison,” he said at a campaign rally. “What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.”
If enacted, Sarkozy’s proposed law would open the floodgates for prosecuting and imprisoning people for the crime of reading material deemed illegal by the government.
“Trying to criminalize a visit — a simple visit — to a website, that’s something that seems disproportionate,” Lucie Morillon of Reporters Without Borders told the Associated Press.
Morillon noted that in order for Sarkozy’s law to be enforced, the internet would require new surveillance technology. “What’s especially worrying for us is how you are going to know who’s looking at what site. Does this announcement mean the installation of a global Internet surveillance system in France?” Morillon said.
In 1990, the Invalid Link Removed made it illegal in France to question crimes against humanity defined under the London Charter of 1945. The act modified the Law on the Invalid Link Removed.
The European Convention on Human Rights grants freedom of expression, but “the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary,” explains Invalid Link Removed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence” a punishable crime.
Muslims in France have used “hate speech” laws to go after critics in recent years.
In 2002, author Michel Houellebecq was prosecuted for stating in an interview that Islam is “stupid” and “dangerous.” Actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in 2008 of racial hatred for her criticism of the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was convicted five times for expressing her opinion. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made in 2003 about Muslim immigration to France.
Jean Marie’s daughter, Invalid Link Removed, opposes Sarkozy in the French presidential election. She said her stand in opposition to Muslim immigration was vindicated by Mohammed Merah’s attack.
Kurt Nimmo
March 23, 2012
French president Invalid Link Removed didn’t wait long to exploit the terror rampage of Mohammed Merah. Soon after Merah’s death in a stand-off with police, Sarkozy said French citizens who visit “extremist” websites should be treated the same way as those who look at child pornography.
“Anyone who regularly consults Internet sites which promote terror or hatred or violence will be sentenced to prison,” he said at a campaign rally. “What is possible for pedophiles should be possible for trainee terrorists and their supporters, too.”
If enacted, Sarkozy’s proposed law would open the floodgates for prosecuting and imprisoning people for the crime of reading material deemed illegal by the government.
“Trying to criminalize a visit — a simple visit — to a website, that’s something that seems disproportionate,” Lucie Morillon of Reporters Without Borders told the Associated Press.
Morillon noted that in order for Sarkozy’s law to be enforced, the internet would require new surveillance technology. “What’s especially worrying for us is how you are going to know who’s looking at what site. Does this announcement mean the installation of a global Internet surveillance system in France?” Morillon said.
In 1990, the Invalid Link Removed made it illegal in France to question crimes against humanity defined under the London Charter of 1945. The act modified the Law on the Invalid Link Removed.
The European Convention on Human Rights grants freedom of expression, but “the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary,” explains Invalid Link Removed. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes “advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence” a punishable crime.
Muslims in France have used “hate speech” laws to go after critics in recent years.
In 2002, author Michel Houellebecq was prosecuted for stating in an interview that Islam is “stupid” and “dangerous.” Actress Brigitte Bardot was convicted in 2008 of racial hatred for her criticism of the ritual slaughter of sheep during a Muslim feast. Bardot was convicted five times for expressing her opinion. In 2005, politician Jean Marie Le Pen was convicted of inciting racial hatred for comments made in 2003 about Muslim immigration to France.
Jean Marie’s daughter, Invalid Link Removed, opposes Sarkozy in the French presidential election. She said her stand in opposition to Muslim immigration was vindicated by Mohammed Merah’s attack.
ax1
Legend
Birther Controversy: Feds Refuse To Release Obama Draft Card
Government agency not cooperating with eligibility investigation
Invalid Link Removed
Steve Watson
March 29, 2012
A request for original documents by a group investigating the eligibility of president Obama has been turned down by The Selective Service System in a move that is sure to court more controversy.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, leader of the probe into the authenticity of the now notorious Obama birth certificate, Invalid Link Removed that he had cause to believe that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was also a forgery.
Arpaio asked for a response from the federal agency within 30 days on whether or not it will provide a hard copy of the original document.
The Selective Service System has now replied to the request with a three-sentence letter from the office of Selective Service Director Lawrence G. Romo.
“This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic,” wrote Richard S. Flahavan, associate director of public & intergovernmental affairs.
“However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue,” the letter concluded.
Invalid Link Removed
Unsatisfied with the agency’s response, Arpaio has Invalid Link Removed.
“If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1980, please indicate whether or not you are in possession of this document,” Arpaio wrote.
“If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff’s Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.”
Arpaio asked for a further response from the agency within ten days.
In his original March 19 letter, Arpaio explained that the document location number and several other identifying factors indicate that Obama’s Selective Service Form was created in 2008 and has been altered to appear as if it dates from 1980.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The Selective Service System response indicates that, much like Hawaii’s Department of Health in regard to the birth certificate, the agency is refusing to comply with requests to allow public inspection of the original document.
Arpaio has also pointed out that Obama’s original Selective Service registration has previously been released at least twice in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, so it makes no sense for the agency to withhold the document from law enforcement officers and court-approved, forensic experts.
Government agency not cooperating with eligibility investigation
Invalid Link Removed
Steve Watson
March 29, 2012
A request for original documents by a group investigating the eligibility of president Obama has been turned down by The Selective Service System in a move that is sure to court more controversy.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, leader of the probe into the authenticity of the now notorious Obama birth certificate, Invalid Link Removed that he had cause to believe that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was also a forgery.
Arpaio asked for a response from the federal agency within 30 days on whether or not it will provide a hard copy of the original document.
The Selective Service System has now replied to the request with a three-sentence letter from the office of Selective Service Director Lawrence G. Romo.
“This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic,” wrote Richard S. Flahavan, associate director of public & intergovernmental affairs.
“However, if you have any credible evidence to the contrary and believe that a Federal crime has been committed, we suggest that it be turned over immediately to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to pursue,” the letter concluded.
Invalid Link Removed
Unsatisfied with the agency’s response, Arpaio has Invalid Link Removed.
“If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1980, please indicate whether or not you are in possession of this document,” Arpaio wrote.
“If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff’s Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.”
Arpaio asked for a further response from the agency within ten days.
In his original March 19 letter, Arpaio explained that the document location number and several other identifying factors indicate that Obama’s Selective Service Form was created in 2008 and has been altered to appear as if it dates from 1980.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
The Selective Service System response indicates that, much like Hawaii’s Department of Health in regard to the birth certificate, the agency is refusing to comply with requests to allow public inspection of the original document.
Arpaio has also pointed out that Obama’s original Selective Service registration has previously been released at least twice in response to Freedom of Information Act requests, so it makes no sense for the agency to withhold the document from law enforcement officers and court-approved, forensic experts.
ax1
Legend
The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla
Lost Archives
April 1, 2012
Phenomenon – The Lost Archives – Episode 14: The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla
Watch this documentary episode that takes an in-depth look at the information found in recently de-classified government documents. It explores the life of Nikola Tesla with new information that has been sequestered from the public for over sixty years.
Lost Archives
April 1, 2012
Phenomenon – The Lost Archives – Episode 14: The Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla
Watch this documentary episode that takes an in-depth look at the information found in recently de-classified government documents. It explores the life of Nikola Tesla with new information that has been sequestered from the public for over sixty years.
ax1
Legend
Rise of the Petty Dictator
Patrick Henningsen
April 3, 2012
Many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws hanging near their ankles following Obama’s press conference on the White House lawn yesterday, where he railed against Supreme Court, describing their potential to overturn his Obamacare as that of an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law.”
According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.
What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Invalid Link Removed in 1803.
Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but Invalid Link Removed, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Invalid Link Removed
This would probably be a good opportunity to remind the 44[SUP]th[/SUP] President and his White House cadre that a separation of powers is outlined in the United States Constitution, and is described by the relationship between the Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed branches of Invalid Link Removed.
Simply put, these three branches of government are kept distinct from one another to prevent an abuse of power by either branch. To counter-balance this danger, federal legislative courts were founded and designed to adjudicate on questions of the public’s rights as determined by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In short, to determine their own destiny – as opposed to a destiny dictated by a despot in the White House, or a corrupted Congress and Senate.
Why a petty dictator? If the President were a proper dictator he would simply begin his purge and declare himslef ‘President for Life’. But this power-grab is more subtle. This President is using dizzying legalese and covert manipulation in order to further weaken the fundamental law of the land – our Constitution, a document which is God given and ultimately serves to protect citizens’ indivual rights.
Obama’s harrowing comment yesterday allude to just that – what critics of Obamacare cite as a federalized power-grab, whereby Washington would dictate to each American citizen what- and which type of healthcare insurance policy he or she must purchase annually according to a federal mandate.
In the President’s case, his own record of executive abuse of power has come in the form of his endless signing statements and non-democratic executive orders.
In this special area, Obama has excelled and more than faithfully executed his duties as a President as described in the US Constitution, and in many cases going unlawfully beyond what the framers of the document envisioned. Some of Obama’s executive order jabs against the republic include:
….
There is not enough space in this article to do commentary justice to each of the above executive orders and illustrate how they serve as a mere run-around to avoid the US Constitution, further consolidating power inside the executive branch. The list is almost endless.
Suffice to say, Obama has continued the work of his predecessor George W. Bush – the most prolific executive order-signing President in US history and the original enabler of Patriot Acts I and II. If Obama sits his second term, continuing at his present clip, he will easily surpass Bush in number of executive orders. It is all too clear now that it was Bush who enabled the current petty dictatorship being aggressively cultivated by Barack Obama.
We should be reminded here that Obama campaigned- and won his election, on the promise to eliminate signing statements and curtail executive orders. Now look at the results.
When the executive branch of government in the United States becomes too powerful, the federal government can then openly – and duly protected by its own ingrown set of laws – freely wearing the mask of tyranny. Many now rightly believe that this is the case in America today.
The most interesting and disturbing of all is the very first executive order President Obama signed into de facto law on the 21st of January 2009 – his first day in office. Indeed, the first order of business was to invoke his new found executive privilege in order to seal any of his personal records – mostly notably, records which might affect his eligibility to hold the federal office of US President. That particular dictatory Invalid Link Removed.
And finally, this brings us to the most recent, and rather disgusting piece of pseudo legislation already passed through the bowels of the federal machine, in which President Obama invoked the now infamous Invalid Link Removed(NDAA) which firstly authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the threat of Iran a “National Emergency”, and secondly gives the White House banana republic-type authorities to detain indefinitely without trial, or even to assassinate(where itself deems prudent) any American citizen it considers an enemy of the state.
In reality, the NDAA has nothing to do with being ‘an enemy of the state’, as much as it has to do with being an enemy of the White House, or an enemy of its surrogate policy-making machine in New York, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Make no mistake about it, these are troubling times.
Patrick Henningsen
April 3, 2012
Many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws hanging near their ankles following Obama’s press conference on the White House lawn yesterday, where he railed against Supreme Court, describing their potential to overturn his Obamacare as that of an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law.”
According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.
What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Invalid Link Removed in 1803.
Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but Invalid Link Removed, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
Invalid Link Removed
This would probably be a good opportunity to remind the 44[SUP]th[/SUP] President and his White House cadre that a separation of powers is outlined in the United States Constitution, and is described by the relationship between the Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, and Invalid Link Removed branches of Invalid Link Removed.
Simply put, these three branches of government are kept distinct from one another to prevent an abuse of power by either branch. To counter-balance this danger, federal legislative courts were founded and designed to adjudicate on questions of the public’s rights as determined by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In short, to determine their own destiny – as opposed to a destiny dictated by a despot in the White House, or a corrupted Congress and Senate.
Why a petty dictator? If the President were a proper dictator he would simply begin his purge and declare himslef ‘President for Life’. But this power-grab is more subtle. This President is using dizzying legalese and covert manipulation in order to further weaken the fundamental law of the land – our Constitution, a document which is God given and ultimately serves to protect citizens’ indivual rights.
Obama’s harrowing comment yesterday allude to just that – what critics of Obamacare cite as a federalized power-grab, whereby Washington would dictate to each American citizen what- and which type of healthcare insurance policy he or she must purchase annually according to a federal mandate.
In the President’s case, his own record of executive abuse of power has come in the form of his endless signing statements and non-democratic executive orders.
In this special area, Obama has excelled and more than faithfully executed his duties as a President as described in the US Constitution, and in many cases going unlawfully beyond what the framers of the document envisioned. Some of Obama’s executive order jabs against the republic include:
| No. | Title/Description | Date signed |
| Invalid Link Removed | Presidential Records | 2009-01-21 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel | 2009-01-21 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Invalid Link Removed | 2009-01-22 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Invalid Link Removed | 2009-01-22 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Invalid Link Removed | 2009-01-22 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Economy in Government Contracting | 2009-01-30 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Amendments to Invalid Link Removed and Establishment of the President’s Advisory Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships | 2009-02-06 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Further Amendments to Invalid Link Removed, Establishment of the National Economic Council | 2009-02-05 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishing the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board | 2009-02-06 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishment of the White House Office of Urban Affairs | 2009-02-19 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Amending Invalid Link Removed | 2009-02-19 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells | 2009-03-09 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishment of the White House Office of Health Reform | 2009-04-08 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishing a White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers | 2009-06-23 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance | 2009-10-05 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Amending Invalid Link Removed Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities | 2009-12-17 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishment of the Council of Governors. | 2010-01-11 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Ensuring Enforcement and Implementation of Abortion Restrictions in the Invalid Link Removed | 2010-03-23 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council | 2010-06-10 |
| Invalid Link Removed | President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition | 2010-06-22 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States | 2010-07-02 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes | 2010-07-19 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities | 2010-07-26 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Classified National Security Information Program for State, Local, Tribal, and Private Sector Entities | 2010-08-18 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Establishment of Pakistan and Afghanistan Support Office | 2010-08-18 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to North Korea | 2010-08-30 |
| Invalid Link Removed | 2010 Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States | 2010-08-31 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to Serious Human Rights Abuses by the Government of Iran and Taking Certain Other Actions | 2010-09-28 |
| Invalid Link Removed | White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanics | 2010-10-19 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Controlled Unclassified Information | 2010-11-04 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Export Enforcement Coordination Center | 2010-11-09 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations | 2010-11-17 |
| Invalid Link Removed | White House Council for Community Solutions | 2010-12-14 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Adjustments to Certain Rates of Pay | 2010-12-22 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates | 2010-12-27 |
| Invalid Link Removed | National Defense Resources Preparedness | 2012-3-16 |
| Invalid Link Removed | Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects | 2012-3-22 |
There is not enough space in this article to do commentary justice to each of the above executive orders and illustrate how they serve as a mere run-around to avoid the US Constitution, further consolidating power inside the executive branch. The list is almost endless.
Suffice to say, Obama has continued the work of his predecessor George W. Bush – the most prolific executive order-signing President in US history and the original enabler of Patriot Acts I and II. If Obama sits his second term, continuing at his present clip, he will easily surpass Bush in number of executive orders. It is all too clear now that it was Bush who enabled the current petty dictatorship being aggressively cultivated by Barack Obama.
We should be reminded here that Obama campaigned- and won his election, on the promise to eliminate signing statements and curtail executive orders. Now look at the results.
When the executive branch of government in the United States becomes too powerful, the federal government can then openly – and duly protected by its own ingrown set of laws – freely wearing the mask of tyranny. Many now rightly believe that this is the case in America today.
The most interesting and disturbing of all is the very first executive order President Obama signed into de facto law on the 21st of January 2009 – his first day in office. Indeed, the first order of business was to invoke his new found executive privilege in order to seal any of his personal records – mostly notably, records which might affect his eligibility to hold the federal office of US President. That particular dictatory Invalid Link Removed.
And finally, this brings us to the most recent, and rather disgusting piece of pseudo legislation already passed through the bowels of the federal machine, in which President Obama invoked the now infamous Invalid Link Removed(NDAA) which firstly authorizes the use of military force, and issues an executive order declaring the threat of Iran a “National Emergency”, and secondly gives the White House banana republic-type authorities to detain indefinitely without trial, or even to assassinate(where itself deems prudent) any American citizen it considers an enemy of the state.
In reality, the NDAA has nothing to do with being ‘an enemy of the state’, as much as it has to do with being an enemy of the White House, or an enemy of its surrogate policy-making machine in New York, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Make no mistake about it, these are troubling times.
carpee
Well-known member
the distractions this petty dictator and all his buddies are making are so obvious.
this trayvonn Martin case is so blown out...
it's very clear he has no intentions of what a true president would have, to unite the country and work together. gotta keep pushing the critical race crap and polarizing and demonizing anyone not on board with the Marxist agenda.
this trayvonn Martin case is so blown out...
it's very clear he has no intentions of what a true president would have, to unite the country and work together. gotta keep pushing the critical race crap and polarizing and demonizing anyone not on board with the Marxist agenda.
ax1
Legend
^^^ Government is always trying to create a race war, a religion war and a political ideology war in this country so people fight amongts eachother instead of the real issue, which is goverment. Reasoning of so many religion wars in the past, it wasnt the religion but rather corruption and government infiltration. Government is infiltrating the churches in this country (presently), and another example is how the FBI is infiltrating the Nazi party as well and using them to their advantage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fukushima Reactor 4: Life On Planet Earth in the Balance
Diplomat Invalid Link Removed is warning that the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may ultimately turn into an event capable of extinguishing all life on Earth.
Fukushima Daiichi Site: Cesium-137 is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl Accident
Invalid Link Removed
Ambassador Mitsuhei Murata
Source: Invalid Link Removed
[*Ed: This page was updated on 4/5/12 to reflect corrected calculations]
Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).
I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.
I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:
In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.
The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.
Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).
It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.
Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival.The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.
Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).
It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.
There was a Nuclear Security Summit Conference in Seoul on March 26 and 27, and Ambassador Murata and I made a concerted effort to find someone to inform the participants from 54 nations of the potential global catastrophe of reactor unit 4. We asked several participants to share the idea of an Independent Assessment team comprised of a broad group of international experts to deal with this urgent issue.
I would like to introduce Ambassador Murata’s letter to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to convey this urgent message and also hisInvalid Link Removed for Japanese readers. He emphasized in the statement that we should bring human wisdom to tackle this unprecedented challenge.
It seems to us that the Nuclear Security Summit was focused on the North Korea nuclear issue and on the issue of common security from a terrorist attack. Our appeal on the need for the independent assessment at Reactor 4 was regarded as less urgent. We predicted this outcome in light of the nature of the Summit. I suppose most participants fully understood the potential disaster which will affect their countries. Nevertheless, they decided not to raise the delicate issue, perhaps in order to not ruffle their diplomatic relationship with Japan.
I was moved by Ambassador Murata’s courage in pressing this issue in Japan. I know how difficult it is for a former career diplomat to do this, especially in my country. Current and former government officials might be similarly restricted in the scope of their actions, as Ambassador Murata is, but it is their responsibility to take a stand for the benefit of our descendants for centuries to come—to pass on a world safer than our ancestors passed us.
If Japanese government leaders do not recognize the risk their nation faces, how could the rest of us be persuaded of the looming disaster? And if the rest of us do not acknowledge the catastrophe we collectively face, who will be the one to act?
Tokyo, March 25, 2012
Dear Secretary-General,
Honorable Ban Ki-moon,
I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude for your considerate letter dated 2 March, 2012. Your moral support for a United Nations Ethics Summit will remain a constant source of encouragement for my activities.
Please allow me to pay a tribute to your great contribution to strengthen nuclear safety and security. The current Nuclear Summit in Seoul is no doubt greatly benefiting from the high-level meeting you convened last September.
I was asked to make a statement at the public hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 23. I raised the crucial problem. of N0.4 reactor of Fukushima containing1535 fuel rods. It could be fatally damaged by continuing aftershocks. Moreover, 50 meters away from it exists a common cooling pool for 6 reactors containing 6375 fuel rods!
It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on NO.4 reactor. This is confirmed by most reliable experts like Dr. Arnie Gundersen or Dr. Fumiaki Koide.
Please allow me to inform you of an initiative being taken by a former UN official who is endeavoring to have the Nuclear Security Summit take up the crucial problem. of N0.4 reactor of Fukushima. He is pursuing the establishment of an independent assessment team. I think his efforts are very significant, because it is indispensable to draw the attention of world leaders to this vital issue.
I am cooperating with him, writing to some of my Korean acquaintances that this issue deserves the personal attention of President Lee Myung-bak. I have written today to Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. I asked him to consider taking the initiative of mobilizing human wisdom on the widest scope to cope withthe Fukushima reactor No.4 problem, fully taking into account the above-mentioned “independent assessment team”.
The world has been made so fragile and vulnerable. The role of the United Nations is increasingly vital. I wish you the best of luck in your noble mission. Please accept, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Mitsuhei Murata
Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland and Senegal
Executive Director, the Japan Society for Global System and Ethics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fukushima Reactor 4
Akio Matsumura talks about nuclear power plants, spent fuel pools, and the trouble with Reactor 4 at Fukushima.
ax1
Legend
Ron Paul: FDA And Big Pharma ‘are in bed together’
Invalid Link Removed
April 10, 2012
(NaturalNews) Ron Paul makes a groundbreaking admission to the public on tape – that the FDA and Big Pharma are indeed “in bed together,” both building up their monopolies and only interested in making more money. The Republican presidential candidate confirms that the corrupt corporations are running the show, that the FDA is doing more harm than good and many other eye-opening admittances.
Watch the video yourself at:
Ron Paul: It never works that way. You know, your safety and your drugs, for instance, it sounds like a reasonable thing. You want safety in your drugs. But the FDA and the drug companies are in bed together and they squeeze out competitions and build up their monopolies and they love government medicine because they make more money. The insurance companies and the drug companies, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans reforming the medical care system, these corporations run the show. You know, they support it, it’s because the government doesn’t take it over. It’s the corporations that end up taking over. So, it’s well intended but I think it always backfires on us and that the people we’re wanting to regulate end up writing their own regulations.
Reporter: So in that particular case would the reasonable alternative being no FDA?
Ron Paul: I think so because, I don’t think, I think they’ve done more harm than good because sometimes it might take them 25 years to allow a good drug to come onto the marketplace and the rules and regulations inhibits the options of the physician to use drugs for anything other than not approved by the FDA, which means it slows up research and the cost goes up and then when it’s approved by the FDA, guess what happens? If you’re on the inside track of that- I’m the FDA- today I approve this drug, tomorrow, their drug company’s value, their stock goes up fifty fold. Just because a bureaucrat made this decision. So, it’s a protection of the corporation is basically what it is. People weren’t dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA. I mean, it just didn’t happen. There’d be other agencies that would do this. There’d be no reason to assume that all of a sudden, the drug companies have it in their interest to give you a bad drug.
Reporter: Well, I’m not sure what fits in there and it’s hard to prove a negative, but are you assuming that there are no bad drugs
Ron Paul: There’s plenty of bad drugs, and the FDA’s permitted a lot of them to get on the market, too. I mean bad drugs on the market now. Did you ever see a PDR? They’re about that big and about half of them are useless. But if it’s FDA approved- and what does the FDA do when it comes to alternative or natural products? The FDA and the drug industry keeps them off the market. A natural drug product, alternative health care, freedom of choice, it is obstructed from those making those free choices. So it’s there to protect the drug industry. They very often do exactly the opposite. I believe in free choice on picking alternative care rather than having it licensed through the FDA and these drug approvals. It delays, it costs so many- this is one reason why drug costs are so high, because it goes through years and years and years of litigation and getting approval, and that’s a source of making drug costs much higher in cost.
Reporter: So how did we get to this mess? Let’s just stick with FDA or go with Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but how is it that this body of burdensome regulations was allowed to develop? Is it parts of the private sector finding ways to protect themselves or what?
Ron Paul: I don’t know, I haven’t done a detailed history of exactly this but my assumption would be that it’d be a lot of well noted people saying, well, we need these regulations to help the people and protect the people. But those individuals and the companies that are involved immediately leap to it and take over and find out how they can keep out their competition. What industry it is, whether it’s the housing industry, housing insurance, it’s always to squeeze the little guy out and protect the big industries. Competition serves the competitor who is trying to compete with big industry, and I don’t like to see government protecting big industries and big corporations.
Invalid Link Removed
April 10, 2012
(NaturalNews) Ron Paul makes a groundbreaking admission to the public on tape – that the FDA and Big Pharma are indeed “in bed together,” both building up their monopolies and only interested in making more money. The Republican presidential candidate confirms that the corrupt corporations are running the show, that the FDA is doing more harm than good and many other eye-opening admittances.
Watch the video yourself at:
Ron Paul: It never works that way. You know, your safety and your drugs, for instance, it sounds like a reasonable thing. You want safety in your drugs. But the FDA and the drug companies are in bed together and they squeeze out competitions and build up their monopolies and they love government medicine because they make more money. The insurance companies and the drug companies, whether it’s Democrats or Republicans reforming the medical care system, these corporations run the show. You know, they support it, it’s because the government doesn’t take it over. It’s the corporations that end up taking over. So, it’s well intended but I think it always backfires on us and that the people we’re wanting to regulate end up writing their own regulations.
Reporter: So in that particular case would the reasonable alternative being no FDA?
Ron Paul: I think so because, I don’t think, I think they’ve done more harm than good because sometimes it might take them 25 years to allow a good drug to come onto the marketplace and the rules and regulations inhibits the options of the physician to use drugs for anything other than not approved by the FDA, which means it slows up research and the cost goes up and then when it’s approved by the FDA, guess what happens? If you’re on the inside track of that- I’m the FDA- today I approve this drug, tomorrow, their drug company’s value, their stock goes up fifty fold. Just because a bureaucrat made this decision. So, it’s a protection of the corporation is basically what it is. People weren’t dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA. I mean, it just didn’t happen. There’d be other agencies that would do this. There’d be no reason to assume that all of a sudden, the drug companies have it in their interest to give you a bad drug.
Reporter: Well, I’m not sure what fits in there and it’s hard to prove a negative, but are you assuming that there are no bad drugs
Ron Paul: There’s plenty of bad drugs, and the FDA’s permitted a lot of them to get on the market, too. I mean bad drugs on the market now. Did you ever see a PDR? They’re about that big and about half of them are useless. But if it’s FDA approved- and what does the FDA do when it comes to alternative or natural products? The FDA and the drug industry keeps them off the market. A natural drug product, alternative health care, freedom of choice, it is obstructed from those making those free choices. So it’s there to protect the drug industry. They very often do exactly the opposite. I believe in free choice on picking alternative care rather than having it licensed through the FDA and these drug approvals. It delays, it costs so many- this is one reason why drug costs are so high, because it goes through years and years and years of litigation and getting approval, and that’s a source of making drug costs much higher in cost.
Reporter: So how did we get to this mess? Let’s just stick with FDA or go with Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but how is it that this body of burdensome regulations was allowed to develop? Is it parts of the private sector finding ways to protect themselves or what?
Ron Paul: I don’t know, I haven’t done a detailed history of exactly this but my assumption would be that it’d be a lot of well noted people saying, well, we need these regulations to help the people and protect the people. But those individuals and the companies that are involved immediately leap to it and take over and find out how they can keep out their competition. What industry it is, whether it’s the housing industry, housing insurance, it’s always to squeeze the little guy out and protect the big industries. Competition serves the competitor who is trying to compete with big industry, and I don’t like to see government protecting big industries and big corporations.
ax1
Legend
50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Sign Letter Slamming NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change Dogma
P Gosselin
Invalid Link Removed
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Update: Invalid Link Removed
===============================
Invalid Link Removed
Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.
Letters to the top don’t get any more blunt than that.
And how many tens of billions have these crackpots at GISS cost the taxpayers?
Here’s the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Pea**** – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
P Gosselin
Invalid Link Removed
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Update: Invalid Link Removed
===============================
Invalid Link Removed
Eventually the sham is going to give, and the latest letter signed by 50 NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience, is a sure sign the gig’s about over.
…..unproven remarks…..not substantiated…..hundreds of well-known climate scientists…..tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief…..science is NOT settled…..unbecoming of NASA’s history…..advocacy of an extreme position…..damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA…..even the reputation of science itself…”
Letters to the top don’t get any more blunt than that.
And how many tens of billions have these crackpots at GISS cost the taxpayers?
Here’s the letter:
March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.
For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.
Thank you for considering this request.
Sincerely,
(Attached signatures)
CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center
Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.
1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
15. /s/ Anita Gale
16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
37. /s/ James Pea**** – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
ax1
Legend
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"] "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order"
Review of F. William Engdahl's book
by Stephen Lendman[/TD]
[TD="width: 1, align: left"] Invalid Link Removed [/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: left"] Invalid Link Removed , June 22, 2009[/TD]
For over 30 years, F. William Engdahl has been a leading researcher, economist, and analyst of the New World Order with extensive writing to his credit on energy, politics, and economics. He contributes regularly to business and other publications, is a frequent speaker on geopolitical, economic and energy issues, and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Engdahl's two previous books include "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" explaining that America's post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.
Engdahl's other book is titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" on how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods on everyone - even though eating them poses serious human health risks.
Engdahl's newest book is reviewed below. Titled "Full Strectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," it discusses America's grand strategy, first revealed in the 1998 US Space Command document - Vision for 2020. Later released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020, it called for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.
Other means as well, including propaganda, NGOs and Color Revolutions for regime change, expanding NATO eastward, and "a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques" as part of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" discussed below.
September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor - at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice. Engdahl's book presents a frightening view of the future, arriving much sooner than most think.
Introduction
After the Soviet Union's dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from "defense" to "rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities."
Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, "chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland - its only potential ***** as an economic region - by military (political, and economic) force," and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called "full spectrum dominance."
As a result, the Cold War never ended and today rages with over a trillion dollars spent annually on "defense" in all forms even though America has no enemy, nor did it after the Japanese surrendered in August 1945. So the solution was to invent them, and so they were.
Post-Soviet Russia, "The 'new' Cold War assumed various disguises and deceptive tactics until September 11, 2001" changed the game. It let George Bush "declare (a) permanent (Global War on Terror) against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who allegedly threatened the American way of life, justified (police state) laws," and is now destroying our freedoms and futures.
The roots of the scheme go back decades - at least to 1939 when powerful New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders planned a post-war world with one nation alone triumphant and unchallengeable.
Engdahl's book is a geopolitical analysis of the past two decades - peering into "the dark corners of Pentagon strategy and actions and the extreme dangers ('full spectrum dominance' holds for) the future," not just to America but the entire world.
Things are so out-of-control today that democratic freedoms and planetary life itself are threatened by "the growing risk of nuclear war by miscalculation" or the foolhardy assumption that waging it can be limited, controlled, and safe - like turning a faucet on and off. The very notion is implausible and reckless on its face, yet powerful forces in the country think this way and plan accordingly.
The Guns of August 2008
On the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of the new century, a place few people in the West ever heard of made headlines when Georgia's army invaded South Ossetia - its province that broke away in 1991 and declared its independence. For a brief period, world tensions were more heightened than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when only cooler heads avoided possible nuclear war.
Like then, the crisis was a Washington provocation with tiny Georgia a mere pawn in a dangerous high-stakes confrontation - a new Great Game that former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard."
He called Eurasia the "center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent." He explained that America's urgent task was to assure that "no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." Dominating that part of the world is key to controlling the planet, and its the main reason for NATO's existence. From inception, its mission was offense.
Post-Cold War, Washington used the illusion of democracy to dominate everywhere - with the long arm of the Pentagon and NATO as enforcers. Euphoric East Europeans couldn't know that American-style democracy was even more repressive than what had ended. Decades of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe propaganda was soon revealed to be no different than the Soviet system they rejected and in some ways much worse.
Western-imposed "shock therapy" meant "free market" hokum, mass privatizations, ending the public sphere, unrestricted access for foreign corporations unemcumbered by pesky regulations, deep social service cuts, loss of job security, poverty wages, repressive laws, and entire economies transformed to benefit a powerful corporate ruling class partnered with corrupted political elites. Globally, Russia got billionaire "oligarchs," China "the princelings," Chile "the piranhas," and in new millennium America the Bush-Cheney "Pioneers" and Obama Wall Street Top Guns wrecking global havoc for self-enrichment.
As for ordinary people, Russia is instructive for what's heading everywhere:
-- mass impoverishment;
-- an epidemic of unemployment;
-- loss of pensions and social benefits;
-- 80% of farmers bankrupted;
-- tens of thousands of factories closed and the country de-industrialized;
-- schools closed;
-- housing in disrepair;
-- skyrocketing alcoholism, drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, suicides, and violent crime; and
-- a declining population and life expectancy because the country was looted for profit and all safety nets ended; what Milton Friedman called "freedom."
Mikhail Gorvachev tried to revitalize Soviet Russia with Glasnost and Perestroika but failed. In return for agreeing to "shock therapy" and nuclear disarmament, GHW Bush promised no eastward NATO extension into newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries. The Russian Duma, in fact, ratified Start II, providing a firm disarmament schedule - contingent on both countries prohibiting a missile defense deployment as stipulated under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).
On December 14, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from ABM and much more. It claimed the right to develop and test new nuclear weapons (in violation of NPT), rescinded the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, greatly increased military spending, refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to increase already large stockpiles, and claimed the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike nuclear weapons.
The door was now open for enhanced militarization, creation of the US Missile Defense Agency, and proof again that trusting America is foolhardy and dangerous. Both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton lied by enticing former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO, one by one.
At the beginning of the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski described America's arrogance this way:
"Presidential travels abroad assumed the trappings of imperial expeditions, overshadowing in scale and security demands the circumstances of any other statesman (reflecting) America's anointment as the world's leader (to be) in some respects reminiscent of Napoleon's self-coronation."
Brzezinski understood the dangers of imperial arrogance, causing the decline and fall of previous empires. Even a superpower like the US is vulnerable. He was very comfortable with an American Century, only leery of the means to achieve and keeping it. In 2008, with 28 NATO country members, including 10 former Warsaw Pact ones, Washington sought admission for Georgia and Ukraine, and did so after announcing in early 2007 the planned installation of interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members.
Allegedly for defense against Iran and other "rogue" states, it clearly targeted Russia by guaranteeing America a nuclear first-strike edge, and that provoked a sharp Kremlin response. Washington's deployment is for offense as are all US/NATO installations globally.
Vladimir Putin expressed outrage in his February 2007 Munich International Conference on Security address stating:
"NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"
Putin's speech drew a storm of US media Russia-bashing. Last August, it got this writer to comment in an article titled "Reinventing the Evil Empire," saying: Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, and not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it's back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and with much larger threats to world peace.
Over the past two decades, Washington upped the ante, encroaching on Russia's borders and encircling it with NATO/US bases clearly designed for offense and to block the spread of democratic freedoms to former Soviet Republics. "Diabolical propaganda" made it work by projecting imperial America as a colonial liberator bringing "free market" capitalism to the East. It succeeded as "long as the United States was the world's largest economy and American dollars were in demand as (the) de facto world reserve currency...." For decades, America "portray(ed) itself as the beacon of liberty for newly independent nations of Africa and Asia," as well as former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact nations.
Geopolitical Reality - America's New Manifest Destiny, Global Expansion to the Vastness of Eurasia
For over a century, America sought "total economic and military control over (Soviet) Russia" through the full strength of its military-industrial-security sectors - by war or other means. From 1945, the Pentagon planned a first-strike nuclear war, an "all out conventional war (called) TOTALITY (as) drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower" per Harry Truman's order, the same man who used atomic weapons against a defeated Japan instead of accepting its requested surrender.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America's superpower supremacy depends on "precluding Eurasian countries from developing their own defense pillars or security structures independent of US-controlled NATO," especially to prevent a powerful China-Russia alliance capable of serious challenge, along with other Eurasian states, notably oil rich ones.
As geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder (1861 - 1947) observed in his most famous dictum:
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
Who rules the World-Island commands the World."
Mackinder's World-Island was Eurasia, all of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
Early in the last century and notably post-WW II, America determined to rule even at the risk of all out nuclear war. For its part, Britain intended to stay in the game, and in April 1945, Winston Churchill urged Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt "to launch an immediate full-scale war against the Soviet Union, using up to 12 captured German divisions (as) cannon fodder to destroy Russia once and for all."
Instead, Washington invented a post-war enemy, and got Europe and Asian countries to feel threatened enough to agree to US dictates, even ones contrary to their own interests. As for America, in 1945, Truman ordered Eisenhower "to prepare secret plans for a surprise nuclear strike on some (Soviet) cities (despite knowing the Kremlin) posed no direct or immediate threat to the United States" or its close allies.
A nuclear-armed Russia with intercontinental missile capabilities halted the threat - until the 2001 Bush Doctrine asserted the right to wage preventive wars, with first-strike nuclear weapons, to depose foreign regimes perceived dangerous to US security and interests. That was the strategy behind the 2008 Georgian conflict that could have escalated into nuclear war.
Defused for the moment, "a number of leading US policy makers (see Russia today) as unfinished business (and seek its) complete dismemberment (as) an independent pivot for Eurasia." Nuclear superiority, encirclement, and "diabolical propaganda" are three tools among others to finish the job and leave America the sole remaining superpower. Disempowering Russia and China will create an open field for a "total global American Century - the realization of 'full spectrum dominance,' as the Pentagon called it."
Today, under Obama as under Bush, the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation is highest in nearly half a century. With America the clear aggressor, Russia may feel its only option is strike first while able or delay and face the consequences when it's too late. The closer offensive nuclear missiles are to its borders, the nearer it gets to disempowerment, further dismemberment, and possible nuclear annihilation.
Its reaction left few doubts of its response. In February 2007, Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said "Moscow would target US Ballistic Missile Defense sites with its nuclear arsenal if Washington" proceeded with its plans. Putin delivered harsh rhetoric and announced Russia would spend $190 billion over the next eight years to modernize its military by 2015 and that state-of-the-art weapons would take precedence. His message was clear. A New Cold War/nuclear arms race was on with Russia ready to contend "out of national survival considerations," not a desire for confrontation.
Continued in next post VVVV
ax1
Legend
Continued from previous post ^^^^
"Missile Defense" for Offense
On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in a speech calling for greater Cold War military spending, including a huge R & D program for what became known as "Star Wars" - in impermeable anti-missile space shield called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The idea then (and now) was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who've profited hugely ever since.
The Clinton administration gave it modest support until the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 proposed an active missile defense "as soon as is technologically possible...."
When George Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld wanted war preparations to include missile defense and space-based weapons to destroy targets anywhere in the world quickly for "full spectrum dominance." The strategy included "deployment of a revolutionary new technique of regime change to impose or install 'US-friendly' regimes throughout the former Soviet Union and across Eurasia."
Controlling Russia - Color Revolutions and Swarming Coups
"Swarming" is a RAND Corporation term referring to "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects and applying it to military conflict by other means. It plays out through covert CIA actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, remove foreign leaders and key officials, prop up friendly dictators, and target individuals anywhere in the world.
Also through propaganda and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI) - posing as NGOs but, in fact, are US government-funded organizations charged with subverting democracy, uprooting it where it exists, or preventing its creation by criminally disruptive means. Methods include non-violent strikes, mass street protests, and major media agitprop for regime change - much like what's now playing out in Iran after its presidential election.
Other recent examples include the Belgrade 2000 coup against Slobodan Misosevic, Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution ousting Eduard Shevardnadze for the US-installed stooge, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the 2004-05 Ukraine Orange Revolution, based on faked electoral fraud, to install another Washington favorite, Viktor Yushchenko. The idea is to isolate Russia by cutting off its economic lifeline - the "pipeline networks that (carry its) huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Serbia to Western Europe and Eurasia..." They run through Ukraine, a nation "so intertwined (with Russia) economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another."
Achieving geopolitical aims this way is far simpler and cheaper than waging wars "while convincing the world (that regime change was the result of) spontaneous outbursts for freedom. (It's) a dangerously effective weapon."
In 1953, cruder CIA methods toppled democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh - the agency's first successful coup d'etat to install Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.
In 1954, it deposed the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz and replaced him with a military dictator - on the pretext of removing a non-existent communist threat. Arbenz, like other targets, threatened US business interests by favoring land reform, strong unions, and wealth distribution to alleviate extreme poverty in their countries.
Short of war, various tactics aim to prevent them: "propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, bought elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, transportation strikes, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination (culminating in) a military (or other coup to install) a 'pro-American' right-wing dictator" - while claiming it's democracy in action. For decades, countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other world regions have been frequent victims.
Since the CIA's 1947 creation, "national security" and a fake communist threat justified every imaginable crime from propaganda to economic warfare, sabotage, assassinations, coup d'etats, torture, foreign wars and much more.
However, by the 1960s, new forms of covert regime change emerged along the lines that RAND studies called "swarming" - the idea being to develop social manipulation techniques or disruptive outbreaks short of wars or violent uprisings. After 2000, as mentioned above, they played out in Central Europe's Color Revolutions. According to State Department and intelligence community officials, "It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy," whether or not popularly elected. Every regime is now vulnerable to "new methods of warfare" by other means, including economic ones very much in play now and earlier.
Organizations like the Gene Sharp Albert Einstein Institution, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and others are very much involved, and Sharp's web site admits being active with "pro-democracy" groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Serbia. They all conveniently "coincided with the US State Department's targets for regime change over the same period."
Eurasian Pipeline Wars
Central to the current conflict is control of the region's vast oil and gas reserves, and as long as Russia can use its resources "to win economic allies in Western Europe, China, and elsewhere, it (can't) be politically isolated." As a result, Moscow reacts harshly to military encirclement and bordering Color Revolutions - hostile acts, the geopolitical equivalence of war.
For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.
It's why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia's economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It's rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to ***** Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.
Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. "full spectrum dominance" is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. Iraq's occupation continues and Afghanistan operations are enhanced with increased troop deployments under newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal's command - a hired gun, a man with a reputation for brutishness that includes torture, assassinations, indifference to civilian deaths, and willingness to destroy villages to save them.
As long as Russia and China stay free from US control, "full spectrum dominance" is impossible. Encircling the former with NATO bases, Color Revolutions, and incorporating former Soviet states into NATO and the EU are all part of the same grand strategy - "deconstruct(ing) Russia once and for all as a potential ***** to a sole US Superpower hegemony."
Vladimir Putin stands in the way, "a dynamic nationalist (leader) committed to rebuilding" his country. In 2003, a defining geopolitical event occurred when Putin had billionaire oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, arrested on charges of tax evasion and put his shares in giant Yukos Oil group under state control.
It followed a decisive Russian Duma (lower house) election in which Khodorkovsky "was reliably alleged" to have used his wealth for enough votes to gain a majority - to challenge Putin in 2004 for president. Khodorkovsky violated his pledge to stay out of politics in return for keeping his assets and stolen billions provided he repatriate enough of them back home.
His arrest also came after a report surfaced about a meeting with Dick Cheney in Washington, followed by others with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. They discussed acquiring a major stake of up to 40% of Yukos or enough to give Washington and Big Oil "de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals." Khodorkovsky also met with GHW Bush and had ties to the Carlyle Group, the influential US firm with figures like James Baker one of its partners.
Had Exxon and Chevron consummated the deal, it would have been an "energy coup d'etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it" and hit hard on Khodorkosky in the process. It "signaled a decisive turn....towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses." By late 2004, Moscow understood that a New Cold War was on over "strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy," and Putin moved from defense to a "new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using (Russia's) energy as the lever."
It involves reclaiming Russia's oil and gas reserves given away by Boris Yeltsin. Also strengthening and modernizing the country's military and nuclear deterrent to enhance its long-term security. Russia remains a military powerhouse and displays impressive technology at international trade shows, including the S-300 and more powerful S-400, reportedly more potent than comparable US systems.
Controlling China with Synthetic Democracy
From the 1940s to today, America's China strategy has been "divide and conquer," only tactics have varied from "big stick" to "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy. Key is to keep Russia and China from cooperating economically and militarily, "maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly Eurasia" (that, of course includes the Middle East and its oil riches) - for the overarching goal of total "control of China as the potential economic colossus of Asia."
With America embroiled in Eurasian wars, policy now "masquerad(es) behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of psychological and economic warfare."
Another initiative as well is ongoing - the 2007 AFRICOM authorization, the US Africa Command to control the continent's 53 countries no differently than the rest of the world, using military force as necessary. China's increasing need for Africa's resources (including oil), not terrorism, is the reason.
The 2008 Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) focuses on "full spectrum dominance," controlling world resources, and the prospect of wars for three to four decades to secure them. China and Russia are most feared as serious competitors - the former for its explosive economic growth and resource requirements and the latter for its energy, other raw material riches, and military strength.
AMS also included another threat - "population growth" threatening America and the West with "radical ideologies" and hence instability as well as unwanted "resource competition" that expanding economies require - everything from food to water, energy and other raw materials. These issues lay behind AFRCOM's creation and strategy for hardline militarism globally.
America's second president, John Adams, once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt," or more broadly economic warfare. With much of US manufacturing offshored in China, both methods are constrained so an alternative scheme is used - human rights and democracy by an America disdaining both at home or abroad.
Nonetheless, in 2004, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor targeted China on these issues with millions in funding, headed by a right-wing conservative, Paula Dobriansky. She's a CFR member, NED vice chairman, Freedom House board member, senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at which she endorsed attacking Iraq in 1998. Now she targets China with "soft warfare" strategy that's just as deadly.
Other tools include the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet, Falun Gong in China, "an arsenal of (global) NGOs" carefully recruited for their mission, and, of course, the Western media, including public television and radio in America and BBC globally.
Weaponizing Human Rights - From Darfur to Myanmar to Tibet
In targeting China, Washington's human rights/democracy offensive focused on Myanmar, Tibet, and oil-rich Darfur. Called the "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it featured Western media images of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks on Yangon (formerly Rangoon) streets calling for more democracy. "Behind the scenes, however, was a battle of major geopolitical consequence" with Myanmar's people mere props for a Washington-hatched scheme - employing Eurasian Color Revolution tactics:
-- "hit-and-run swarming" mobs of monks;
-- connecting protest groups through internet blogs and mobile text-messaging links; and
-- having command-and-control over protest cells, dispersed and re-formed as ordered with no idea who pulled the strings or why - a hidden sinister objective targeting China for greater geopolitical control and destabilizing Myanmar to do it.
Also at stake is control of vital sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea with the Myanmar coastline "providing shipping and naval access to one of the world's most strategic waterways, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia."
Since 9/11, the Pentagon tried but failed to militarize the region except for an airbase on Indonesia's northernmost tip. Myanmar rejected similar overtures - hence its being targeted for its strategic importance. "The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, (is) the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. (It's) the key chokepoint in Asia" so controlling it is key. China has close ties to Myanmar. It's provided billions in military assistance and developed the infrastructure. The country is also oil-rich, on its territory and offshore.
China is the world's fastest growing energy market. Over 80% of its oil imports pass through the Strait. Controlling it keeps a chokehold over China's life-line, and if it's ever closed, about half the world's tanker fleet would have thousands of extra miles to travel at far higher freight costs.
In summer 2007, Myanmar and PetroChina signed a long-term Memorandum of Understanding - to supply China with substantial natural gas from its Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. India was the main loser after China offered to invest billions for a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across the country to China's Yunnan Province. The same pipeline could give China access to Middle East and African oil by bypassing the Malacca Strait. "Myanmar would become China's 'bridge' linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland" trumping Washington should it succeed in controlling the Strait - a potential geopolitical disaster America had to prevent, hence the 2007 "Saffron Revolution" that failed.
India's Dangerous Alliance Shift
From 2005, India was "pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington" to counter China's growing influence in Asia and to have a "capable partner who can take on more responsibility for low-end operations" - directed at China and to provide bases and access to project US power in the region. To sweeten the deal, the Bush administration offered to sell (nuclear outlaw) India advanced nuclear technology. At the same time, it bashed Iran for its legitimate commercial operations, and now Obama threatens hardened sanctions and perhaps war without year end 2009 compliance with clearly outrageous demands.
Part II continues Engdahl's important analysis to conclusion.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Invalid Link Removed
"Missile Defense" for Offense
On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in a speech calling for greater Cold War military spending, including a huge R & D program for what became known as "Star Wars" - in impermeable anti-missile space shield called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The idea then (and now) was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who've profited hugely ever since.
The Clinton administration gave it modest support until the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 proposed an active missile defense "as soon as is technologically possible...."
When George Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld wanted war preparations to include missile defense and space-based weapons to destroy targets anywhere in the world quickly for "full spectrum dominance." The strategy included "deployment of a revolutionary new technique of regime change to impose or install 'US-friendly' regimes throughout the former Soviet Union and across Eurasia."
Controlling Russia - Color Revolutions and Swarming Coups
"Swarming" is a RAND Corporation term referring to "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects and applying it to military conflict by other means. It plays out through covert CIA actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, remove foreign leaders and key officials, prop up friendly dictators, and target individuals anywhere in the world.
Also through propaganda and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI) - posing as NGOs but, in fact, are US government-funded organizations charged with subverting democracy, uprooting it where it exists, or preventing its creation by criminally disruptive means. Methods include non-violent strikes, mass street protests, and major media agitprop for regime change - much like what's now playing out in Iran after its presidential election.
Other recent examples include the Belgrade 2000 coup against Slobodan Misosevic, Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution ousting Eduard Shevardnadze for the US-installed stooge, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the 2004-05 Ukraine Orange Revolution, based on faked electoral fraud, to install another Washington favorite, Viktor Yushchenko. The idea is to isolate Russia by cutting off its economic lifeline - the "pipeline networks that (carry its) huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Serbia to Western Europe and Eurasia..." They run through Ukraine, a nation "so intertwined (with Russia) economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another."
Achieving geopolitical aims this way is far simpler and cheaper than waging wars "while convincing the world (that regime change was the result of) spontaneous outbursts for freedom. (It's) a dangerously effective weapon."
In 1953, cruder CIA methods toppled democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh - the agency's first successful coup d'etat to install Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.
In 1954, it deposed the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz and replaced him with a military dictator - on the pretext of removing a non-existent communist threat. Arbenz, like other targets, threatened US business interests by favoring land reform, strong unions, and wealth distribution to alleviate extreme poverty in their countries.
Short of war, various tactics aim to prevent them: "propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, bought elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, transportation strikes, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination (culminating in) a military (or other coup to install) a 'pro-American' right-wing dictator" - while claiming it's democracy in action. For decades, countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other world regions have been frequent victims.
Since the CIA's 1947 creation, "national security" and a fake communist threat justified every imaginable crime from propaganda to economic warfare, sabotage, assassinations, coup d'etats, torture, foreign wars and much more.
However, by the 1960s, new forms of covert regime change emerged along the lines that RAND studies called "swarming" - the idea being to develop social manipulation techniques or disruptive outbreaks short of wars or violent uprisings. After 2000, as mentioned above, they played out in Central Europe's Color Revolutions. According to State Department and intelligence community officials, "It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy," whether or not popularly elected. Every regime is now vulnerable to "new methods of warfare" by other means, including economic ones very much in play now and earlier.
Organizations like the Gene Sharp Albert Einstein Institution, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and others are very much involved, and Sharp's web site admits being active with "pro-democracy" groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Serbia. They all conveniently "coincided with the US State Department's targets for regime change over the same period."
Eurasian Pipeline Wars
Central to the current conflict is control of the region's vast oil and gas reserves, and as long as Russia can use its resources "to win economic allies in Western Europe, China, and elsewhere, it (can't) be politically isolated." As a result, Moscow reacts harshly to military encirclement and bordering Color Revolutions - hostile acts, the geopolitical equivalence of war.
For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.
It's why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia's economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It's rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to ***** Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.
Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. "full spectrum dominance" is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. Iraq's occupation continues and Afghanistan operations are enhanced with increased troop deployments under newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal's command - a hired gun, a man with a reputation for brutishness that includes torture, assassinations, indifference to civilian deaths, and willingness to destroy villages to save them.
As long as Russia and China stay free from US control, "full spectrum dominance" is impossible. Encircling the former with NATO bases, Color Revolutions, and incorporating former Soviet states into NATO and the EU are all part of the same grand strategy - "deconstruct(ing) Russia once and for all as a potential ***** to a sole US Superpower hegemony."
Vladimir Putin stands in the way, "a dynamic nationalist (leader) committed to rebuilding" his country. In 2003, a defining geopolitical event occurred when Putin had billionaire oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, arrested on charges of tax evasion and put his shares in giant Yukos Oil group under state control.
It followed a decisive Russian Duma (lower house) election in which Khodorkovsky "was reliably alleged" to have used his wealth for enough votes to gain a majority - to challenge Putin in 2004 for president. Khodorkovsky violated his pledge to stay out of politics in return for keeping his assets and stolen billions provided he repatriate enough of them back home.
His arrest also came after a report surfaced about a meeting with Dick Cheney in Washington, followed by others with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. They discussed acquiring a major stake of up to 40% of Yukos or enough to give Washington and Big Oil "de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals." Khodorkovsky also met with GHW Bush and had ties to the Carlyle Group, the influential US firm with figures like James Baker one of its partners.
Had Exxon and Chevron consummated the deal, it would have been an "energy coup d'etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it" and hit hard on Khodorkosky in the process. It "signaled a decisive turn....towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses." By late 2004, Moscow understood that a New Cold War was on over "strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy," and Putin moved from defense to a "new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using (Russia's) energy as the lever."
It involves reclaiming Russia's oil and gas reserves given away by Boris Yeltsin. Also strengthening and modernizing the country's military and nuclear deterrent to enhance its long-term security. Russia remains a military powerhouse and displays impressive technology at international trade shows, including the S-300 and more powerful S-400, reportedly more potent than comparable US systems.
Controlling China with Synthetic Democracy
From the 1940s to today, America's China strategy has been "divide and conquer," only tactics have varied from "big stick" to "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy. Key is to keep Russia and China from cooperating economically and militarily, "maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly Eurasia" (that, of course includes the Middle East and its oil riches) - for the overarching goal of total "control of China as the potential economic colossus of Asia."
With America embroiled in Eurasian wars, policy now "masquerad(es) behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of psychological and economic warfare."
Another initiative as well is ongoing - the 2007 AFRICOM authorization, the US Africa Command to control the continent's 53 countries no differently than the rest of the world, using military force as necessary. China's increasing need for Africa's resources (including oil), not terrorism, is the reason.
The 2008 Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) focuses on "full spectrum dominance," controlling world resources, and the prospect of wars for three to four decades to secure them. China and Russia are most feared as serious competitors - the former for its explosive economic growth and resource requirements and the latter for its energy, other raw material riches, and military strength.
AMS also included another threat - "population growth" threatening America and the West with "radical ideologies" and hence instability as well as unwanted "resource competition" that expanding economies require - everything from food to water, energy and other raw materials. These issues lay behind AFRCOM's creation and strategy for hardline militarism globally.
America's second president, John Adams, once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt," or more broadly economic warfare. With much of US manufacturing offshored in China, both methods are constrained so an alternative scheme is used - human rights and democracy by an America disdaining both at home or abroad.
Nonetheless, in 2004, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor targeted China on these issues with millions in funding, headed by a right-wing conservative, Paula Dobriansky. She's a CFR member, NED vice chairman, Freedom House board member, senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at which she endorsed attacking Iraq in 1998. Now she targets China with "soft warfare" strategy that's just as deadly.
Other tools include the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet, Falun Gong in China, "an arsenal of (global) NGOs" carefully recruited for their mission, and, of course, the Western media, including public television and radio in America and BBC globally.
Weaponizing Human Rights - From Darfur to Myanmar to Tibet
In targeting China, Washington's human rights/democracy offensive focused on Myanmar, Tibet, and oil-rich Darfur. Called the "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it featured Western media images of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks on Yangon (formerly Rangoon) streets calling for more democracy. "Behind the scenes, however, was a battle of major geopolitical consequence" with Myanmar's people mere props for a Washington-hatched scheme - employing Eurasian Color Revolution tactics:
-- "hit-and-run swarming" mobs of monks;
-- connecting protest groups through internet blogs and mobile text-messaging links; and
-- having command-and-control over protest cells, dispersed and re-formed as ordered with no idea who pulled the strings or why - a hidden sinister objective targeting China for greater geopolitical control and destabilizing Myanmar to do it.
Also at stake is control of vital sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea with the Myanmar coastline "providing shipping and naval access to one of the world's most strategic waterways, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia."
Since 9/11, the Pentagon tried but failed to militarize the region except for an airbase on Indonesia's northernmost tip. Myanmar rejected similar overtures - hence its being targeted for its strategic importance. "The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, (is) the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. (It's) the key chokepoint in Asia" so controlling it is key. China has close ties to Myanmar. It's provided billions in military assistance and developed the infrastructure. The country is also oil-rich, on its territory and offshore.
China is the world's fastest growing energy market. Over 80% of its oil imports pass through the Strait. Controlling it keeps a chokehold over China's life-line, and if it's ever closed, about half the world's tanker fleet would have thousands of extra miles to travel at far higher freight costs.
In summer 2007, Myanmar and PetroChina signed a long-term Memorandum of Understanding - to supply China with substantial natural gas from its Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. India was the main loser after China offered to invest billions for a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across the country to China's Yunnan Province. The same pipeline could give China access to Middle East and African oil by bypassing the Malacca Strait. "Myanmar would become China's 'bridge' linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland" trumping Washington should it succeed in controlling the Strait - a potential geopolitical disaster America had to prevent, hence the 2007 "Saffron Revolution" that failed.
India's Dangerous Alliance Shift
From 2005, India was "pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington" to counter China's growing influence in Asia and to have a "capable partner who can take on more responsibility for low-end operations" - directed at China and to provide bases and access to project US power in the region. To sweeten the deal, the Bush administration offered to sell (nuclear outlaw) India advanced nuclear technology. At the same time, it bashed Iran for its legitimate commercial operations, and now Obama threatens hardened sanctions and perhaps war without year end 2009 compliance with clearly outrageous demands.
Part II continues Engdahl's important analysis to conclusion.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
War on drugs? 110k active US troops 'on prescribed meds'
RT
Published: 09 April, 2012, 15:00
Edited: 09 April, 2012, 18:40
Invalid Link Removed
A US Army soldier enters the Combat Stress Control Clinic of 125 BSB Charlie Medical Company of Task Force Mustang at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Shank in Logar province, eastern Afghanistan (Reuters/Umit Bektas)
Thousands of US soldiers are going into battle fueled by all sorts of prescription medications, be they amphetamines, antidepressants, sedatives or others. Largely unmonitored consumption of drugs can lead to aberrant behavior and mental disorders.
*Over 110,000 American service personnel took prescribed medications in 2011 to battle through everyday military routine.
The Times recently disclosed that nearly 8 per cent of active-duty American servicemen and women take sedatives and over 6 per cent are on antidepressants, a tremendous eightfold increase since 2005, when two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were in full swing.
Routine military service, combat stress, and sometimes lack of sleep force American troops to go to work medicated. It mirrors the general situation in American society that uses prescription drugs on a daily basis at levels unseen before.
In the Army, though, those who opt to modulate their lives with drugs are facing challenges of a non-civil nature that supposes an absolutely different level of responsibility. These men and women are well-armed, after all.
As a rule, troops are sent to deployment with 180-day medication supply. But soldiers can always trade favorite pills with their friends. The habit of ending a hard day with a handful of various tablets is apparently nothing extraordinary.
"We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now…. And I don't believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence," said Bart Billings, a former military psychologist who hosts an annual conference on combat stress, informed The Los Angeles Times.
Painkillers of narcotic nature pose a threat of addiction to those injured who have to take them, too.
One could only guess whether the suicide rate surge in the US Army in the recent decade has any connections with army psychologists prescribing pills to personnel left, right and center. An appalling 80 per cent increase in suicides among US service personnel has been registered between 2004 and 2008.
On the other hand, when every 10th US serviceman deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, there must be a calculated risk in prescribing these medications to keep soldiers in service.
But the main problem among deployed troops remains mental fatigue of those who have been deployed several times in a row. As many as 80 per cent of on-duty personnel have gone through three or more deployments. Worn-out personnel have problems with sleep and accurate assessment of ongoing events.
The recent notorious case of Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, accused of murdering 17 civilians in a bloody rampage in Afghanistan, again raised the question of drug-related incidents in the US military.
After it was announced the defendant does not remember what he did, his attorneys requested a list of the medication the soldier was taking during his deployment in Afghanistan.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
RT
Published: 09 April, 2012, 15:00
Edited: 09 April, 2012, 18:40
Invalid Link Removed
A US Army soldier enters the Combat Stress Control Clinic of 125 BSB Charlie Medical Company of Task Force Mustang at Forward Operating Base (FOB) Shank in Logar province, eastern Afghanistan (Reuters/Umit Bektas)
Thousands of US soldiers are going into battle fueled by all sorts of prescription medications, be they amphetamines, antidepressants, sedatives or others. Largely unmonitored consumption of drugs can lead to aberrant behavior and mental disorders.
*Over 110,000 American service personnel took prescribed medications in 2011 to battle through everyday military routine.
The Times recently disclosed that nearly 8 per cent of active-duty American servicemen and women take sedatives and over 6 per cent are on antidepressants, a tremendous eightfold increase since 2005, when two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were in full swing.
Routine military service, combat stress, and sometimes lack of sleep force American troops to go to work medicated. It mirrors the general situation in American society that uses prescription drugs on a daily basis at levels unseen before.
In the Army, though, those who opt to modulate their lives with drugs are facing challenges of a non-civil nature that supposes an absolutely different level of responsibility. These men and women are well-armed, after all.
As a rule, troops are sent to deployment with 180-day medication supply. But soldiers can always trade favorite pills with their friends. The habit of ending a hard day with a handful of various tablets is apparently nothing extraordinary.
"We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now…. And I don't believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence," said Bart Billings, a former military psychologist who hosts an annual conference on combat stress, informed The Los Angeles Times.
Painkillers of narcotic nature pose a threat of addiction to those injured who have to take them, too.
One could only guess whether the suicide rate surge in the US Army in the recent decade has any connections with army psychologists prescribing pills to personnel left, right and center. An appalling 80 per cent increase in suicides among US service personnel has been registered between 2004 and 2008.
On the other hand, when every 10th US serviceman deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, there must be a calculated risk in prescribing these medications to keep soldiers in service.
But the main problem among deployed troops remains mental fatigue of those who have been deployed several times in a row. As many as 80 per cent of on-duty personnel have gone through three or more deployments. Worn-out personnel have problems with sleep and accurate assessment of ongoing events.
The recent notorious case of Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, accused of murdering 17 civilians in a bloody rampage in Afghanistan, again raised the question of drug-related incidents in the US military.
After it was announced the defendant does not remember what he did, his attorneys requested a list of the medication the soldier was taking during his deployment in Afghanistan.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
soontobbeast
Well-known member
The trouble is, no one wants to step out and say that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
facts are thrown into the trash, no matter how well established they are. What do you have, besides skepticism, that makes these points made by a credible source, to be invalid?
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
OH and by the way, you're on a different plane of delusion than ever thought imagined ,if you think the only result of 9/11 is the invasion of Afghanistan.
What about the MASSIVE amount of debt accrued over the course of the iraq war and the erosion of our credit rating and subsequent strength of our country? what about TSA and the patriot act ? OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS FLIPPED ON ITS BACK. our country will NEVER be the same after 9/11.
I cannot believe you are this delusional/brain-dead/blind/appropriate adjective.
Let's step back for a sec and stop thinking of cover-ups as partisan. There is a bigger picture besides Red or Blue.
EasyEJL
Never enough
over a decade, its cost was just 1 trillion. thats around $100 billion a year, less than half of what we spend on interest on the national debt a year.
AE14
Board Sponsor
this made me happy and sad all at the same time.
I was unaware of the interest figures, that is just mind boggling
EasyEJL
Never enough
yep, its one of those little things that will kill us in the long run. At current planned next decade by Obama's budgeting, by 2022 I believe the interest will be the largest part of the budget after defense and social security, in the 500 billion a year range.
EasyEJL
Never enough
the worst is the head in the sand part.
Invalid Link Removed
the same bernanke who said there was no housing bubble, and there was no worries of a price collapse.
The reason is simple in a way, to recognize its coming and take measures to avoid it requires them to reduce their sphere of influence, which none of those tools are willing to do.
ax1
Legend
1 trillion (not including black budget money which is also our tax dollars) = Over a decade Iraq war (but Dick Cheney's buddies and many others profited lots of cash! yeah!)
2.3 trillion = Donalds Rumsfelds announcement on 9/10/2001 of missing un-accounted money, which somehow the "plane" struck the computer servers at the pentagon that were holding the information.
16 trillion = Partial audit of the Federal Reserve, from December 2007 and June 2010 reveals $16,000,000,000,000.00 in bailouts secretly given out for US banks and corporations and foreign banks.
My 3rd sentence above does that to me every-time I think of it. Im desensitized to 1 trillion.
I wonder if they have computers that can count high enough should we ever pull a full audit of the Fed?
ax1
Legend
Government Secretly Prepares To Evacuate Chicago During NATO Summit
“Standby shelters” readied for residents
Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
April 26, 2012
A leaked directive issued to the Red Cross indicates that the federal government has prepared plans to evacuate Chicago during the NATO summit.
An email sent to Red Cross volunteers in the Milwaukee area notes that the NATO summit in May could “create unrest or another national security incident.”
“The American Red Cross in southeastern Wisconsin has been asked to place a number of shelters on standby in the event of evacuation of Chicago.” the email, which was Invalid Link Removed, reads.
Link to CBS News Video: Invalid Link Removed
A spokesperson for the Red Cross Chapter told CBS “Our direction has come from the City of Chicago and the Secret Service”.
While the Secret Service has not commented on the news, officials at Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management and Communication have denied having anything to do with the directive.
Two weeks ago residents were startled by Invalid Link Removed on the authority of the OMEC. Huge black hawk helicopters were seen flying low and in between buildings for hours. It now appears that these exercises may be linked to the secret preparations.
In addition, earlier this week a number of Chicago area residents revealed that they have Invalid Link Removed in preparation for major rioting.
The residents received letters from management that read:
The camps are primarily designed to house emergency responders, but will also be utilized to shelter “displaced citizens,” who will be “given the first opportunities for employment within the camp,” according to the solicitation. The camps will be able to service up to 2,000 people at one time.
Scenarios based around displaced citizens were also part of the Invalid Link Removed which featured Polish troops training with the Illinois National Guard.
“Standby shelters” readied for residents
Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
April 26, 2012
A leaked directive issued to the Red Cross indicates that the federal government has prepared plans to evacuate Chicago during the NATO summit.
An email sent to Red Cross volunteers in the Milwaukee area notes that the NATO summit in May could “create unrest or another national security incident.”
“The American Red Cross in southeastern Wisconsin has been asked to place a number of shelters on standby in the event of evacuation of Chicago.” the email, which was Invalid Link Removed, reads.
Link to CBS News Video: Invalid Link Removed
A spokesperson for the Red Cross Chapter told CBS “Our direction has come from the City of Chicago and the Secret Service”.
While the Secret Service has not commented on the news, officials at Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management and Communication have denied having anything to do with the directive.
Two weeks ago residents were startled by Invalid Link Removed on the authority of the OMEC. Huge black hawk helicopters were seen flying low and in between buildings for hours. It now appears that these exercises may be linked to the secret preparations.
In addition, earlier this week a number of Chicago area residents revealed that they have Invalid Link Removed in preparation for major rioting.
The residents received letters from management that read:
“We are STRONGLY recommending that all residents find places to stay during the conference from May 18 through May 21.”
“In the event of a riot or the potential of one near the building, all access doors will be locked including the garage door,” the letter continues. “For everyone’s safety, we will be instructing anyone in the building to stay in his or her unit.”
The fact that, “The American Red Cross in southeastern Wisconsin has been asked to place a number of shelters on standby in the event of evacuation of Chicago,” dovetails with Invalid Link Removed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) put out a request for contractors to construct temporary emergency camps inside the United States which can be ready for occupancy within a 72 hour time period and used to house emergency responders as well as “displaced citizens”.“In the event of a riot or the potential of one near the building, all access doors will be locked including the garage door,” the letter continues. “For everyone’s safety, we will be instructing anyone in the building to stay in his or her unit.”
The camps are primarily designed to house emergency responders, but will also be utilized to shelter “displaced citizens,” who will be “given the first opportunities for employment within the camp,” according to the solicitation. The camps will be able to service up to 2,000 people at one time.
Scenarios based around displaced citizens were also part of the Invalid Link Removed which featured Polish troops training with the Illinois National Guard.
ax1
Legend
DoD Confirms Russian Troops To Train On U.S. Soil
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Department of Defense has confirmed foreign media reports that Russian troops are set to target terrorists on Americans soil as part of an unprecedented joint drill with the United States which will take place in Colorado next month.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed, Airborne troops from Russia are set to take part in drills focused around targeting terrorists at Fort Carson between May 24 and May 31. The soldiers will also be mingling with the local community, attending a baseball game in Colorado Springs during their stay.
Although it marks the first time Russian troops will train on U.S. soil, soldiers from a plethora of different nations have been involved in similar drills for Invalid Link Removed.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, Invalid Link Removed. “This is the first time that American and Russian special operations troops have participated in a bilateral exercise.”
“According to Snyder, the exercises — which she said would last about three weeks in all — will serve to train and improve skills related to terror-war fighting. About 20 Russian soldiers will be participating, with most of the training to take place on the Fort Carson, Colorado, Army base and a mountain training area several hours away.”
The presence of foreign troops on U.S. soil has long caused consternation with many on the American right for a number of reasons, both historical and contemporary, stretching right back to when the British called upon German Hessian soldiers during the Revolutionary War.
More modern fears revolve around global UN peacekeeping troops being used to quell unrest inside America, an issue touched upon by Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting when he stated, “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.”
Drills such as Invalid Link Removed, during which foreign troops worked alongside U.S. authorities, have led to concerns that the federal government would be forced to rely on foreign mercenaries to restore order, confiscate weapons or even incarcerate citizens during a national emergency, because of the likelihood that Americans would refuse to carry out such orders against other Americans.
One of the primary reasons why this story hasn’t gone viral is because doubt was cast on the issue when a known disinformation outlet (European Union Times) decided to embellish the details by adding completely manufactured nonsense about Russian troops “seizing the CIA’s main computer facility in Denver, the NSA’s main computer facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and taking control of main runways and terminals of the Denver International Airport.”
Despite the fact that these claims come from a source who is notorious for making a living out of fooling people into believing bogus stories, Glenn Beck’s Invalid Link Removed website carried them without retraction.
This in turn poisoned the well and led some to believe that the drills themselves, which are completely confirmed and admitted, were a hoax.
The Department of Defense’s acknowledgment that the exercises as described in the initial media reports are indeed taking place will hopefully put an end to this confusion and allow focus to return to the question of why Russian troops are training to kill “terrorists” on U.S. soil.
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, April 27, 2012
The Department of Defense has confirmed foreign media reports that Russian troops are set to target terrorists on Americans soil as part of an unprecedented joint drill with the United States which will take place in Colorado next month.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed, Airborne troops from Russia are set to take part in drills focused around targeting terrorists at Fort Carson between May 24 and May 31. The soldiers will also be mingling with the local community, attending a baseball game in Colorado Springs during their stay.
Although it marks the first time Russian troops will train on U.S. soil, soldiers from a plethora of different nations have been involved in similar drills for Invalid Link Removed.
“The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, Invalid Link Removed. “This is the first time that American and Russian special operations troops have participated in a bilateral exercise.”
“According to Snyder, the exercises — which she said would last about three weeks in all — will serve to train and improve skills related to terror-war fighting. About 20 Russian soldiers will be participating, with most of the training to take place on the Fort Carson, Colorado, Army base and a mountain training area several hours away.”
The presence of foreign troops on U.S. soil has long caused consternation with many on the American right for a number of reasons, both historical and contemporary, stretching right back to when the British called upon German Hessian soldiers during the Revolutionary War.
More modern fears revolve around global UN peacekeeping troops being used to quell unrest inside America, an issue touched upon by Henry Kissinger during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting when he stated, “Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.”
Drills such as Invalid Link Removed, during which foreign troops worked alongside U.S. authorities, have led to concerns that the federal government would be forced to rely on foreign mercenaries to restore order, confiscate weapons or even incarcerate citizens during a national emergency, because of the likelihood that Americans would refuse to carry out such orders against other Americans.
One of the primary reasons why this story hasn’t gone viral is because doubt was cast on the issue when a known disinformation outlet (European Union Times) decided to embellish the details by adding completely manufactured nonsense about Russian troops “seizing the CIA’s main computer facility in Denver, the NSA’s main computer facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and taking control of main runways and terminals of the Denver International Airport.”
Despite the fact that these claims come from a source who is notorious for making a living out of fooling people into believing bogus stories, Glenn Beck’s Invalid Link Removed website carried them without retraction.
This in turn poisoned the well and led some to believe that the drills themselves, which are completely confirmed and admitted, were a hoax.
The Department of Defense’s acknowledgment that the exercises as described in the initial media reports are indeed taking place will hopefully put an end to this confusion and allow focus to return to the question of why Russian troops are training to kill “terrorists” on U.S. soil.
ax1
Legend
Lets thank Big Brother for telling us whats good and not good for us. If its not natural its bad for you and you will die, so thank goodness that Big Brother sent a letter to 10 manufacturers to immediately cease distribution in order to halt all the bodybuilders and athletes that have been dropping dead all over the place due to this unatural toxic waste of a substance it is (its not natural of course its toxic /debate).
Invalid Link Removed
It’s official, says the FDA. “Synthetically-produced DMAA (1,3-Dimethylamylamine) is not a dietary ingredient and is not, therefore, eligible to be used as an active ingredient in dietary supplements”.
Cosmetics anyone?
Invalid Link Removed
It’s official, says the FDA. “Synthetically-produced DMAA (1,3-Dimethylamylamine) is not a dietary ingredient and is not, therefore, eligible to be used as an active ingredient in dietary supplements”.
Cosmetics anyone?
ax1
Legend
Breitbart's coroner poisoned to death?
Police probe mysterious demise of L.A. medical examiner
Published: 7 hours ago
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the Invalid Link Removed, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced Invalid Link Removed.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Invalid Link Removed
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
“He was transported there early in the morning, and passed away late at night,” Ed Winter, assistant chief of operations and Cormier’s colleague at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, told KTLA. “It affects everybody when you lose a co-worker, but we’ll proceed and do our job and try to figure out why Michael died.”
The hospital then notified Los Angeles Police about Cormier’s death.
“At this point we haven’t ruled out foul play,” police Lt. Alan Hamilton told the Invalid Link Removed. “It is one of the things being considered. We are waiting for the coroner’s results.”
Toxicology results are not expected for five to six weeks.
Sources told the Times several hazardous materials experts and officers searched Cormier’s home in search of what may have caused his sudden demise.
Invalid Link Removed
Michael Cormier
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that finding the presence of poison does not necessarily mean the death was a homicide, because the substance could have accidentally entered his system,” the Times reported.
Hamilton also noted investigations are standard procedure when there’s a suggestion of anything other than natural causes in someone’s death.
It’s still unclear if Cormier personally worked on the probe into Breitbart’s death, and WND has left messages with the coroner’s office seeking comment.
On April 20, the same day Cormier died, the Invalid Link Removed, stating the 43-year-old conservative media powerhouse died of natural causes, listing cause of death as heart failure.
“No prescription or illicit drugs were detected.The blood alcohol was .04%,” the official report said. “No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.”
Breitbart was founder of BigGovernment.com among other websites.
The night before Breitbart died, WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi arranged for Breitbart to interview Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the very next day held a news conference to announce there was probable cause to believe President Obama’s birth certificate released on April 27, 2011, was a forgery, as well as Obama’s Selective Service Card.
“I have known Andrew for nearly 15 years and considered him a friend. His passion and energy for seeking the truth will be greatly missed by the nation. It’s almost incomprehensible that he left us so soon,” said Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND.
Invalid Link Removed Farah recalled meeting Breitbart years ago when he worked as a backup editor for the Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed “In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening. I don’t think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20′s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today.”
Rush Limbaugh called Breitbart an Invalid Link Removed
Sean Hannity told WND: “Andrew was a warrior, though a happy warrior, who relished political combat. He cared deeply for his friends, his family and his country. The movement has lost a passionate advocate. And I have lost a good friend. Andrew and his family are in our prayers.”
Police probe mysterious demise of L.A. medical examiner
Published: 7 hours ago
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the Invalid Link Removed, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced Invalid Link Removed.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Invalid Link Removed
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
“He was transported there early in the morning, and passed away late at night,” Ed Winter, assistant chief of operations and Cormier’s colleague at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, told KTLA. “It affects everybody when you lose a co-worker, but we’ll proceed and do our job and try to figure out why Michael died.”
The hospital then notified Los Angeles Police about Cormier’s death.
“At this point we haven’t ruled out foul play,” police Lt. Alan Hamilton told the Invalid Link Removed. “It is one of the things being considered. We are waiting for the coroner’s results.”
Toxicology results are not expected for five to six weeks.
Sources told the Times several hazardous materials experts and officers searched Cormier’s home in search of what may have caused his sudden demise.
Invalid Link Removed
Michael Cormier
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that finding the presence of poison does not necessarily mean the death was a homicide, because the substance could have accidentally entered his system,” the Times reported.
Hamilton also noted investigations are standard procedure when there’s a suggestion of anything other than natural causes in someone’s death.
It’s still unclear if Cormier personally worked on the probe into Breitbart’s death, and WND has left messages with the coroner’s office seeking comment.
On April 20, the same day Cormier died, the Invalid Link Removed, stating the 43-year-old conservative media powerhouse died of natural causes, listing cause of death as heart failure.
“No prescription or illicit drugs were detected.The blood alcohol was .04%,” the official report said. “No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.”
Breitbart was founder of BigGovernment.com among other websites.
The night before Breitbart died, WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi arranged for Breitbart to interview Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the very next day held a news conference to announce there was probable cause to believe President Obama’s birth certificate released on April 27, 2011, was a forgery, as well as Obama’s Selective Service Card.
“I have known Andrew for nearly 15 years and considered him a friend. His passion and energy for seeking the truth will be greatly missed by the nation. It’s almost incomprehensible that he left us so soon,” said Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND.
Invalid Link Removed Farah recalled meeting Breitbart years ago when he worked as a backup editor for the Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed “In the first decade of the DRUDGEREPORT Andrew Breitbart was a constant source of energy, passion and commitment. We shared a love of headlines, a love of the news, an excitement about what’s happening. I don’t think there was a single day during that time when we did not flash each other or laugh with each other, or challenge each other. I still see him in my mind’s eye in Venice Beach, the sunny day I met him. He was in his mid 20′s. It was all there. He had a wonderful, loving family and we all feel great sadness for them today.”
Rush Limbaugh called Breitbart an Invalid Link Removed
Sean Hannity told WND: “Andrew was a warrior, though a happy warrior, who relished political combat. He cared deeply for his friends, his family and his country. The movement has lost a passionate advocate. And I have lost a good friend. Andrew and his family are in our prayers.”
ax1
Legend
Abridged: The First Amendment Is Now a Felonious Criminal Act
Mac Slavo
May 1st, 2012
Invalid Link Removed
For many, awareness of the existence of the new law will only become apparent when they are arrested and charged under new Federal trespassing guidelines as they attempt to protest, display signs or disrupt any person or event of national significance. An event of national significance is any activity where Secret Service agents are responsible for security. With several thousand agents in the field at any given time, events involving the President, Congressional members, staff or individuals running for Federal office are all fair game.
Simply standing with a bullhorn, holding up a sign, promoting a contentious message or even being on the grounds of a Secret Service secured event will now make it possible for the government to detain, arrest and charge those involved in these “disruptions” (even if you just happen to be passing through) with a felonious criminal act.
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on Fox News:
“This is not like a traffic ticket – for standing and protesting.
The type of thing that for 230 years Americans took for granted because it was protected by the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech has actually been abridged.
…
[The law] basically allows Secret Service agents to decide where there are ‘NO Free Speech Zones’, not ‘Free Speech Zones’… ‘NO Free Speech Zones.’
Anybody protected by the Secret Service can ask those agents to ban protests wherever they are. I can think of three violations – speech violations, association violations, and the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances.
What good is free speech if the people in the government are so far away from you that they can’t hear you.
…
It is a part of American history since day one that we have the right to speak freely to, about and against those in the government.
Mac Slavo
May 1st, 2012
Invalid Link Removed
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment I
Bill of Rights
United States Constitution
Adopted August 21, 1789
As Congressional representatives overwhelming approved the Invalid Link Removed in February of this year, few Americans were paying attention. When President Obama signed the Act into law, he did so in secret, without any of the fanfare that came with his signing of universal health care two years prior – and for good reason. This is one of those laws the government doesn’t want you to know exists until it’s too late to do anything about it.Amendment I
Bill of Rights
United States Constitution
Adopted August 21, 1789
For many, awareness of the existence of the new law will only become apparent when they are arrested and charged under new Federal trespassing guidelines as they attempt to protest, display signs or disrupt any person or event of national significance. An event of national significance is any activity where Secret Service agents are responsible for security. With several thousand agents in the field at any given time, events involving the President, Congressional members, staff or individuals running for Federal office are all fair game.
Simply standing with a bullhorn, holding up a sign, promoting a contentious message or even being on the grounds of a Secret Service secured event will now make it possible for the government to detain, arrest and charge those involved in these “disruptions” (even if you just happen to be passing through) with a felonious criminal act.
Excerpt from Invalid Link Removed:
Whoever attempts or conspires to knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
OR
knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds
…
The punishment for a violation is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;
(*editor’s note: did you want to show your support for the 2nd Amendment by carrying your rifle or gun to a protest or march like so many have done in the past? Do it as of now and you’re facing ten years in prison)
or
‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both, in any other case.
The law is very clear in who has authority over these events, but as is generally the case, very broad in what can or cannot be deemed a disruption.Whoever attempts or conspires to knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
OR
knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds
…
The punishment for a violation is—
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense,
uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm;
(*editor’s note: did you want to show your support for the 2nd Amendment by carrying your rifle or gun to a protest or march like so many have done in the past? Do it as of now and you’re facing ten years in prison)
or
‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as
defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more
than one year, or both, in any other case.
Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on Fox News:
“This is not like a traffic ticket – for standing and protesting.
The type of thing that for 230 years Americans took for granted because it was protected by the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech has actually been abridged.
…
[The law] basically allows Secret Service agents to decide where there are ‘NO Free Speech Zones’, not ‘Free Speech Zones’… ‘NO Free Speech Zones.’
Anybody protected by the Secret Service can ask those agents to ban protests wherever they are. I can think of three violations – speech violations, association violations, and the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances.
What good is free speech if the people in the government are so far away from you that they can’t hear you.
…
It is a part of American history since day one that we have the right to speak freely to, about and against those in the government.
With Invalid Link Removed in the process of being implemented in Chicago ahead of the May 20-21 NATO summit, there’s a strong likelihood that any protests disseminating a message in opposition to those attending this event of national significance will be met with strong-arm tactics of the new American police state.
The government is preparing to send a message to the proles, and their intention is to strike fear into the hearts and minds of every one of us.
ax1
Legend
Leaving Afghanistan by Staying
By davidswanson - Posted on 01 May 2012
Invalid Link Removed
Is staying in Afghanistan OK with you as long as we call it leaving?
President Obama has signed Invalid Link Removed with President Karzai to keep a major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (currently about three times the size Obama began with) through the end of 2014, and to allow a significant unspecified presence beyond that date, with no end date stipulated. Obama stresses that no permanent U.S. bases will be involved, but his agreement requires Afghanistan to let U.S. troops use "Afghan" bases.
Obama forgot to provide any reason not to withdraw from Afghanistan now, given majority U.S. desire to end the war. Like Newt Gingrich promising to quit campaigning before actually doing so, Obama is promising to leave Afghanistan, but not yet -- except that he isn't promising to ever leave at all. The agreement is open-ended.
Obama spoke on Tuesday of a transition to Afghan control, but we've heard that talk for a decade. That's not some new bright idea that requires two-and-a-half more years to develop.
Obama talked of fighting al Qaeda, but the U.S. has not been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has admitted for years that there is virtually no al Qaeda presence there. That's not the two-year project, and it's not the reason to remain indefinitely after 2014.
The agreement requires that all "entities" involved in a peace process renounce violence, but the Taliban will no more do that while under foreign occupation than the United States will do so while occupying. This is not a serious plan to leave. Nor is it a plan based on Afghan sovereignty, numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is a treaty for more years of war, on the model of the Bush-Maliki treaty for Iraq, but with the difference that theirs included an end date.
The agreement says it enters into force when "the Parties notify one another, through diplomatic channels, of the completion of their respective internal legal requirements." The U.S. Constitution requires ratification by the Senate of all treaties. Congress could insist on its right to approve or reject this, just as the Afghan Parliament will be permitted to do. Or Congress could require withdrawal now, as does bill HR 780, which has 70 cosponsors.
The written agreement doesn't mention it, but Obama said on Tuesday that he would withdraw 23,000 troops by the end of the summer, after which reductions would continue "at a steady pace." Assuming 90,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan, a steady pace would get them all home by about a year from now, not two-and-a-half years from now. But Obama says that it will be the end of 2014, not when the last troop leaves, but when a significant number of troops remain, as Afghans become "fully responsible for the security of their country" -- except for whatever it is that the U.S. troops will do.
Obama is full of praise for U.S. troops, as if they've benefitted Afghanistan. And he's full of concern for the suffering of U.S. troops and U.S. citizens. When he mentions Afghans, at best he equates their suffering under U.S. bombs, drones, night raids, and prison cells, to the suffering of Americans scared by their television sets and forced to over-eat to relieve their stress. "Neither Americans nor the Afghan people asked for this war," Obama said, forgetting that one of those two countries had invaded the other one and occupied it for over a decade. "The reason America is safe is because of you," Obama told U.S. troops, forgetting that the war has made our nation more hated around the world.
This agreement is inexcusable. It's also vague and preliminary. A more detailed treaty will be worked out on May 20th when NATO meets in Chicago. We need to Invalid Link Removed in protest.
##
David Swanson's books include "Invalid Link Removed."
By davidswanson - Posted on 01 May 2012
Invalid Link Removed
Is staying in Afghanistan OK with you as long as we call it leaving?
President Obama has signed Invalid Link Removed with President Karzai to keep a major U.S. military presence in Afghanistan (currently about three times the size Obama began with) through the end of 2014, and to allow a significant unspecified presence beyond that date, with no end date stipulated. Obama stresses that no permanent U.S. bases will be involved, but his agreement requires Afghanistan to let U.S. troops use "Afghan" bases.
Obama forgot to provide any reason not to withdraw from Afghanistan now, given majority U.S. desire to end the war. Like Newt Gingrich promising to quit campaigning before actually doing so, Obama is promising to leave Afghanistan, but not yet -- except that he isn't promising to ever leave at all. The agreement is open-ended.
Obama spoke on Tuesday of a transition to Afghan control, but we've heard that talk for a decade. That's not some new bright idea that requires two-and-a-half more years to develop.
Obama talked of fighting al Qaeda, but the U.S. has not been fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and has admitted for years that there is virtually no al Qaeda presence there. That's not the two-year project, and it's not the reason to remain indefinitely after 2014.
The agreement requires that all "entities" involved in a peace process renounce violence, but the Taliban will no more do that while under foreign occupation than the United States will do so while occupying. This is not a serious plan to leave. Nor is it a plan based on Afghan sovereignty, numerous claims to the contrary notwithstanding. This is a treaty for more years of war, on the model of the Bush-Maliki treaty for Iraq, but with the difference that theirs included an end date.
The agreement says it enters into force when "the Parties notify one another, through diplomatic channels, of the completion of their respective internal legal requirements." The U.S. Constitution requires ratification by the Senate of all treaties. Congress could insist on its right to approve or reject this, just as the Afghan Parliament will be permitted to do. Or Congress could require withdrawal now, as does bill HR 780, which has 70 cosponsors.
The written agreement doesn't mention it, but Obama said on Tuesday that he would withdraw 23,000 troops by the end of the summer, after which reductions would continue "at a steady pace." Assuming 90,000 U.S. troops now in Afghanistan, a steady pace would get them all home by about a year from now, not two-and-a-half years from now. But Obama says that it will be the end of 2014, not when the last troop leaves, but when a significant number of troops remain, as Afghans become "fully responsible for the security of their country" -- except for whatever it is that the U.S. troops will do.
Obama is full of praise for U.S. troops, as if they've benefitted Afghanistan. And he's full of concern for the suffering of U.S. troops and U.S. citizens. When he mentions Afghans, at best he equates their suffering under U.S. bombs, drones, night raids, and prison cells, to the suffering of Americans scared by their television sets and forced to over-eat to relieve their stress. "Neither Americans nor the Afghan people asked for this war," Obama said, forgetting that one of those two countries had invaded the other one and occupied it for over a decade. "The reason America is safe is because of you," Obama told U.S. troops, forgetting that the war has made our nation more hated around the world.
This agreement is inexcusable. It's also vague and preliminary. A more detailed treaty will be worked out on May 20th when NATO meets in Chicago. We need to Invalid Link Removed in protest.
##
David Swanson's books include "Invalid Link Removed."
ax1
Legend
I posted this in my other thread but want to post here as everybody needs to see it. This leaked document confirms everything Ive been trying to say about the concentration camps in America.
Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America
Political activists would be pacified to sympathize with the government
FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations
Invalid Link Removed
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Invalid Link Removed
The following portions of the document make it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” (as well as abroad in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan) and that domestic federal agencies are involved.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Leaked U.S. Army Document Outlines Plan For Re-Education Camps In America
Political activists would be pacified to sympathize with the government
FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations
Invalid Link Removed
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, May 3, 2012
A leaked U.S. Army document prepared for the Department of Defense contains shocking plans for “political activists” to be pacified by “PSYOP officers” into developing an “appreciation of U.S. policies” while detained in prison camps inside the United States.
The document, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (Invalid Link Removed) was originally released on a restricted basis to the DoD in February 2010, but has now been leaked online.
The manual outlines policies for processing detainees into internment camps both globally and inside the United States. International agencies like the UN and the Red Cross are named as partners in addition to domestic federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
The document makes it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” and involve, “DOD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for designated law enforcement and other activities,” including “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the U.S. and its territories.”
The manual states, “These operations may be performed as domestic civil support operations,” and adds that “The authority to approve resettlement such operations within U.S. territories,” would require a “special exception” to The Posse Comitatus Act, which can be obtained via “the President invoking his executive authority.” The document also makes reference to identifying detainees using their “social security number.”
Aside from enemy combatants and other classifications of detainees, the manual includes the designation of “civilian internees,” in other words citizens who are detained for, “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.”
Once the detainees have been processed into the internment camp, the manual explains how they will be “indoctrinated,” with a particular focus on targeting political dissidents, into expressing support for U.S. policies.
The re-education process is the responsibility of the “Psychological Operations Officer,” whose job it is to design “PSYOP products that are designed to pacify and acclimate detainees or DCs to accept U.S. I/R facility authority and regulations,” according to the document.
The manual lists the following roles that are designated to the “PSYOP team”.
- Identifies malcontents, trained agitators, and political leaders within the facility who may try to organize resistance or create disturbances.
- Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes.
- Identifies political activists.
- Provides loudspeaker support (such as administrative announcements and facility instructions when necessary).
- Helps the military police commander control detainee and DC populations during emergencies.
- Plans and executes a PSYOP program that produces an understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.
Remember, this is not restricted to insurgents in Iraq who are detained in prison camps – the manual makes it clear that the policies also apply “within U.S. territory” under the auspices of the DHS and FEMA. The document adds that, “Resettlement operations may require large groups of civilians to be quartered temporarily (less than 6 months) or semipermanently (more than 6 months).”
The historical significance of states using internment camps to re-educate detainees centers around the fact that it is almost exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.
The historical significance of states using internment camps to re-educate detainees centers around the fact that it is almost exclusively practiced by repressive and dictatorial regimes like the former Soviet Union and Stalinist regimes like modern day North Korea.
We have exhaustively documented preparations for the mass internment of citizens inside America, but this is the first time that language concerning the re-education of detainees, in particular political activists, has cropped up in our research.
Invalid Link Removed a number of job opportunities looking for “Internment/Resettlement Specialists” to work in “civilian internee camps” within the United States.
Invalid Link Removed that Halliburton subsidiary KBR is seeking sub-contractors to staff and outfit “emergency environment” camps located in five regions of the United States.
In 2006, Invalid Link Removed to build detention centers designed to deal with “an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S,” or the rapid development of unspecified “new programs” that would require large numbers of people to be interned.
Invalid Link Removed, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was established under the pretext of a “mass exodus” of illegal aliens crossing the Mexican/US border, the same pretense used in the language of the KBR request for services.
During the Iran-Contra hearings in 1987, however, it was revealed that the program was a secretive “scenario and drill” developed by the federal government to suspend the Constitution, declare martial law, assign military commanders to take over state and local governments, and detain large numbers of American citizens determined by the government to be “national security threats.”
Invalid Link Removed, which was signed by Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, American citizens can be kidnapped and detained indefinitely without trial.
Read a portion of the Internment and Resettlement Operations manual below.
Invalid Link Removed
The following portions of the document make it clear that the policies apply “within U.S. territory” (as well as abroad in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan) and that domestic federal agencies are involved.
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
MuscleGauge1
Board Sponsor
This is too much. I don't know what to believe anymore
ax1
Legend
Ill tell you what, why dont you go to the official government website and start reading some of the bills that recently passed.
This one is from the Library of Congress, Certain provisions snuck in, however, the US government is granted the powers to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens without charge, essentially creating Guantanamo Prison-style detention possibilities for anyone deemed a threat by American authorities.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
Invalid Link Removed
This link will take you to the official Whitehouse page, lets military seize all natural resources, seize any citizens property as well as allows military to take you and anyone and force to labor, therefor re-instituting the draft.
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Invalid Link Removed
Ive been in other countries including China and more than several months, what am I to see? This is not about being anti American and leaving the country. You do not need to love your government to love your country, and if you love your country you should be politically involved in protecting the Constitution its founding fathers have put in place.
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson
ax1
Legend
And for your information, the "Leaked Documents" that such as the recent one I posted about the re-education camps you are accusing me of posting as "made up" documents can be found on a Official Army website/
Look it up:
| FM 3-39.40 | 2/12/2010 | INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS |
Invalid Link Removed
ax1
Legend
Read the bills that I am supplying you from official government websites. If your a "constitutionalist" how do those presented bills fit in with the constitution and why are you calling these official government supplied documents "conspiracy theories?"
Are you familiar with HR 645? Do you work at one?
Whats so outdated about Jefferson's quote? Did you even read it? Ive read quotes much older than that which are very relevant to todays times.
ax1
Legend
Army Admits Re-Education Camp Manual “Not Intended For Public Release”
Public Affairs Director falsely claims document does not apply within U.S.
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Fort Leonard Wood Public Affairs director Tiffany Wood has provided the first official response to the shocking U.S. Army document that outlines the implementation of re-education camps, admitting that the manual was “not intended for public release” and claiming that its provisions only apply outside the United States, a contention completely disproved by the language contained in the document itself.
Invalid Link Removed
After a reader sent Wood a link to where the manual, entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations (Invalid Link Removed), can be downloaded on the Invalid Link Removed (but only by military employees with special credentials), Wood responded by stating that the document should not be in the public domain.
“The document was not intended for public release,” said Wood, adding, “Any other questions regarding the
document, you will need to file a FOIA request.”
document, you will need to file a FOIA request.”
This means that either hackers have obtained access to a secure military website and downloaded the manual or it was leaked by a military employee concerned about the content of the document.
Invalid Link Removed, the document is a training manual for U.S. Army personnel that details how to treat detainees incarcerated in prison camps both abroad and inside the United States.
The manual outlines how officers will develop programs to “indoctrinate” “political activists” incarcerated in detention camps into developing an “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.” The document also explains how “reeducating the I/R facility population or setting the stage for acceptance of future operations,” is the responsibility of ‘PSYOP’ personnel within the camp.
The document also makes clear that the internment facility is not only a re-education camp but also a forced labor camp. Page 277 of the manual states, “Detainees constitute a significant labor force of skilled and unskilled individuals. These individuals should be employed to the fullest extent possible in work that is needed to construct, manage, perform administrative functions for, and maintain the internment facility.”
The manual also directs that political activists be confined to isolation and that prisoners be silenced using by “muffling them with a soft, clean cloth tied around their mouths and fastened at the backs of their heads.”
The manual also directs that political activists be confined to isolation and that prisoners be silenced using by “muffling them with a soft, clean cloth tied around their mouths and fastened at the backs of their heads.”
In her email response, Wood falsely claims that, “The document is intended for operations outside of the continental United States. Depending on the nature and magnitude of an event will determine the level of U.S. military involvement.”
Invalid Link Removed using only direct quotations and screenshots from the manual, it is clearly designed to be applied both abroad and “within U.S. territory,” including against “civilian detainees” incarcerated for “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power,” as part of “domestic civil support operations” involving FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security.
The manual also details how prisoners will be identified by their “social security number,” another glaring confirmation that the rules apply to U.S. citizens.
The document makes it clear on page 193 that the rules apply to processing American detainees on U.S. soil so long as the President passes an executive order to nullify Posse Comitatus, the law that forbids the U.S. military from engaging in domestic law enforcement.
It is clear from Wood’s response that she has either not read the documents properly or has been directed to downplay their significance by asserting they do not apply within the United States, a claim clearly disproved by the numerous references within the manual to how its instructions can be applied as part of “domestic civil support operations.”
ax1
Legend
Latest Al Qaeda Boogeyman is CIA Agent
Tony Cartalucci
May 10, 2012
The term “terronoia” was used by James Evan Pilato of Invalid Link Removed to describe what exactly the FBI was attempting to generate amongst the public with their entrapment of Invalid Link Removed.” The FBI had conducted “sting operations” like that in Portland Oregon in the past, and certainly many times since then. These include the September 11, 2001 attacks themselves, where each and every “suspect”Invalid Link Removed or being Invalid Link Removed, US intelligence agencies, or the FBI prior to the attacks – and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Invalid Link Removed.
Most recently we have the “new and improved” underwear bombing narrative, Invalid Link Removed and constitutes a now tiresome storyline where sensational headlines create “terronoia” in the minds of millions of Americans before it is revealed that the entire plot was a production of the US government itself. In the small gap between “terronoia” and reality, exists a period where the corporate-media attempts to resell the merits of the TSA, their invasive checkpoints, and Invalid Link Removed,” which we were told have been “vindicated” by this recent bombing plot being “foiled,” now exposed as government manufactured.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: From left to right – top to bottom. The “Invalid Link Removed,” the “Invalid Link Removed,” the “Invalid Link Removed,” the original “Underwear Bomber,” and the “Invalid Link Removed,” all courtesy of the United States government – not human waves of vicious terrorists, rather dupes approached by, armed, equipped, and built up by the FBI and CIA. Meanwhile, the US government is arming, funding, and backing real terrorists overseas committing heinous acts of violence with US taxpayers’ money and occasionally with the help of unwitting US troops.
….
Meanwhile, real terrorists around the globe, guilty of blood-chilling atrocities on nation-wide scales are receiving arms, funding, training, air support, and diplomatic recognition from the US government – including in Libya, and more recently in Syria. In fact, many of the US funded, armed, and backed terrorists from Libya Invalid Link Removed.” Additionally, the US State Department has announced that it is Invalid Link Removed on the de-listing of the terrorist organizationMujahadin-e Khalq (MEK), guilty Invalid Link Removed, as well as carrying out to this day a terrorist campaign against not only Iranian military targets, but political and civilian targets as well.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: A screenshot from the Invalid Link Removed showing MEK listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and listed as “29. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK).” Paradoxically the US State Department is currently aiding and abetting the organization, with its efforts, along with the UN, British and Israeli government’s, being the sole factor keeping the organization in existence. (click on image to enlarge)
….
US policy makers admit in the Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report that “undeniably, the group [MEK] has conducted terrorist attacks,” yet still promotes the use of these proxy terrorists to achieve US foreign policy in Iran. Brookings noted the necessity of “de-listing” MEK back in 2009, before closer, and more overt collaboration could begin. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) follows a similar pattern – verified by Invalid Link Removed as having killed US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the militant group, listed by the Invalid Link Removed,” led the NATO-backed overthrow of Libya’s government in 2011 with US funding, weapons, training, air support, and diplomatic recognition.
The same story is playing out in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan, where terrorists are being funded, armed, and trained by the US to fight both the Pakistani government as well as Iranians across the border - Invalid Link Removed and disrupt Chinese investments in the region.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: A visual representation of some of the Brookings Institution’s corporate sponsors. Brookings is by no means an exception, but well represents the incestuous relationship between US foreign and domestic policy making and the Fortune 500 found in every major “think-tank.” Elected US representatives charged with legislative duties, merely rubber stamp the papers and policies drawn up in these think-tanks. Brookings Institution, in their report “Which Path to Persia?” openly advocates the arming, funding, and backing of the MEK terrorist organization – despite admitting it has killed Americans and “undeniably” carries out terrorism.
….
From underwear bombers to Libya’s globetrotting death squads, it turns out that the US government itself is driving this omnipresent global threat and constitutes the premier state-sponsor of terrorism. From the very creation of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, to Al Qaeda death squads bombing targets across Syria today, the US is machinating behind the scenes to perpetuate its foreign policy through a false strategy of tension where the villains and “heroes” are of their own creation. It is only through apathy and ignorance that they succeed in foisting this narrative upon the public, as well as our daily patronage of the corporate-financier interests devising and driving this agenda.
Tony Cartalucci’s post first appeared on his blog, Invalid Link Removed.
Tony Cartalucci
May 10, 2012
The term “terronoia” was used by James Evan Pilato of Invalid Link Removed to describe what exactly the FBI was attempting to generate amongst the public with their entrapment of Invalid Link Removed.” The FBI had conducted “sting operations” like that in Portland Oregon in the past, and certainly many times since then. These include the September 11, 2001 attacks themselves, where each and every “suspect”Invalid Link Removed or being Invalid Link Removed, US intelligence agencies, or the FBI prior to the attacks – and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing Invalid Link Removed.
Most recently we have the “new and improved” underwear bombing narrative, Invalid Link Removed and constitutes a now tiresome storyline where sensational headlines create “terronoia” in the minds of millions of Americans before it is revealed that the entire plot was a production of the US government itself. In the small gap between “terronoia” and reality, exists a period where the corporate-media attempts to resell the merits of the TSA, their invasive checkpoints, and Invalid Link Removed,” which we were told have been “vindicated” by this recent bombing plot being “foiled,” now exposed as government manufactured.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: From left to right – top to bottom. The “Invalid Link Removed,” the “Invalid Link Removed,” the “Invalid Link Removed,” the original “Underwear Bomber,” and the “Invalid Link Removed,” all courtesy of the United States government – not human waves of vicious terrorists, rather dupes approached by, armed, equipped, and built up by the FBI and CIA. Meanwhile, the US government is arming, funding, and backing real terrorists overseas committing heinous acts of violence with US taxpayers’ money and occasionally with the help of unwitting US troops.
….
Meanwhile, real terrorists around the globe, guilty of blood-chilling atrocities on nation-wide scales are receiving arms, funding, training, air support, and diplomatic recognition from the US government – including in Libya, and more recently in Syria. In fact, many of the US funded, armed, and backed terrorists from Libya Invalid Link Removed.” Additionally, the US State Department has announced that it is Invalid Link Removed on the de-listing of the terrorist organizationMujahadin-e Khalq (MEK), guilty Invalid Link Removed, as well as carrying out to this day a terrorist campaign against not only Iranian military targets, but political and civilian targets as well.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: A screenshot from the Invalid Link Removed showing MEK listed as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and listed as “29. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK).” Paradoxically the US State Department is currently aiding and abetting the organization, with its efforts, along with the UN, British and Israeli government’s, being the sole factor keeping the organization in existence. (click on image to enlarge)
….
US policy makers admit in the Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report that “undeniably, the group [MEK] has conducted terrorist attacks,” yet still promotes the use of these proxy terrorists to achieve US foreign policy in Iran. Brookings noted the necessity of “de-listing” MEK back in 2009, before closer, and more overt collaboration could begin. The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) follows a similar pattern – verified by Invalid Link Removed as having killed US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the militant group, listed by the Invalid Link Removed,” led the NATO-backed overthrow of Libya’s government in 2011 with US funding, weapons, training, air support, and diplomatic recognition.
The same story is playing out in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan, where terrorists are being funded, armed, and trained by the US to fight both the Pakistani government as well as Iranians across the border - Invalid Link Removed and disrupt Chinese investments in the region.
Invalid Link Removed
Image: A visual representation of some of the Brookings Institution’s corporate sponsors. Brookings is by no means an exception, but well represents the incestuous relationship between US foreign and domestic policy making and the Fortune 500 found in every major “think-tank.” Elected US representatives charged with legislative duties, merely rubber stamp the papers and policies drawn up in these think-tanks. Brookings Institution, in their report “Which Path to Persia?” openly advocates the arming, funding, and backing of the MEK terrorist organization – despite admitting it has killed Americans and “undeniably” carries out terrorism.
….
From underwear bombers to Libya’s globetrotting death squads, it turns out that the US government itself is driving this omnipresent global threat and constitutes the premier state-sponsor of terrorism. From the very creation of Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan, to Al Qaeda death squads bombing targets across Syria today, the US is machinating behind the scenes to perpetuate its foreign policy through a false strategy of tension where the villains and “heroes” are of their own creation. It is only through apathy and ignorance that they succeed in foisting this narrative upon the public, as well as our daily patronage of the corporate-financier interests devising and driving this agenda.
Tony Cartalucci’s post first appeared on his blog, Invalid Link Removed.
ax1
Legend
You ever wonder why the USA selectivly picks evil countries to attack for "humanitarian" purposes, but is friendly and all business with others?
Fearing Chinese torture, Tibetan youth stabs self to death
[TD="class: newsStory"]DHARAMSHALA, May 11: After being man hunted by Chinese security personnel for months, a Tibetan youth who had participated in an anti-China protest in Drango, eastern Tibet, stabbed himself to death on March 29.
Gonpo Rigzin, 25, had taken part in the January 23 mass protests in Drango and was apparently caught on Chinese police CCTV surveillance cameras.
According to the Dharamshala based Drango Ememrgency Committee, Gonpo Rigzin had told his family members, while being hunted down, that he would rather kill himself than get arrested and tortured by the Chinese police.
“On March 29 when the police came to arrest him, Gonpo Rigzin stabbed himself to death,” the Committee said in a release yesterday.
“Gonpo Rigzin killed himself to escape from Chinese brutality and torture.”
China continues to tighten the noose on Tibetans who had taken part in the peaceful protests in the region.
Last month, Chinese courts in eastern Tibet had sentenced 16 Tibetans to varying prison terms – from nine months to life-imprisonment, including both monks and laymen, for their ‘involvement’ in the January 23 protest.
Hundreds of Tibetans had come out on the streets in Drango on January 23, the first day of Chinese New Year, calling for Tibet’s freedom and the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama from exile. Chinese security personnel retaliated by firing indiscriminately at the unarmed demonstrators, killing and injuring scores of people.
Following the protests, Chinese authorities led a large-scale manhunt for suspected demonstrators. In one instance, Chinese security personnel shot down and killed two brothers in their hideout in the nearby hills of Drango.
The Dharamshala based Central Tibetan Administration has said that since the peaceful protests in Drango, China has maintained a “strict and repressive” presence in the region.
“Since the peaceful protest against the Chinese government in Kham Drango, Chinese military personnels have maintained a strict and repressive presence in the area,” CTA said. “Scores of Tibetan monks and lay persons were arrested arbitrarily during the protests and sentenced to various prison terms.”[/TD]
Fearing Chinese torture, Tibetan youth stabs self to death
| Phayul[Friday, May 11, 2012 15:25] |
[TD="class: newsStory"]DHARAMSHALA, May 11: After being man hunted by Chinese security personnel for months, a Tibetan youth who had participated in an anti-China protest in Drango, eastern Tibet, stabbed himself to death on March 29.
Gonpo Rigzin, 25, had taken part in the January 23 mass protests in Drango and was apparently caught on Chinese police CCTV surveillance cameras.
According to the Dharamshala based Drango Ememrgency Committee, Gonpo Rigzin had told his family members, while being hunted down, that he would rather kill himself than get arrested and tortured by the Chinese police.
“On March 29 when the police came to arrest him, Gonpo Rigzin stabbed himself to death,” the Committee said in a release yesterday.
“Gonpo Rigzin killed himself to escape from Chinese brutality and torture.”
China continues to tighten the noose on Tibetans who had taken part in the peaceful protests in the region.
Last month, Chinese courts in eastern Tibet had sentenced 16 Tibetans to varying prison terms – from nine months to life-imprisonment, including both monks and laymen, for their ‘involvement’ in the January 23 protest.
Hundreds of Tibetans had come out on the streets in Drango on January 23, the first day of Chinese New Year, calling for Tibet’s freedom and the return of His Holiness the Dalai Lama from exile. Chinese security personnel retaliated by firing indiscriminately at the unarmed demonstrators, killing and injuring scores of people.
Following the protests, Chinese authorities led a large-scale manhunt for suspected demonstrators. In one instance, Chinese security personnel shot down and killed two brothers in their hideout in the nearby hills of Drango.
The Dharamshala based Central Tibetan Administration has said that since the peaceful protests in Drango, China has maintained a “strict and repressive” presence in the region.
“Since the peaceful protest against the Chinese government in Kham Drango, Chinese military personnels have maintained a strict and repressive presence in the area,” CTA said. “Scores of Tibetan monks and lay persons were arrested arbitrarily during the protests and sentenced to various prison terms.”[/TD]
ax1
Legend
I dont know anything about them. I agree protecting ALL human rights including the Israeli people, if not your just as bad as those you claim to be fighting.
Now, are you sure they werent talking about the Israeli regime? If so they are targeting specifically the government, but if they are referring to Israel as a whole, thats outright wrong. We do have to be careful, the media may portray a group's anti-corrupt government agenda and mislead the public into thinking its something else, but I dunno anything about "Anonymous Revolution" specifically as of now.
MuscleGauge1
Board Sponsor
this is crazy
ax1
Legend
Yes it is...as Carpee always states, this is the Weimar Republic.
ax1
Legend
Follow the NATO summit in Chicago on the 20th. The city is being transformed into a total police state ses-pool.
Fema, Red Cross, TSA and other agencies are preparing to evacuate and relocate the entire city, as well as bury 1+ million. In fact, Red Cross was already ordered to be on standby.
Now, I say chances are nothing will happen, but the trend of training and conditioning for these types of events on our own soil is downright creepy.