The value of the New Right in both the US as well as in Europe is that it offers a serious intellectual critique of the modern zeitgeist which goes beyond the post-nationalist paradigm. So even if the goal of these movements is the preservation of the white race, the restoration of national sovereignity in Western Nations and an intellectual revolt against the established intellectual dogma, it also offers the intellectual template for many non-white nations to resist the globalist agenda, and to offer new ideas in relation to government and society.
And there is a need for such a template. Most non-white opposition to the international establishment is framed in the context anti-globalization, cultural and linguistic preservation, environmental protection, opposition to economic exploitation or simply, opposition to neo-liberalism. However, this opposition is expressed in a much different context than the traditional left/right dichotomy found in Western nations. For one thing, the metapolitical and historical narrative of the rest of the world is radically different from that of the West.
Despite these differences however, most of non-white opposition to ideas of the internationalist/globalist left lack the sophistication and complexity of New Right thinkers as well as their predecessors. That is not to say that there are no non-white thinkers who have put a lot of time or effort in opposing the Internationalist aspirations of the world’s various political, economic and intellectual elites.
However, what the New Right can offer is a different set of perspectives and alternatives. For even though identifying problems are easy, the New Right in the West is on ground zero of the globalist/internationalist project, and therefore have had more time forming their metapolitical and ideological solutions.
Has America become irrational? Not since the 1930s have politics been so polarized, from the Tea Party movement on one side of the spectrum to the Occupy Wall Street protesters on the other. Why does the right object so vehemently to government spending? And why does the left attack private capital with parallel passion? The answer lies not in the American psyche, but in the statistics.
America is engaged in class war, but not of the sort one reads about in the mainstream press. The truly indigent - young African-American men, for example, most of whom are now unemployed - have little to do in this war. Large corporations for the most part are bystanders as well; they will make their peace with the victor. This is a war of survival between the productive middle class on one hand, and the dependents of the state on the other.
The Tea Party's aversion to government spending is as pure an expression of rational self-interest as we have seen in American history. Like any new movement, it attracts more than its fair share of oddballs. The fact that a movement led by amateurs continues to wield so much power proves that it has good reason to be there.
The Tea Party is a middle-class movement, older, better educated and wealthier than average, but it is not a party of the very wealthy, who are conspicuously absent among its activists. They know from personal or family experience that taxation is destroying the American middle class. They are approaching retirement, and most of their wealth is in the family home, as it is for the great majority of Americans:
In 2009 Libya was a friend to the US so much so that Libya allowed several US corporate giants to enter and approval was given for training of Libyan security personnel and civilians. These were the civilians that eventually became “rebels” given arms by the West to overthrow Gaddafi in a movement called “liberating Libya”. Arming locals has become a new strategy to avoid deaths to coalition forces while NATO is tasked to take on the indiscriminate air strikes. So what has been the cost for killing a man who has ruled a nation for 42 years without debt to the IMF or the World Bank? It took 8 months for US-NATO to take over Libya, the pro-US Libyan Government may celebrate and rejoice but that celebration is as short-lived as the jubilations in Iraq and Egypt where the people are beginning to realize their country would have still been better off with Saddam Hussein and Hosni Mubarak!
The USA is morally and financially broke, uneducated and sick but it is its arrogance that continues to think that all nations must bow down to US dictates. Gaddafi’s Libya will soon find out what it is like to live in a country without Gaddafi’s charisma in a country that is soon likely to be fleeced by the West. Where people will be broke, without money, hungry, paying for all services but reminded all the while that they are “free, liberated & enjoying the fruits of human rights”. In the meanwhile, the US will ensure friction amongst tribes in Libya so that turmoil will prevail just like they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan while Western oil giants cease the oil, gold and all natural resources that Libya possesses which in reality was the reason for the whole exercise of humanitarian intervention.
It is not difficult to comprehend the trend that is taking place and the dangers of the West’s financial turmoil will mean further “humanitarian” operations on targeted nations and the basis for the next stop being Syria is already under way.
Let all US-NATO nations realize that the people of the world are no fools. Citizens of these nations may be fooled since mainstream media have blinded them with lies and false versions to brainwash them but nemesis for the innocent deaths will follow US-NATO and their leaders for the destruction they are doing to the people, the environment and to nations throughout the past decade.
US contractors are on the ground in Libya with reports of Blackwater being among the Qataris, British, French, Italian, US, and other Special Forces. The Libyan people have been irreparably harmed and with the murder on 20 October of their Chief of all the tribes, Ali, unarmed at his home in Bani Walid, there are rumors of revenge killings already having begun.
Video images of the last moments of what we are told are Muammar and Muatassim Qaddafi, amid shouts of God is Great, make me shudder. In my opinion, the dignity of all of us has been debased by the cumulative images of the US/NATO "humanitarian intervention" in Libya, starting with the meeting in Geneva at the United Nations Human Rights Commission, through the perorations of the US United Nations Ambassador, through all the videos of murders and death and destruction, through the events of 20 October and up to now.
As my fellow peace and human rights activists of the 1960s did, I now proclaim my own humanity: my heart, soul, character, and ethics are intact. I am deeply affected by what I have witnessed. I am deeply disappointed in how far the United States has been steered off course. The people of the United States do have the power still to stop this madness. I recommend the words of our 35th President when he asks that each of us examine our own attitude toward peace. And what kind of peace do we want for our country and the world?
Watch this video and then you, too, will know that everything that has happened to the people of Libya and the people of Africa who depended on them, and to us, too, in allowing this to take place, in some cases even advocating this, has been based on assertions where there is no evidence--admitted by the man who lodged the initial complaint followed by misinformation, propaganda, and deliberate disinformation. I went to Libya with a delegation of journalists to strive to know; I participated in a 29-city tour in an effort to share the truth with those willing to hear. I failed in my effort to stop the madness. Sadly, in this affair, there has been no truth, no justice, no peace, and no dignity.
The US secret agenda for tightening its vice-like grip on the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken on an apparently new form after the anti-Iran alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, raised many eyebrows among experts and analysts around the world.
With a strong penchant for pushing for tougher action on Iran, the Obama administration has already imposed a series of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. However, a Republican-controlled congressional committee has recently heard testimony demanding an extensive range of covert operations against the country.
The operations, which range from cyber attacks to political assassinations, are speculated to be conducted under the feeble excuse that Iran was the alleged architect of an assassination plot against the Saudi envoy to the United States. By political assassination, the US congressmen unconsciously mean the liquidation of the Iranian nuclear scientists, an act they actually started long ago.
Retired Army Gen. John Keane told a hearing of two key subcommittees of the House Committee on Homeland Security on Wednesday, "We've got to put our hand around their throat now. Why don't we kill them? We kill other people who kill others."
It was 10 years ago Wednesday that then President George H. Bush signed into law the USAPATRIOT Act, passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, titled ”Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” All blame for the terror events of 9/11/2001 were laid on 19 Islamic terrorists, 15 of them Saudis.
Curiously, the recently assassinated Osama bin laden was named as mastermind, when previous to that he had been taken off the FBI’s most wanted list for the crime due to lack of evidence. So we can sense already how “flexible” the truth surrounding 9/11 is. Also 15 of the 19 were Saudis. At least seven of them were noted to be living and working in the Middle East at the time of the crime.
Let me remind you, too, that the PATRIOT Act was based upon Adolph Hitler’s ENABLING ACT, which was written after the burning of the Reichstag in Germany, taking away most of the civil rights of German citizens. Though the fire was blamed on Communists, the major work of creating it was accomplished by Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels with Adolph Hitler’s full knowledge.
For all the above reasons and more too numerous to mention or remember, I believe that October 26 should be recognized as a national, even international, day of mourning for the monstrous USAPATRIOT’s Act’s birth. The American flag should hang at half-mast. All public buildings should be draped with black. And most of all, George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and all those who participated in framing this bill, should be considered war criminals and tried in the Hague, not to mention hanged by their necks until all life seeps from them. This so that others like them never again dare to dream up such Acts or acts to bring such pain and chaos to our nation, our beloved America, and the world.
Under this provision, the FBI can obtain secret court orders for business records and other “tangible things” so long as the FBI says that the records are sought "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court must issue the order if the FBI so certifies, even when there are no facts to back it up. These “things” can include basically anything—driver’s license records, hotel records, car-rental records, apartment-leasing records, credit card records, books, documents, Internet history, and more. Adding insult to injury, Section 215 orders come with a "gag " prohibiting the recipient from telling anyone, ever, that they received one.
2. NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS
Among the most used -- and outright frightening -- provisions in the PATRIOT Act are those that enhanced so-called National Security Letters (NSLs). The FBI can issue NSLs itself, without a court order, and demand a variety of records, from phone records to bank account information to Internet activity. As with 215 orders, recipients are gagged from revealing the orders to anyone.
3. SNEAK AND PEEK WARRANTS
Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act normalized “sneak-and-peek” warrants. These allow law enforcement to raid a suspect’s house without notifying the recipient of the seizure for months. These orders usually don't authorize the government to actually seize any property — but that won't stop them from poking around your computers. Again, sneak-and-peek warrants could be used for any investigation, even if the crime was only a misdemeanor.
After ten years, it’s crystal clear that the “emergency” measure sold as a necessary step in the fight against terrorism is being used routinely to violate the privacy of regular people in non-terrorism cases, threatening the Constitutional rights of every one of us. And after ten years, EFF is even more dedicated to fighting against PATRIOT overreach, both in Congress and the courts. Help us in that fight by becoming an EFF member, so that we can work together in making the next ten years better for civil liberties than the last.
A statement of fact, reasonable and sensible, today would be worse than any of the phony “Al Qaeda” videos foisted on the public by the neocon/bankster conspiracy. What is that fact? Using force, police, military or otherwise against the citizens of America, Israel, Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Italy, France….
That time is over.
We are not going away quietly, no longer buying the lies, no longer divided by “left” and “right.” We are taking our lives back, not just in America or Israel or across the Arab world but Europe as well.
We aren’t giving up our homes, our familie’s security, our remaining savings, our ability to buy food and heat our homes just so a pack of criminal billionaire hyenas can run the world like a Monopoly game.
To those who have tried to play gatekeeper, play “divide and conquer” I ask, “How is it working out for you so far?”
We aren’t buying the war on terror anymore, we know better. It has been a scam from day one. Not everyone is ready to call it “murder,” not yet.
Farrakhan blamed Obama’s advisers — whom he called “wicked demons” — for what he sees as a flawed American foreign policy that he said serves the interests of the powerful international corporations, not working-class Americans.
“Now, Moammar Gadhafi and his sons lie dead,” Farrakhan said. “Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons lie dead. Well, what about your sons?
“They’re dying in Iraq on the basis of a lie. They’re dying in Afghanistan on the basis of a lie. And now (U.S. military) drones are in Pakistan, drones in Somalia, drones in Yemen. When will it stop? America, do you think that you can get away with this?”
Farrakhan said the American media, which he said is controlled by banks, willingly tarnished Gadhafi’s image. During a commercial break, he said the media “is bought and paid for.”
“You don’t have a democracy when you don’t have a free press,” he told the reporters and photographers in the studio during the break. “You’re all slaves, and you love it. So you deserve what you get — the erosion of your democracy. You’ll soon be the laughingstock of the world.”
Farrakhan also said that America and its allies are “in for a shock” if they think that new governments in Libya, Egypt and other North African and Middle Eastern countries will automatically be pro-U.S.
Instead, he said, the U.S. could find itself with a revolution of its own. He pointed to the Occupy Wall Street movement as evidence of growing unrest in the U.S.
Whether the NATO countries -- who had only a few years ago welcomed Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi back into the international fold in exchange for his renouncing his chemical and nuclear weapons programs and allowing U.S. and British experts to come and help dismantle them -- played any role in what certainly appeared in first reports from the scene to have been the summary execution of the Libyan dictator will probably never be known. What the video evidence does prove is that the Libyan revolutionary forces did not find him already dead or killed by a NATO airstrike; nor does the initial claim that he was killed in "crossfire" between insurgent forces and diehard regime loyalists stand up to even the most minimal scrutiny.
NATO does acknowledge that its planes bombarded the convoy in which Qaddafi was fleeing the city of Sirte shortly before it was intercepted on the ground by the insurgents, but it has denied it even knew he was there. If that is true, and the French, British, and Americans did not try to make their own luck, then they certainly were very lucky indeed.
Qaddafi was, quite simply, a man who knew too much. Taken alive, he would have almost certainly have been handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which had indicted him -- along with his son, Saif al-Islam, and brother-in-law and military intelligence chief Abdullah Senussi (whereabouts unknown) -- for crimes against humanity in late June. Imagine the stir he would have made in The Hague. There, along with any number of fantasies and false accusations, he would almost certainly have revealed the extent of his intimate relations with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the details of his government's collaboration with Western intelligence services in counterterrorism, with the European Union in limiting migration from Libyan shores, and in the granting of major contracts to big Western oil and construction firms.
He would have had much to tell, for this cooperation was extensive. In the war against the jihadis -- a war to which Qaddafi regularly claimed to be as committed to prosecuting as Washington, Paris, or London -- links between Libyan intelligence and the CIA were particularly strong, as an archive of secret documents unearthed by Human Rights Watch researchers has revealed. If anything, the CIA's British counterpart, MI6, was even more involved with the Qaddafi family. As the Guardian reported in early September, it was Sir Mark Allen, then the director of the counterterrorism section of MI6, the British overseas spying agency, who was the key figure on the Western side in the secret negotiations to get Qaddafi to give up his WMD programs. The Guardian story further laid out how, after failing to become director of MI6 in 2004, Allen went into the private sector, becoming a senior advisor to the Monitor Group, a consulting firm that was paid huge fees by Qaddafi to burnish his image around the world, and, while they were at it, helped Saif (who had been his father's initial envoy to MI6) research his PhD thesis for the London School of Economics (LSE). Allen was also an advisor to BP, helping the oil giant secure major contracts in Libya from the Qaddafi regime.
Rumors now coursing through the upper echelons of the US and pro-Israel Jewish communities anticipate a unilateral Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites in the run-up to the presidential election in November, 2012. Backers of the sneak attack strategy believe that the pre-election timing will guarantee Congressional backing and prevent President Obama and other members of his government from opposing what will be a mirror image of the Israeli pre-emptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982.
The critical shipment of highly advanced US materiel (100 GBU-28 bunker busters) was contracted for sale to Israel by the USA in 2007, but the shipment was not ready until after the Bush administration retired, and the Obama administration arrived.1 Apparently, someone in the Obama administration reduced the arms shipment from one hundred bunker busters to a mere fifty-five; then the sophisticated laser-guided bombs were trans-shipped to Diego Garcia. There was some speculation at the time about these weapons stored at Diego Garcia, a remote British-owned island in the Indian Ocean that serves as a strategic US military base. In 2009, observers were perplexed as to whether the laser-guided bombs were ultimately meant for shipment to Israel for attack on Iranian nuclear sites in a rerun of Osirak-1982.2
It is well known that the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is "strained" and for good reasons. Netanyahu resented Obama's overtures to Iran (the Nowruz statements), his Cairo speech, his push for peace via Special Envoy George Mitchell, his insistence on the ten-month suspension of settlement construction, and worst of all, the president’s insistence of moral equivalency, an abandonment of the double standard with one set of rules for Israel and another for everybody else.
The bottom line – the right-wingers realize that during the presidential re-election offers them a unique opportunity for punishing Iran. The US presidential campaign has already begun with both sides running TV spots and raising funds as aggressively as they know how to do at this stage. Right-wingers perceive that Obama, whom they regard as a closet Muslim peacenik from Africa, is literally hand-cuffed to Congress. So, the right-wing government of Israel is free to attack Iran with relative impunity from the political and diplomatic perspectives.
The jubilant reaction of Western powers and the foes of Muammar Gaddafi to his barbaric murder on October 20, 2011 raises some serious questions about war crimes committed by the Western-backed National Transitional Council (NTC) fighters and NATO forces.
There are two serious violations of international law here, namely, (1) in relation to the Third Geneva Convention in 1929 and (2) in relation to the UN Security Council Resolution #1973 in 2011. Let me explain first (1) the Geneva Convention and then (2) the UN Resolution hereafter.
(1) The first violation of international law concerns the Third Geneva Convention in 1929, which offers rights to prisoners of war (POWs), such that POWs have certain rights to be protected. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rightly said on October 21, 2011 that, "in compliance with international law, the moment that a party to an armed conflict is captured, special procedures should be applied to him or her, including assistance, as well as a ban on killing such a person."
But this right was violated, when Gaddafi was captured alive (as POW) and was then repetitively verbally and physically abused before being shot dead shortly after. As "testified by the grainy mobile phone footage seen by the world of the former leader, bloodied and dazed, being dragged along by NTC fighters" in a gruesome way, "Gaddafi can be heard in one video saying 'God forbids this' several times, as slaps from the crowd [of NTC fighters] rain down on his head," as reported by Rania El Gamal for Reuters on October 23.
Then, he was executed by a young NTC fighter named Sanad al-Sadek al-Ureibi, who claimed that he shot Gaddafi after capture, because he did not want him alive; and other fighters celebrated with him after the summary execution. Worse, his dead body was then publicly displayed in a commercial freezer at a shopping center for more celebration.
Madsen’s sources said Gaddafi was told to surrender to the al-Qaeda rebels besieging Sirte before morning prayers at 5 am, but that it was decided to surrender after the sun was well up in the sky so the white flags would be clearly visible.
It also appears likely the arrival of Secretary of State Clinton in Libya may have played into the plot and convinced Gaddafi to surrender.
According to official accounts, however, Gaddafi was attempting to flee Sirte and avoid surrender.
He was wounded in a Predator drone attack and subsequently killed by crossfire, either from the rebels or Gaddafi supporters. Video footage released hours after the attack, however, clearly reveals a seriously wounded Gaddafi abused by a crowd of rebels. A choppy cell phone video then shows the body of the deposed leader.
A NATO rebel fighter later bragged that he had killed Gaddafi.
Both Madsen and Jones said the official cover story does not make sense. If Gaddafi wanted to escape Sirte, why didn’t he do it under the over of darkness? It makes little sense to attempt an escape convoy in broad daylight in rebel territory with U.S. predator drones likely on constant patrol.
Madsen’s information reveals that Gaddafi was set-up for a double-cross and execution. Dead men, as they say, tell no tales. Gaddafi’s cooperation with the globalists, his business deals with the war criminal Tony Blair at the behest of JP Morgan, his talk of nationalizing Libya’s oil fields, his close relationship with oil corporations and American politicans like John McCain were all liabilities for the elite and would have been extremely problematic if he had surrendered and faced the ICC at the Hague.
Beginning this week, Mexican truckers will officially be allowed to bypass border inspections and drive directly into the US to deliver their goods. The pilot program not only complies with provisions set forth in the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994, but it also ratchets up another notch towards a North American Union (NAU), where borders among the US, Mexico, and Canada are virtually eliminated.
For years, public outcry and concern by some politicians over its sweeping implications have prevented the new trucking policy from being implemented. After all, drug trafficking, illegal entry by Mexican immigrants, and even violent standoffs at the border are already problematic under the current system, which requires that Mexican truckers transfer their goods to US truckers at the border.
But under the new system, Mexican truckers will be permitted to freely cross the border and drive deep into America's heartland. For the inaugural event, Mexican trucking company Transportes Olympic will cross over the US border at Laredo, Tex., on Wed., Oct. 26, where it will travel 450 miles north to Garland, Tex., to deliver industrial equipment.
"There's absolutely no upside to the program," said Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Rep. Hunter's office, to the AP. "It's a good example of foreign interests overtaking American interests, at the expense of jobs, security and safety. The program was a bad idea when it was created under NAFTA and it's a bad idea now. It should be stopped right away."
A conservative's task in society is "to preserve a particular people, living in a particular place during a particular time."
Jack Hunter, in a review of this writer's new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? thus summarizes Russell Kirk's view of the duty of the conservative to his country.[Suicide of a Superstate, American Conservative, October 20, 2011]
Kirk, the traditionalist, though not so famous as some of his contemporaries at National Review, is now emerging as perhaps the greatest of that first generation of post-World War II conservatives—in the endurance of his thought.
Richard Nixon believed that. Forty years ago, he asked this writer to contact Dr. Kirk and invite him to the White House for an afternoon of talk. No other conservative would do, said the president.
Kirk's rendering of the conservative responsibility invites a question. Has the right, despite its many victories, failed? For, in what we believe and how we behave, we are not the people we used to be.
For ten months the Obama administration has presided over the "Arab Spring," a geopolitical gambit years in the making, and executed simultaneously in multiple nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa in the beginning of 2011. The regional conflagration was stoked by a steady stream of first, denial, even feigned surprise, with covert support for US-backed opposition groups, then more overt support, and finally NATO airstrikes, weapons, training, and special operations forces lent to the rebellion in Libya and weapons and support sent to Syria's militants. These collective efforts stretching from Tunisia and leading up to Iran's doorstep serve a singular agenda -that is, to contain and ultimately overturn the reemergence of Russia as well as containing the rise of China.
The US is at least peddling the illusion it is clearing out its holdings in Iraq, leaving a symbolic force for a reason - a reason that has to do with a final gambit to be played against Iran, the last domino to fall in the US-contrived "Arab Spring." These are two possible scenarios:
1. Leave a small symbolic force for the Iranians to attack in Iraq after a "unilateral" Israeli airstrike. Whatever Iran decides to do, it may not be able to do sustainably, but will do viciously in the opening phases. By leaving a symbolic force in Iraq, the US can garner the necessary sympathy and anger politically at home to launch a wider operation against Iran in "retaliation."
2. Feign as if the US is disengaging from the Middle East so when a false flag terror attack or other provocation is perpetrated against the US, it will look like an egregious act of war by Iran. While a shrinking US presence in the Middle East would logically engender even more patience in Tehran, the script writers of the latest DEA-Saudi bomb plot took special care to ensure the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point made it repetitively on air and into the minds of unsuspecting Americans.
Once again, President Obama has ordered U.S. soldiers into harm’s way unnecessarily. Last week, he quietly told the U.S. Congress that he had sent 100 U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers into Uganda to help governments in central Africa fight a rebel army that’s been rampaging through the region for more than 20 years. This is the way the Vietnam War started, with U.S. special forces sent to "assist" a barely democratic government cope with a guerrilla war and a president promising they would not be going into combat. Ten years later, with more than 58,000 American lives and untold hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives lost, we had learned a brutal lesson – war is too easily escalated by those who do not have to fight or die.
Now, the president seems determined to repeat history, rather than learn from America’s past. According to news reports, the Pentagon has already shipped $45 million in military equipment to the area, including four drone aircraft. The same kind of drones are already being used to bomb targets in Palestine, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else. The United States has been providing military aide and advisers, to Uganda and other nations in the region, to battle these rebels since George W. Bush was in office. Does America really need another war right now? We can’t even afford the ones we’ve got already!
To make matters worse, rather than meeting its Constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on unbridled presidential power, Congress has aided and abetted yet another foreign interventionist adventure. It was one of those unheralded bipartisan bills, quietly passed with huge support in both houses of Congress and signed by the President in May 2010. Congress not only made it U.S. policy to: "apprehend or remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield … and to disarm and demobilize the remaining Lord’s Resistance Army fighters," but also directed the president to come up with a plan and strategy to "eliminate" the threat.
President Obama’s order is merely a continuation of the interventionist and imperialist foreign policy supported by presidents and Congressmen from both major political parties. Once again they have sent Americans into danger in a foreign land in the name of "humanitarian relief" and "national security." I am beginning to detect a pattern. Whether it is Libya or Uganda, or seemingly anywhere the ruling elites in America care to send brave young volunteers, it is warmly wrapped in the patriotic garb of humanitarian relief and national security.
Right now, there is a lot of talk about the evils of "capitalism". But it is not really accurate to say that we live in a capitalist system. Rather, what we have in the United States today, and what most of the world is living under, is much more accurately described as "corporatism". Under corporatism, most wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of giant corporations and big government is used as a tool by these corporations to consolidate wealth and power even further. In a corporatist system, the wealth and power of individuals and small businesses is dwarfed by the overwhelming dominance of the corporations. Eventually, the corporations end up owning almost everything and they end up dominating nearly every aspect of society. As you will see below, this very accurately describes the United States of America today. Corporatism is killing this country, and it is not what our founding fathers intended.
Corporatism is actually not too different from socialism or communism. They are all "collectivist" economic systems. Under corporatism, wealth and power are even more highly concentrated than they are under socialism or communism, and the truth is that none of them are "egalitarian" economic systems. Under all collectivist systems, a small elite almost always enjoys most of the benefits while most of the rest of the population suffers.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters realize that our economic system is fundamentally unjust in many ways, but the problem is that most of them want to trade one form of collectivism for another.
But our founding fathers never intended for us to have a collectivist system.
Instead, they intended for us to enjoy a capitalist system where true competition and the free enterprise system would allow individuals and small businesses to thrive.
It’s a story that bears chilling similarities to the terror attacks conducted against Oklahoma City and New York City, but the Wednesday morning arrest of five Moroccan terrorist suspects in San Antonio quickly passed from the lurid to the ludicrous in media descriptions.
Documents found inside the van showed the men, all in their 20s, had traveled extensively to high-level security facilities around the country, according to local media reports. Investigators also told the Associated Press that 90-day visas, maps, cell phones and computers were found inside the vehicle.
Officials in San Antonio say that the five foreign men arrested during a courthouse break-in early on Wednesday were pranksters who were likely intoxicated. “There is no reason to think this is a terrorist incident,” Bexar County Sheriff Amadeo Ortiz told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
The San Antonio affair occurred on a date that decodes from 10/19/11 to 11911 — 911 from the middle to the left and from the middle to the right. There is only one more “palindromic” 11911 left in this century: 11/9/11, two-and-a-half weeks from now. Not coincidentally, FEMA has chosen that date for its first-ever Emergency Alert System Nationwide Test, during which it will take over all U.S. broadcast stations. The date on which the exercise was determined was 6/9/11, or 6911. Cryptanalysts read the 6 and 9 as “rotational twins” — the same numbers, only in different positions. This makes 6911 the same as 6611 and 9911; both numbers are sinister “numeric harmonics” of 9/11. The same number 6911 was used to encode the Japanese body count one week after Fukushima: Japan Death Toll Hits 6,911. 11/9/11, 11/10/11 and 11/11/11 will be days of exceptional danger, worldwide.
Gaddafi would have been a most inconvenient guest of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as he would have relished recalling all the hand-kissing, the warm embraces and the juicy deals the West was begging to clinch after he was promoted from "Mad Dog" (Ronald Reagan) to "our bastard". He would also relish detailing all the shady backgrounds of those opportunists now posing as "revolutionaries" and "democrats".
As for the concept of international law, it lies in a drain as filthy as the one Gaddafi was holed up in. Iraqi dictator Saddam at least got a fake trial in a kangaroo court before meeting the executioner. Osama bin Laden was simply snuffed out, assassination-style, after a territorial invasion of Pakistan. Gaddafi went one up, snuffed out with a mix of air war and assassination.
Power vultures are congesting the skies. London-based Mohammed El Senussi, the heir to the Libyan throne (King Idris was overthrown in 1969) is ready for his close-up, having already established that he "is a servant to Libyan people, and they decide what they want". Translation; I want the throne. He's obviously the favorite candidate of the counter-revolutionary House of Saud.
And what about those Washington think-tank donkeys mumbling that this was the Arab Spring's "Ceausescu moment"? If only the Romanian dictator had improved his country's standard of living - in terms of free healthcare, free education, incentives for the newlywed, etc - by a fraction of what Gaddafi did in Libya. Plus the fact that Nicolae Ceausescu was not deposed by NATO "humanitarian" bombing. v Only the brain dead may have swallowed the propaganda of NATO's "humanitarian" 40,000-plus bombing - which devastated Libya's infrastructure back to the Stone Age (Shock and Awe in slow motion, anyone?). This never had anything to do with R2P - the relentless bombing of civilians in Sirte proves it.
Gadhafi comes from the same generation of “Third World” despots who came to power in the post-colonial period and played footsie with the Soviet Union in part to offset a long history of Western domination. Most of these were military men, and avowed “socialists,” although their versions of Marxist theology often differed from orthodoxy the way Mormonism deviates from Protestantism. These bonapartist regimes eventually entered a period of sclerosis, and reified into tools of tribal dominance and outright kleptocracy, with some monarchist flourishes thrown in for good measure. After the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, those who survived made their peace with the West, as did Gadhafi. Spoon fed by Western “aid” and “development” programs, the corrupto-crats grew fat while the people starved – and seethed.
You could almost hear the sigh of relief coming from Western capitals as news of Gadhafi’s unceremonious death spread around the world. Apparently captured alive, as this video shows, he was almost immediately killed by his captors, who then dragged his body through the streets of Sirte, which had been the last loyalist holdout. That a US drone first attacked Gadhafi’s convoy, and so gave the rebels the opportunity to make short work of him, is a telling detail. Odds are that NATO was tracking him, and in communication with rebels on the ground: whether they gave the direct order to off the Libyan leader matters little. What matters is that only God will judge him, and the trial will be private. The idea of Gadhafi in the dock at the International Tribunal in the Hague, testifying to his dealings with Western bigwigs over the years, is not something our leaders looked forward to.
Now the NATO-crats can turn their attention to the problem of how to hold the country together in the post-Gadhafi era, while maintaining tight control over whatever gang rises to the top. Libya, like the “countries” in the rest of Africa, is an artificial construct, the creation of Western colonial powers as they carved up the continent. It actually consists of at least three separate entities — Tripolitania to the west, Cyrenaica to the east, and an interior province peopled by nomads and black Tuaregs – each with its own distinct history and character. Uniting these regions by fiat ensures the future of Libya under the heel of yet another strongman, albeit one less eccentric and more reliably pro-Western than his predecessor. It seems a near certainty Libya will be deemed as yet unready for national elections, and one should expect the National Transitional Council will drop the “transitional” and simply declare itself to be the one and only legitimate government.
That this proclamation will be met with widespread resistance is also a near certainty, because Libya is afflicted with the same problem that besets the entire African continent – the illegitimacy of present-day national borders.
On 14 October, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only "engage" for "self-defence", says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.
Obama’s decision is described in the press as "highly unusual" and "surprising", even "weird". It is none of these things. It is the logic of American foreign policy since 1945. Take Vietnam. The priority was to halt the influence of China, an imperial rival, and "protect" Indonesia, which President Nixon called "the region’s richest hoard of natural resources …the greatest prize". Vietnam merely got in the way; and the slaughter of more than three million Vietnamese and the devastation and poisoning of their land was the price of America achieving its goal. Like all America’s subsequent invasions, a trail of blood from Latin America to Afghanistan and Iraq, the rationale was usually "self defence" or "humanitarian", words long emptied of their dictionary meaning.
In Africa, says Obama, the "humanitarian mission" is to assist the government of Uganda defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), which "has murdered, raped and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women and children in central Africa". This is an accurate description of the LRA, evoking multiple atrocities administered by the United States, such as the bloodbath in the 1960s following the CIA-arranged murder of Patrice Lumumba, the Congolese independence leader and first legally elected prime minister, and the CIA coup that installed Mobutu Sese Seko, regarded as Africa’s most venal tyrant.
Obama’s other justification also invites satire. This is the "national security of the United States". The LRA has been doing its nasty work for 24 years, of minimal interest to the United States. Today, it has fewer than 400 fighters and has never been weaker. However, US "national security" usually means buying a corrupt and thuggish regime that has something Washington wants. Uganda’s "president-for-life" Yoweri Museveni already receives the larger part of $45 million in US military "aid" – including Obama’s favourite drones. This is his bribe to fight a proxy war against America’s latest phantom Islamic enemy, the rag-tag al Shabaab group based in Somalia. The RTA will play a public relations role, distracting western journalists with its perennial horror stories.
Shortly before Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas arrived in New York to seek United Nations recognition of a Palestinian state, TAC’s Scott McConnell sat down with Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer to discuss the deeper currents shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since then, President Obama has given a speech shocking in its deference to Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s right-wing coalition, and there is no immediate prospect for renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations—the “peace process” begun with discussions in Oslo, Norway in 1991. Israel has announced fresh plans to move settlers into Palestinian areas of Jerusalem it conquered in 1967.
As daunting as the prospects for peace may be, Israel no longer enjoys immunity from criticism within the American media and academy—thanks in large part to the work of scholars like Mearsheimer and Finkelstein, who have forced a debate among foreign-policy thinkers and the American left over the price Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians all pay for Tel Aviv’s policies.
One of America’s most important dissident scholars, Norman Finkelstein has written six books touching on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 2007, after he had been recommended by DePaul University’s political science department and described by the university as an “outstanding teacher,” he was denied tenure thanks to an unprecedented lobbying campaign waged by Alan Dershowitz, who had long sparred with Finkelstein over Israel. Finkelstein is the child of European Jews who survived Auschwitz and Majdanek, which gave added force to his book The Holocaust Industry, critical of ways Israel has exploited the Holocaust for financial and political gain. His most recent work, This Time We Went Too Far, is an analysis of Israel’s 2008-09 war against the Palestinians in Gaza.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is one of America’s foremost international relations scholars. He created a storm in 2006 when he and co-author Stephen Walt of Harvard University published the essay “The Israel Lobby,” which was later expanded into a best-selling book.
Despite its evidently make-believe facade, the cooked-up story of the Saudi envoy assassination plot does not seem to be something which can be easily banished from the minds of the American powers that be.
The heat over Iran in the US government is growing rapidly. Some Republican congressmen have expressed their interest in waging an all-out war against Iran, a threat they keep refreshing every time they have an excuse. They have clearly stated that Washington should not dismiss the idea of resorting to military force against Iran, an idea which is being strengthened in Congress. “I don’t think you should take it off the table,” Michigan Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has said.
It is quite natural that he was vehemently supported by the former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator John McCain, who have always maintained an antagonistic approach towards Iran.
Hawkish Gingrich said on CNN, “Our goal should be the replacement of the Iranian dictatorship, and we have done nothing of consequence to systematically undermine the regime.”
The US government keeps preaching at others and talking of dismantling this or that regime which they term as ‘dictatorial’ or ‘sponsor of terrorism’. Now that the lot has fallen to the US government itself, they are at a loss and appear despondently desperate. The implosive voice that is eroding the American system from within cannot be easily smothered or contained.
The non-partisan Government Accountability Office released a report today showing widespread corruption and conflicts of interest in the Federal Reserve.
Senator Sanders – who was instrumental in forcing the Fed to release some details of its lending operations – summarizes:
A new audit of the Federal Reserve released today detailed widespread conflicts of interest involving directors of its regional banks.
“The most powerful entity in the United States is riddled with conflicts of interest,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after reviewing the Government Accountability Office report. The study required by a Sanders Amendment to last year’s Wall Street reform law examined Fed practices never before subjected to such independent, expert scrutiny.
The GAO detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves. “Clearly it is unacceptable for so few people to wield so much unchecked power,” Sanders said. “Not only do they run the banks, they run the institutions that regulate the banks.”
Sanders said he will work with leading economists to develop legislation to restructure the Fed and bar the banking industry from picking Fed directors. “This is exactly the kind of outrageous behavior by the big banks and Wall Street that is infuriating so many Americans,” Sanders said.
In key points, Obama's Middle East policy is similar to that of President Ronald Reagan, whom most Republicans regard as their party's greatest leader in living memory. Reagan's most detailed and carefully considered presentation of his views on the Israel-Palestine issue was given in a major presidential address of Sept. 1, 1982, which came to be known as "The Reagan Plan."
"The United States," he warned the Israelis, "will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks."
America's efforts for peace in the region, Reagan went on, must be based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 , which calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied" in the June 1967 war, and which is explicit in "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
Reagan said: "... We base our approach squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America's Middle East peace effort. It is the United States' position that -- in return for peace -- the withdrawal provision of Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and Gaza."
Claims by Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and other Republicans that President Obama's policies are biased toward the Palestinians or are somehow hostile to Israel are so groundless that they can only be regarded as conscious falsehoods. If the Republican critics of Obama's Middle East policy are honest and consistent, they must reject President Reagan's policy as similarly dangerous, "naïve" and harmful to Israel.
President Obama’s reaction to the alleged Iranian assassination plot reflects, once again, the dictatorial powers that the president of the United States now wields in foreign affairs.
As many commentators are noting, the whole scheme appears to be as bogus as a 3-dollar bill, but that isn’t really the point. The point is that we now live in a country in which the ruler wields the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war for whatever reason he wants, bogus or not.
That’s not the way things were supposed to be. The Framers didn’t devise a system where the president had that omnipotent power. When they called the federal government into existence with the Constitution, they delegated the power to declare war to Congress and the power to wage war to the president.
Thus, under the Constitution Obama is required to come to Congress with a request to declare war on Iran (or even to impose sanctions on the country). Presumably Congress would say, “Show us the evidence on which you’re relying for your request for us to declare war on Iran.”
At that point, it would be “put up or shut up” time for Obama and his FBI, Justice Department, CIA, and Pentagon. They would have to submit their evidence to rigorous scrutiny from Congress, just as they’re going to have to do in a criminal trial of the alleged assassination plotter, Manssor Arbabsiar. (That’s assuming, of course, that they don’t send Arbabsiar down the “enemy combatant” route by removing him from the jurisdiction of America’s constitutional judicial system and delivering him into the clutches of the U.S. military.)
The so called Iranian terror plot has continued to come apart at the seems. Today, a Pakistani Intelligence official told the Pakistani Urdu-language daily that the Mossad gave Mansour Arbabsiar fake id papers only three months ago.
Mansour Arbabsiar is accused of plotting to kill the Saudi Ambassador and his arrest has caused a furry of calls to bomb Iran from the usual war hawks on Capital Hill.
“The person who is accused in this case had received fake ID documents from the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, three months ago,” the Pakistani Urdu-language daily, Nation, quoted the official as saying on the condition of anonymity, report Press TV.
These revelations, along with Tehran’s claim that the U.S. and Israel revealed the fake terror allegations against Arbabsiar in order to distract from large scale protests against the 1% and the fact that the U.S. government was openly running the terror plot, paint a clear picture.
The terror plot, essentially run by the United States government and now apparently the Mossad, sounded and was fake from the beginning.
Justin Raimondo, in an outstanding article on Antiwar.com, exposed how fake this Iranian terror plot actually is.
The Mossad have a long history of creating the narrative around a supposed terrorist with the most famous being the 9/11 hijackers who they trailed and possibly even ran.
Lest anyone dismiss his concerns, note that Israel's former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, a man known for extreme taciturnity, publicly warned that Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu proposed to a senior ministerial committee in 2010 that Israel attack Iran. Dagan almost single-handedly persuaded a majority of the ministers to defer an attack and to try nonlethal means instead, such as the Stuxnet cyber-attack, which Israel is known to have devised with likely US assistance. The Mossad director called a military attack on Iran the "stupidest thing I've ever heard." He knew, as Anthony Cordesman has reported, it would likely kill thousands of Iranians (directly) and Israelis (indirectly through revenge terror attacks), lead to massive responses by Iran and its proxies and possibly cause the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, a skyrocketing in world oil prices and potential economic catastrophe.
The material published included references to Israeli diplomats briefing President-elect Obama on Operation Cast Lead while the war was being prosecuted, presumably in an effort to persuade him of the importance of continuing it, despite the pressure the incoming president was under to speak out against it. They revealed private, late-night meetings between the Israeli ambassador and a key Obama operative at which they presumably discussed how and whether the war would end in relation to the president-elect's upcoming inauguration. Note that the war ended on January 18, and Obama was inaugurated on January 20. I'm certain this was no accident, but rather a carefully choreographed deal between the two sides. Obama never criticized the war publicly. Now we know why.
I noted that an Israeli diplomat ghost wrote some or all of a Boston Herald op-ed attacking Iran, to which a prominent Jewish attorney and community leader signed his name. In Minneapolis, the local Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) briefed the Chicago Israeli Consulate on the travel schedule and a meeting it held with Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim-American elected to Congress. Ellison, according to the tapes, was viewed as hostile to Israeli interests. In fact, the JCRC official told the Israeli diplomat that Ellison had just led a local trade delegation to Saudi Arabia (a big no-no) and was planning to join Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington) in a fact-finding mission to Gaza in the aftermath of the war. This trip, too. was viewed with alarm by both parties in the transcripts.
I went public for two reasons: one was to expose Israel's propaganda campaign in this country against Iran. But just as importantly, I wanted Americans to know why Shamai Leibowitz did what he did. I wanted them to know that not only was he a whistleblower, a profile in courage, but that he is a person of conscience, who faced the full force of the US government during his prosecution. I wanted the world to know Shamai was a sacrificial victim who deserved to be honored rather than imprisoned.
Do you want to know the real reason banks aren't lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?
It's because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn't evening out. To the contrary, it's growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.
In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.
The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).
Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.
Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.
Think I'm exaggerating?
The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.
US foreign and domestic policy is not produced by our legislatures as we are meant to believe. John Kerry and John McCain don't sit behind their desks twelve hours a day penning the 1,000 page policy papers they present to Congress to be rubber stamped. President Obama is not sitting in the Oval Office churning out reams of policy papers either. It is the unelected, corporate-funded policy think tanks and their army of policy makers, lawyers, scribes, and media personalities the produce, promote, and ram through an agenda that serves not the American people, but the corporate-financier interests that fund their work.
While many Americans scratch their heads at what appears to be a profound mystery - a Democratic president carrying the torch of a Neo-Conservative Republican's global war, not only maintaining all previous wars, but expanding the battlefront - in reality this linear, continuous policy that is being executed piecemeal by both sides of the American political aisle is the direct result of these corporate-funded think tanks successfully commandeering both political parties.
Vote out of office any and all public servants that promote extraterritorial meddling, including wars, funding foreign opposition movements, arming foreign militants, and funding foreign propaganda networks. Vote out of office all representatives that peddle 1,000 page pieces of legislation produced by corporate lawyers and their vast array of "think tanks." And above all, identify and expose the actual corporate-financier interests driving this destructive agenda, then boycott and replace them. The vast influence and unwarranted power these corporate fascist monopoly men have garnered is a direct result of our apathy, ignorance, and decades of paying into their system with our money, time, energy, and attention.
America is being brought to the precipice of a war neither the American nor the Iranian people want by a cartel of corporate-financier interests that admit the nation of Iran poses to threat to the United States. This is purely a war to enhance US hegemony in the Middle East, not protect the American people and our way of life at home. It is a war that the American people will pay for in both trillions of dollars in public funds, as well as the blood of our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. It is up to the American people to end this cycle of parasitic exploitation before it ends America.
The case brought by the FBI against two Iranian men and three Iranian officials for plotting to kill a Saudi Arabian diplomat in the United States looks to be a classic frame-up job in order to distract the public from ongoing problems plaguing the Obama regime.
“This is made up,” said Mostafa Abdelzadeh, editor of the U.S. desk at the Fars News Service, a popular Iranian news organ. “Even a U.S. official said there is no evidence linking these men to the Iranian government.”
On Oct. 11, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that one of its informants, posing as a member of a Mexican drug trafficking cartel, had framed Manssor Arbabsiar, his cousin, allegedly a general in the Iranian Qods military service, and Ali Gholam Shakuri, an alleged colonel in Qods, for a “ghost terrorism” conspiracy that had been concocted by the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).
The DEA informant, identified in the federal indictment as “CS-1,” allegedly spoke with Arbabsiar, who had been arrested four previous times on petty charges and was likely involved in drug trafficking across the U.S. border from Mexico. CS-1 suggested that he could provide a four-man hit squad to kill a political target in the United States if he was paid $1.5 million dollars. When Arbabsiar agreed, the informant ratcheted up the charges by suggesting a bomb be used—an offense that carries a 35-year mandatory minimum jail term—and engaged in behavior that is typical of other similar FBI frame-ups of innocent Americans, including the use of the phrase “painting a house” for committing a murder—a detail that is straight out of an FBI operational manual and has been used in hundreds of similar murder-for-hire cases around the country.
The issue is not the killing of an American person per se. I recognize the legitimacy of killing as punishment for capital crime after presentation of evidence, due process and a jury trial. I recognize the legitimacy of killing in self-defense, which is a killing by someone likely to be harmed by an aggressor. I recognize the legitimacy of killing in the course of securing a military objective in a just conflict that is being waged in self-defense. Moreover, I do not believe in a moral duty to respond “proportionately” to an intrusion or attack, and I do believe in a military than can deliver crushing force in defense of the nation.
That said, let’s look at the assumptions on which the argument of those who support the killing of Al-Awlaki rest.
The first is that it was necessary to keep us safe.
It was necessary only if Al-Awlaki was in the process of committing a violent crime against the USA with a “detectable” probability of harming American civilians. Was he? We only have the word of the executive branch. Is that word enough? If you find the President trustworthy, then it is enough for you. If you do not, then it is not. But the institutions of a democratic republic are designed to protect us from abuse by leaders we do not trust.
In my last article, I drew a comparison between Bush’s invasion of Iraq and the killing on Al-Awlaki. The point was that in both cases, all we had to go on regarding the imminent threat posed by the target was the word of a president, which turned out to be wrong. This is why I stated that the extra-judicial killing of Awlaki can be justified only if Obama goes to pains to present evidence of the imminent threat posed by Al-Awlaki — and that evidence must be orders of magnitude stronger than that used to go to war in Iraq, which was wrong and led to the deaths of 100,000s of innocent people.
In the first ever interview of its kind, AMERICAN FREE PRESS speaks with the police officer responsible for arresting the “Dancing Israelis” on September 11, 2001, who were caught filming and celebrating while the WTC burned and people died. Sgt. Scott DeCarlo reveals the details of that day, details the Zionist-controlled mainstream media conveniently overlooked. DeCarlo has promised that this is his first and last interview on the subject, in the hopes of quelling ongoing interest in his role that horrible day.
That Mecca of counter-revolution and hatred for the Arab Spring - also known as the House of Saud - can hardly believe their luck. It's Christmas in October - as the United States government has just handed it the perfect gift; in the excited words of US Attorney General Eric Holder, "A deadly plot directed by factions of the Iranian government to assassinate a foreign ambassador on US soil with explosives."
Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, former ambassador to Washington, former head of Saudi intelligence, former great buddy of Osama bin Laden, took no time to tell a conference in London, "The burden of proof and the amount of evidence in the case is overwhelming, and clearly shows official Iranian responsibility for this. This is unacceptable. Somebody in Iran will have to pay the price."
The plot is very handy to divert attention from Saudi Arabia as the beneficiary of a multi-billionaire US weapons sale. And also very handy to divert attention from Holder himself - caught in yet another monstrous scandal, on whether he told lies regarding Operation Fast and Furious (no, you can't make this stuff up), a federal gun sting through which no less than 1,400 high-powered US weapons ended up, untracked, in the hands of - you guessed it - Mexican drug cartels. Seems like the Fast and the Furious franchise is the entertainment weapon of choice across all levels of the US government.
Washington wants to "unite the world" against Iran ("world" meaning the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO) and is graphically threatening to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council - all over again.
So let's anxiously wait for a hushed R2P ("responsibility to protect") resolution ordering NATO to establish a no-fly zone over every House of Saud prince across the world. A resolution which would be interpreted as a NATO mandate to bomb Iran into regime change. Now that's a script you can believe in.
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, in his accustomed role as unofficial surrogate CIA spokesman, has thrown light on how the CIA under its new director, David Petraeus, helped craft the screenplay for this week’s White House spy feature: the Iranian-American-used-car-salesman-Mexican-drug-cartel plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
In Thursday’s column, Ignatius notes that, initially, White House and Justice Department officials found the story "implausible." It was. But the Petraeus team soon leapt to the rescue, reflecting the four-star-general-turned-intelligence-chief’s deep-seated animus toward Iran.
Before Ignatius’s article, I had seen no one allude to the fact that much about this crime-stopper tale had come from the CIA. In public, the FBI had taken the lead role, presumably because the key informant inside a Mexican drug cartel worked for U.S. law enforcement via the Drug Enforcement Administration.
However, according to Ignatius, "One big reason [top U.S. officials became convinced the plot was real] is that CIA and other intelligence agencies gathered information corroborating the informant’s juicy allegations and showing that the plot had support from the top leadership of the elite Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the covert action arm of the Iranian government."
New York’s highest court will weigh a lawsuit brought by a Buffalo attorney that attacks the state’s system of giving cash and tax breaks to thousands of businesses.
The lawsuit contends that New York, for decades, has violated the state constitution’s ban on giving “gifts or loans” to businesses, or to support their activities.
The lawsuit argues the state has set up agencies and public authorities, such as Empire State Development Corp. .Empire State Development Corp. Latest from The Business Journals Buffalo attorney makes case against biz subsidiesAppeals court to rule on NY’s ‘corporate welfare’ policiesNiagara Falls puts downtown site to market Follow this company ., to try to get around the constitution.
“We’re not particularly interested in grabbing money back. We just want the practice to stop going forward,” said James Ostrowski, a Buffalo attorney who brought the lawsuit in 2008.
The case threatens the core of economic development efforts in the state, a menu of tax breaks, grants, loans or cash incentives intended to spark private-sector activity.
Business lobbies often push for more generous incentives. They argue the benefits are necessary to blunt the state’s business climate, seen as one of the most expensive in the country.
The Defense Department, which has promised to publish a reliable account of how it spends its money by 2017, has discovered that its financial ledgers are in worse shape than expected and that it will have to spend billions of dollars in the coming years to make its financial accounting credible, the Center for Public Integrity reported Thursday.
The U.S. military has spent more than $6 billion to develop and deploy new financial systems, but the effort has been plagued by significant added overruns and delays, defense officials told the CPI, a nonprofit investigative news organization.
The Government Accountability Office said in a report last month that although the services can now fully track incoming appropriations, they still can't demonstrate that their funds are being spent as they should be.
The Pentagon’s bookkeeping has come under increased scrutiny as Congress and the Obama administration have vowed to reduce the federal deficit. The Pentagon requested $671 billion for fiscal 2012, but disputes over the deficit prevented Congress from passing the budget by the Sept. 30 deadline. The department could face substantial cutbacks if a special bipartisan "supercommittee" can’t agree on a formula for reducing the deficit.
As the Associated Press explained this week, the summer debt agreement between President Barack Obama and Congress mandates $350 billion in defense cuts over 10 years, and that figure could grow significantly depending on how the supercommittee slashes at least $1.2 trillion from future deficits. But if the panel stumbles, or Congress rejects its recommendations, the cut to defense could be even deeper as automatic reductions kick in, with half coming from defense.
Pat Buchanan’s latest book, Suicide of a Superpower, raises the question whether America will survive to 2025. The question might strike some readers as unduly pessimistic and others as optimistic. It is unclear whether the US, as we have known it, will survive its next presidential election.
Consider the candidates. Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who was likely to have been an early Obama supporter, now wonders if Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.” Despite Obama’s failure, the Republicans can’t come up with anyone any better. One Republican candidate admires Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman who gave us financial deregulation and the financial crisis. Another is ready for a preemptive strike on Iran. Yet another thinks the Soviet Union is a grave threat to the United States. None of these clueless dopes are capable of presiding over a government.
Anyone who has been paying attention knows that the “superpower” is over-extended financially and militarily. The US is currently involved in six conflicts with Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Pakistan on the waiting list for full fledged military attacks and perhaps invasions. Russia is being encircled with missile bases, and war plans are being drawn up for China.
Where is the money going to come from when the country’s debt is bursting at the seams, the economy is in decline, and unemployment on the rise?
Buchanan is concerned that America might not survive until 2025. Instead, shouldn’t we be concerned that the American police state could last that long? Shouldn’t we be worried that the police state will survive yet another presidential election, or even one more day?
The Occupy Wall Street protests and the rise of the Tea Party movement have both changed America, but you haven't seen anything yet. You better buckle up, because America is getting very angry and as the economy continues to decline the economic protests are going to become much more frightening in the years ahead. Americans have become very accustomed to prosperity. Now that our prosperity is vanishing, people are starting to become very angry. The scary thing is that the vast majority of our population now lives in tightly congested urban areas. That makes the potential for mass rioting and civil unrest much greater. Back in 1910, 72 percent of Americans lived in rural areas. Today, only 16 percent of Americans live in rural areas. So what happens when you have millions of incredibly angry people crammed into tightly congested metropolitan areas? Well, we are about to find out.
Over the past 4 years, we have seen some unprecedented things happen in America. First we witnessed the rise of the Tea Party movement. Initially it pretty much was a true grassroots movement but now it has been mostly taken over by establishment Republicans. Now we are witnessing the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While there are some grassroots elements to it, the reality is that Occupy Wall Street seems to be pretty much controlled by the Democrats. In fact, one individual was recently told that "Ron Paul signs are not welcome here" at a recent protest.
So we have the left and the right fighting with each other like cats and dogs. The Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street both pretty much hate each other.
Meanwhile, those that control both political parties are enjoying the view.
But the people that are expressing their anger through protest movements such as Occupy Wall Street are not going to be content with the status quo for long.
The truth is that there is a lot of anger in the United States today, and that anger is rapidly growing. Millions upon millions of Americans are deeply upset about the economy and about our financial system.
Under the Obama Administration the United States has expanded the "long war" into Africa. Barack Hussein Obama, the so-called "Son of Africa" has actually become one of Africa's worst enemies. Aside from his continued support of dictators in Africa, the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) was unhinged under his watch. The division of Sudan was publicly endorsed by the White House before the referendum, Somalia has been further destabilized, Libya has been viciously attacked by NATO, and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) is going into full swing.
The war in Libya is just the start of a new cycle of external military adventurism inside Africa. The U.S. now wants more military bases inside Africa. France has also announced that it has the right to militarily intervene anywhere in Africa where there are French citizens and its interests are at risk. NATO is also fortifying its positions in the Red Sea and off the coast of Somalia.
As disarray and turmoil are once again uprooting Africa with external intervention, Israel sits silently in the background. Tel Aviv has actually been deeply involved in the new cycle of turmoil, which is tied to its Yinon Plan to reconfigure its strategic surrounding. This reconfiguration process is based on a well established technique of creating sectarian divisions which eventually will effectively neutralize target states or result in their dissolution.
Many of the problems afflicting the contemporary areas of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Africa, and Latin America are actually the result of the deliberate triggering of regional tensions by external powers. Sectarian division, ethno-linguistic tension, religious differences, and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States, Britain, and France in various parts of the globe. Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, and Yugoslavia are merely a few recent examples of this strategy of "divide and conquer" being used to bring nations to their knees.
In a shocking development in the trial of the accused underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Delta Flight 253 eyewitness Kurt Haskell has been called by Abdulmutallab as a witness for the defense, a move that could blow the whole case wide open.
Detroit Lawyer Haskell has been a prominent skeptic of the government’s official version of events, having witnessed a well-dressed man help Abdulmutallab clear security before the incident on Christmas Day 2009 despite the fact that the bomber had no passport, in addition to the fact that his own father had warned U.S. intelligence officials of the threat posed by Abdulmutallab a month before the attempted attack.
It later emerged that the State Department was ordered not to revoke Abdulmutallab’s visa by “federal counterterrorism officials” even though the accused bomber had known terrorist ties.
Haskell maintains that Abdulmutallab was carrying a fake bomb and was the unwitting dupe in a case of government entrapment.
“Chambers indicates that I may be the only defense witness called,” writes Haskell on his blog. “How ironic is it that I will have Umar’s life in my hands just as Umar had my life in his hands (or underwear) on Christmas Day 2009? I will be up to the task. I realize that some may not agree with me and may attempt to harm me. Nevertheless, I will speak the truth and not be intimidated. I will do this for the common good of all of the citizens of the United States.”
To anyone still believing that capital markets around the world express something other than government policy, the latest news out of China may come as a surprise: "Beijing will buy more shares in China’s biggest banks, in an expression of support for the beleaguered stock market and most concrete state action to date to shore up confidence in the slowing economy." The FT reports further: "Central Huijin, the domestic arm of China’s sovereign wealth fund, will buy the shares to help stabilise the pillars of the country’s financial system, the official Xinhua news agency said on Monday. Coming as the Chinese stock market closed at a 30-month low, the move was the strongest sign that Beijing wants to engineer a restoration of confidence in share prices and the economy. It paid instant dividends with a rally in the final minutes of trading on Monday." And there you have it: stocks are now nothing more than a means for governments to validate their "success" in something, since they have no more control left over either employment or inflation, or public expression of affection with capitalism as per #OWS. So why not ramp up the DJIA to 36,000? Granted that will happen as all global currencies get terminally davalued against gold, but so what - after all that only thing that matters now is whose stock market is the biggest.
Although Chinese growth has so far held up well, the European debt crisis and the risk of a double-dip recession in the US have cast a shadow over the country’s economy. With inflation running near three-year highs and debt levels swollen by heavy spending, economists doubt that Beijing could launch the kind of stimulus it did when the global financial crisis struck in 2008.
Sensing vulnerability, investors have turned against China, driving down commodity prices, betting on the chances of a government default and selling shares in the banks that are the economy’s lifeblood.
The government, through Huijin, is already the majority shareholder in all of the country’s major banks. While the announcement gave no details about how much more it intends to buy, it was unabashed in declaring that it aimed to halt the roughly 30 per cent slide in bank stocks in recent months.
"And it's one, two, three, What are we fighting for ? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, Next stop is Pakistan"
It does appear that for some Pentagon brass, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; the CIA under former U.S. Central Command and Afghanistan commander General David Petraeus; and top Republican and Democratic politicians that, indeed, Pakistanis next on the target list of nations that will soon be feeling the military muscle of the United States. Unlike other Muslim nations that have been subjected to U.S. military intervention, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya, Pakistan’s ultimate prize for the West is its nuclear weapons arsenal…
A number of observers, including former senior figures with the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, have made no secret of western contingency plans, which appear to be going active, to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the nation as a nuclear weapons power. The plans have been coordinated between the CIA, India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) intelligence service, and Israel’s Mossad.
President Obama appears to have decided to ratchet up tensions with Pakistan after Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari was apparently urged by Obama to attend the White House’s much-hyped Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in April 2010. Obama sent a personal letter to Zardari that was delivered to the Pakistani president’s office in Islamabad on February 16, 2010, along with a cover letter from U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson. The letter to Zardari was the subject of a leaked U.S. State Department “sensitive” cable dated February 17, 2010 from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to the State Department. The cable references a previous February 10, 2010 cable from the White House to the embassy in Islamabad. The cable from Islamabad was copied to the CIA; the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon; the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Tampa, Florida; U.S. consulates in Lahore, Peshawar, and Karachi – the sites of CIA stations in Pakistan – and the U.S. embassies in London and Kabul.
The “official” Occupy Wall Street website has publicly formed an alliance with yet another Obama campaign front group, the New Jersey branch of the American Federation of Teachers, the parent organization of which spent $1.9 million on Obama’s 2008 election campaign.
Fears that the OWS movement is being subverted by Democratic Party operatives will only be heightened after OccupyWallSt.org celebrated the fact that “AFT fully endorses Occupy Wall Street,” noting that the local chapter stood in “solidarity” with ‘Occupy’ demonstrators.
The American Federation of Teachers financed Obama’s 2008 campaign to the tune of $1.9 million and has also recently offered its strong support for Obama’s “Jobs Plan,” which critics have pointed out will lead to higher taxes not for the super-rich, but for middle class Americans.
The United Federation of Teachers sub-chapter of the AFT, which has also publicly backed the Occupy Wall Street protests, was rewarded for their parent organization’s support for Obama when the administration made the union representing New York City’s public school teachers the largest beneficiary of the notorious Obamacare waiver.
Now all the people attending these things just look like democrats who want more social programs and want MORE government control. Don’t fall for these people that try to act like they care. OWS will fail, and fail very rapidly I might add, if they accept endorsements from the people causing the problems. Stick to the principles of freedom, free market, NOT corporatism and crony capitalism. Don’t accept endorsements from the people causing the problems. Obama came out and supported OWS today, BUT HE IS THE PROBLEM. He is the one FOR the bailout of the banks and the wall street crooks. Don’t accept their lies and their attempts to act like they truly care, because they don’t. All they want is your support for a next election. You are destined to fail and accomplish nothing if you accept support from the enemy.”
At the basis of Israeli arrogance lies the idea that this really is a special nation with special traits that are shared by no other nation. You can see that among Israeli travelers abroad; you can hear it from anyone who comes into contact with foreigners; you can sense it in the deeper currents of Israeli policy. The Americans are "foolish," the Indians are "primitive," the Germans are "square," the Chinese are "strange," the Scandinavians are "naive," the Italians are "clowns" and the Arabs are ... Arabs. Only we know what's good for us, and not only for us but for the entire world. There is nothing like Israeli ingenuity, there is nothing similar to Jewish intelligence, the Jewish brain invents new ideas for us like no other brain, because we're the best, bro.
There are many opportunities to see this idea in action. The latest example not only erupted from the synagogues on Yom Kippur, but was observed on the eve of the holiday, when we heard the very happy news that another Israeli scientist had won the Nobel Prize. And it really was heartwarming: Prof. Dan Shechtman certainly deserves the prize, but Israel does not deserve the sentimental national celebration that immediately erupted. In a society where blunders and failures are always the responsibility of the individual, achievements are nationalized and belong to us, all of us. We were all together on April 8, 1982, in Shechtman's laboratory in Maryland when he first observed his quasicrystal; we're all with him now, on the way to Stockholm.
The achievement of the individual immediately becomes a communal achievement, the communal achievement immediately becomes more irrefutable proof of Israel's superiority. "The crystal is ours;" "The secret of our existence;" "National pride;" and the "Israeli brain" screamed the headlines in a tasteless and unfounded display at the news of the individual prize.
Israel’s supreme court on Thursday barred nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu from emigrating on the grounds he still poses a threat to state security, Israeli media reported.
Vanunu, under orders to stay in Tel Aviv and not to speak to journalists, “has proved several times he can not be trusted and does not respect the letter of the law,” supreme court judges said in turning down his appeal.
The prosecution charged he posed “a real danger to the security of Israel,” while the judges stressed the 56-year-old former nuclear technician had contacts with unspecified “foreign elements.”
Vanunu served 18 years behind bars for disclosing the inner workings of Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant to Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper in 1986.
Vanunu served 18 years behind bars for disclosing the inner workings of Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant to Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper in 1986.
He was released in 2004 but banned from travel or contact with foreigners without prior permission. He has since been sanctioned more than 20 times for breaking the rules.
Last month, I called on conservative groups to endorse the Occupy Wall Street protests:
It is time for some big conservative endorsements, to rally around the non-partisan issues important to all Americans.
The Tea Party should endorse the protests, but so should the Oath Keepers, taxpayer rights groups, conservative Christians, limited government groups, and all other conservative groups.
Yesterday, the Oath Keepers and a founding member of the Tea Party announced that they are supporting the protests:
Oath Keepers sees good reason to stand in the streets with these awakening souls and protect their right to free speech, to peacefully assemble, and to redress their grievances to their government, as the Constitution prescribes for all Americans. That is one thing. Another facet of our initiative is to use these public gatherings to reach and teach many who now hunger for the truth – we can show them how the Constitution will protect them better than an oversized, bloated Federal behemoth hell-bent on controlling every aspect of each citizen’s life.
It’s official. The American dystopia is here. Obama administration officials admit that the CIA assassination program that snuffed out Anwar al-Awlaki last Friday is guided by a secret panel that decides who lives and dies. According to Reuters:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
Let that sink in. The U.S. presidency, supposed leader of the free world, has a clandestine committee that chooses American citizens to assassinate. This from the administration that promised unprecedented transparency and a ratcheting back of Bush-era civil liberties abuses. This from the president who vowed to restore habeas corpus and subject executive war powers to judicial scrutiny. This from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.
The goodwill towards the Southern states that one might expect from monetary reformers has been clouded by the claim that the War of Secession was instigated by international bankers for the control of the USA, and specifically that it was the South that was for this purpose backed by the Rothschilds and other European banking dynasties in Europe. While monetary reformers often allude to Abraham Lincoln having issued state credit in the form of the “Greenbacks,” and therefore Lincoln has become something of an icon among those who advocate alternatives to the usurious world financial system, seldom realized is that the Confederacy issued its own “Graybacks,” and did not have any type of fellowship with international finance. The condemnation of the South often includes an anti-Semitic element, because the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P Benjamin, was Jewish, and from there flights of fancy roam free, including the claim that Benjamin was a “Rothschild agent” and even a that he was a “Rothschild relative.” This paper examines the claim as to whether the Rothschilds and other banking dynasties supported the South, and in particular examines the manner by which the Confederacy was really funded.
The “Grayback” served the Confederacy as the “Greenback” served the Union, and perhaps moreso, as the Confederacy was shut out of financial markets. It was a pragmatic move and one that better served the Confederate States of America (CSA) by force of circumstances than by going cap-in-hand to the international money-lenders, as most states then did and still do. Hence, the “Grayback” is an example of state credit used on a wide scale that allowed the functioning of an economy without recourse to usurious debt, and stands with other examples such as the use of Reserve Bank state credit by the 1935 New Zealand Labour Government.[i] Given the present widespread economic tumult caused by the compound interest intrinsic to the debt-finance system that controls much of the world, a concentration of alternative systems of banking and finance are of vital importance, but are presently problems seldom understood by the “Right.” This was not always the case, as exemplified by the writings of Ezra Pound[ii] and the “Social Justice” movement of Father Coughlin,[iii] et al.
The very fact that the Confederacy was not supported by international finance caused the necessity of the Confederacy to generate its own credit. While an examination of the efficacy of government currency issue is not the subject of this essay, what should be noted is that price-inflation was caused in significant part by large-scale counterfeiting of Graybacks from the North, and was also affected greatly by public confidence or loss of confidence, depending on the development of the war. State currency amounted to 60% of the CSA revenue during the war.[xii] Marc Wiedenmier states that the money issued by the CSA was interest-free: