r3volution! News

Archive for the category “Daily News”

Al Qaeda Does Not Exist – BBC Special Documentary (Full Version)

2007 – According to this BBC documentary there’s no such thing as al-Qaeda – at least not as we’ve come to know it. It’s a fraud perpetrated on the British and American people by the governments to scare us into submission. While Osama bin Laden did have links to Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists, he was not the leader of a powerful, cohesive group called Al Qaeda. The US government built him up into such a figure to give Americans a face – an enemy – to hate in their push for public support of multiple wars planned for the middle east.


Israel Seeks War on Iran to keep Lid on 9/11

Netanyahu’s first reaction to 9/11: “Good for Israel!” But maybe not in the long term.

Almost every politically-aware person on the planet is puzzled by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s bizarre obsession with Iran. Netanyahu is risking his political career, his reputation, and Israel’s future by intervening in the US presidential elections. He is using all of Zionism’s considerable might – including organized crime assets like “Las Vegas Godfather” Sheldon Adelson – to force Obama to attack Iran; or, failing that, to make sure that Obama is defeated by the Zionist puppet Romney. There are even rumors of Israeli-sponsored assassination attempts on Obama.

Even the rabidly pro-Zionist (but relatively honest) Jewish Daily Forward editorialized:

It’s difficult to recall a time when an Israeli prime minister has inserted himself into a presidential election campaign in the way that Benjamin Netanyahu has. It’s even harder to recall a time when a trusted ally openly urged the American president to undertake a questionable, unpopular and highly risky war. We sure hope Netanyahu knows what he’s doing, because the stakes for him — and for the two nations he professes to care about the most — could not be higher.

The Jewish Daily Forward has good reasons to wonder whether Netanyahu knows what he’s doing. The editorialist cites polls showing that the American people strongly oppose attacking Iran, even if war breaks out between Iran and Israel and only US intervention could save Israel! These polls show that American voters no longer give a damn whether Israel, which has chosen to live by the sword, finally dies by the sword. As Dave Lindorff observes, Netanyahu’s mad obsession with pushing the US into yet another unwanted war for Israel “may have fundamentally undermined the long-standing ‘special relationship’ between the US and Israel.

And still Netanyahu continues on this seemingly suicidal course. He even orders the Mossad and its CIA assets including Gladio veteran Terry Jones to unleash a rabidly anti-Islam film, spammed into the faces of every Muslim on the planet via millions of dollars of computer server time and intelligence agency expertise – an obvious attempt to fan the flames of islamophobia and pave the way to a US war on Iran for Israel. Obama, who is on record saying he hates Netanyahu and that Netanyahu is a liar, and who knows that Netanyahu manufactured the “Innocence of Muslims” crisis to try to get Romney elected, responded by refusing to meet with Netanyahu in New York, and going on the David Letterman Show instead. A more blatant snub could hardly be imagined.

So what in the world is Netanyahu really up to? Does he actually believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, even though the CIA has certified that it does not? Does he really think that even if Iran DID have a nuclear weapons program, any Iranian government would be crazy enough to guarantee Iran’s incineration by launching a first strike against Israel?

Of course he doesn’t really believe such nonsense. Even hard-line Israeli strategists admit that Iran appears to be only developing nuclear expertise, not actual weapons, and that in their worst-case scenario, Israel could live with a nuclear-armed Iran. After all, Iran has not attacked another nation in centuries.

Since the “nuclear crisis” is a hoax (like alleged Iraqi WMD in 2003) then what is the real reason for Netanyahu’s Iran obsession? Is it the Iranian government’s support for anti-Zionist resistance groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and its calls for an end to Zionism through free and fair elections?

Perhaps. Iran’s open commitment to principled anti-Zionism represents the nearly unanimous position of the people of the Middle East, who have never accepted the genocidal Zionist entity as a legitimate state. Israel has been able to bully every other government in the region into shameful silence. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not be silenced. Leveling Iran with bombs would send a message to future Middle Eastern governments: Do not give a voice to your people’s resistance to Zionism, or else!

But while starting a war might punish Iran for its anti-Zionism, such a war would carry terrible risks for Israel. Even if all went well for Israel on the battlefield, the suffering of the people of Iran would probably shame the world into turning against Zionism even more sharply than the world turned against apartheid in the 1980s.

And there is no guarantee that things would go well for Israel on the battlefield. Iran has the capability to riddle Israel with rocket attacks, or even to take out Israel’s Dimona nuclear facility and perhaps render Israel and much of the surrounding region permanently uninhabitable. And Israel does not have the capability to seriously damage Iran’s nuclear program without US help. If the US intervened on the side of Israel, Iran could shut the Straits of Hormuz, and possibly sink many if not all of the ships there with Sunburn missiles, driving gasoline prices over $10 a gallon and paralyzing the world economy. Additionally, Iran has the capability to massively attack the US bases that surround it, killing thousands if not tens of thousands of US soldiers. A US president, especially one who dislikes Netanyahu and puts America’s interests ahead of Israel’s, would be very unlikely to help Netanyahu attack Iran.

Given that a war on Iran is a lose-lose proposition for Israel, why is Netanyahu fanatically fanning the flames of war, to the extent that even his American Zionist cheering section is baffled and embarrassed by his behavior?

Some question Netanyahu’s intelligence, arguing that he is just a furniture salesman who has been promoted far beyond his level of incompetence. While there may be some truth to this – I certainly wouldn’t want to overestimate Netanyahu’s intelligence – I don’t think he’s quite that stupid. I think Netanyahu has a very good reason to prefer war with Iran, despite all its risks, to peace. I think he does know what he’s doing.

Netanyahu needs the 9/11-triggered 100-years-war on Islam to continue for the very good reason that if it does not, the State of Emergency still in place in the US will be lifted, and Americans, unencumbered by the National Security restrictions of wartime, will quickly learn what really happened on September 11th, 2001. That possibility poses a very real existential threat to Israel – and to Netanyahu.

As Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Strategic Studies at the US Army War College, told Press TV: “I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Marine Corps Headquarters, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period. If Americans ever know that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off the earth.” And even if Israel were “scrubbed off the earth” peacefully through a one-state solution, Netanyahu would certainly hang for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

Unfortunately for Netanyahu and Zionism, Dr. Sabrosky isn’t the only US National Security insider leaking the truth about 9/11. Hundreds of military and intelligence people have come forward (see: http://patriotsquestion911.com/ ).The two biggest recent leaks are revelations by CIA asset Susan Lindauer that the CIA had detailed foreknowledge of 9/11 and attributed the controlled demolitions of the three NYC skyscrapers to “those goddamned Israelis”; and the assertion by Gwenyth Todd, who worked beside Richard Clarke on the National Security Council, that Clarke (who was publicly fired from an earlier job for being an Israeli spy) is the top suspect as hands-on controller of 9/11 from the US end. Yes, you heard that right: Richard Clarke’s colleague on the National Security Counsel, Gwenyth Todd, suspects Clarke of masterminding and running the 9/11 attacks. If Todd and other high-level sources are right about this, Clarke’s book’s title Your Government Failed You is an understatement.

Some of the same high-level sources who finger Richard Clarke as the US boss of the Israeli-instigated 9/11 false-flag operation also claim that President Obama, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dempsey, and other powerful Americans are considering exposing the truth about 9/11 during a second Obama term. In other words, Obama’s re-election could put Israel out of business, and get Netanyahu hanged from the nearest lamp-post.

No wonder Netanyahu is “overplaying his hand” by doing everything he can to get rid of Obama. And no wonder Netanyahu is desperately trying to throw gasoline on the “clash of civilizations” fire and trigger war with Iran. A huge Middle East war, no matter how destructive, would maintain the wartime State of Emergency in the US and impede the inexorable revelation of America’s biggest state secret: That American traitors, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Richard Myers, and others, helped Israel blow up the World Trade Center, bomb the Pentagon, and kill 3000 Americans on 9/11.



Israel’s nuclear deterrent method exposed. This information was discovered as part of my fukushima report

Israel is keeping a dirty little secret . . . . .

Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist, Jan 8 2012

There is a reason why the U.S. government is waging war all over the world, even obviously against the good of the nation.

There is a reason why the U.S. government rapidly rolled over and did the banker bailout without question, in an amount which exceeded the value of every mortgage in the country by more than 3x, and every mortgage in default by over 15x; an amount which will destroy America once the ripple effect is finished.

Many of you are no doubt scratching your heads, wondering why every elected president turns back on his campaign promises the second the inaguration is complete. Believe me, the corruption of American elected officials is not that deep. You cannot elect several presidents in sequence, and have them all perfectly screw the country, ESPECIALLY the way Bush and Obama did; they had their reason, and it is called NUCLEAR BLACKMAIL.

What if they never wanted to renig (at least not so completely)? What about Obama? And what about the other countries, which also screwed their people the same way? Why is it seemingly a universal truth, that all governments around the world are simultaneously going against the will of their people, in favor of the Jewish bankers and Israel?

I believe I have figured it out, and I have documented it.

I am going to tell you the hows and whys of Israel’s dirty little secret – how they got their nuclear offensive capability in place, why they decided on the chosen method, and how they ended up using it.


Israel had a serious launch dilemma

Israel is in a unique predicament. It’s small land mass and hostile neighborhood have made developing a space program and ballistic missile defense system all but impossible.

Geography matters. Most nations are priviledged to have vast tracts of land suitible for space launches, or friendly neighbors who will permit the use of their airspace during a space launch. Israel is not one of them.

If a rocket is to be put to its most practical use, it must launch toward the rising sun to make use of earth’s rotational velocity and add it to the speed of the rocket. If a rocket is launched towards the setting sun, it must first accelerate to the speed of the earth’s rotation, and then an additional 1,000 mph just to get to where zero would have been with an eastward launch. Though it can be done, it wastes fuel and after launch another problem then presents itself – your payload will be traveling opposite to all the many thousands of other satellites and space debris in orbit and an eventual catastrophic collision is virtually assured. This has made westward launches both taboo and difficult. Westward launches are considered unacceptable, though Israel has done it.


Israel has been stifled in space of because of these difficulties. The prime Eastward launch direction will violate both Jordani and Saudi airspace, because a rocket has to reach an altitude of 60 miles to be formally above, and not trespassing on a nation. Though a straight up launch which then turns East after an acceptable altitude is reached is possible, it will waste so much fuel and require such a large rocket that it will be too impractical to be considered an option. This has spelled doom for a land based ballistic missile defense system in Israel because only a small east to west launch corridor is available over the mediterannean. So while the Israelis have launched satellites into orbit through this window, a ballistic defense system which needs a full 360 degree launch direction to be fully effective is not possible. Israel was forced to both explore and implement other methods of delivering an effective nuclear deterrent.

Sadly, their only affordable option allowed them to screw the world

What if Israel came up with a way to smuggle nuclear weapons into the most sensitive areas of all the developed nations – areas where if anything big goes BOOM all is lost? Could there be a clandestine reason for the supposed shortage of Helium 3, which is needed in the type of radiation detectors required to detect a nuclear weapon? You can block protons, but neutrons are difficult to shield entirely, and you can forget about neutrinos – you can’t hide a nuke from the right detector, one which uses helium 3 in it’s detector element. Why did America and all other nations somehow run out of Helium 3 a few years ago, which simultaneously left their borders open to nuclear weapons smuggling? Coincidence? I think not. The picture to the left appears to be a legitimate camera in a body that could also hold a nuke. It does not appear to actually be a nuke. HOWEVER


This particular one in the above picture appears to be a bona fide nuke camera. Note the differences – At the top of the gun barrel, there is a reinforced area to survive the ignition of the projectile propellant. The “cameras” look superficial and appear to be mounted to the surface of the barrel with very little intruding depth. Think about the webcam in your laptop or the camera in your Iphone – Nowadays that’s all the depth a very good camera needs if price is no object, so it is easy to build convincing and deceptive functionality into the unit to justify it’s enormous size.

Israel’s main strategy has been to smuggle nuclear weapons into sensitive areas of nations under the disguise of security contracts. These security contracts use “proprietary” equipment that is maintained only by Israelis. In this particular case, the proprietary equipment is stated to be “biscopic” cameras, which are put in place by security companies operating as front companies on behalf of the Israeli Defense Forces. Magna BSP, the company which provided”security” at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan is one of them. During my investigation of the Fukushima mission, I studied Magna BSP and discovered that in addition to Japan, they also got security contracts in Brazil, Germany, and the United States. All 4 of these countries have provided massive financial “bailouts” to zionist bankers, and though I have not proven that all of these countries were blackmailed with the threat of a nuclear armageddon, the coincidence is very suspicious and given what happened in Japan, even a little more than suspicious. In the fukushima report the reason given was that Japan offered to enrich uranium for Iran. But shortly thereafter, Japan damaged it’s economy by surrendering 1.7 trillion USD to Jewish bankers even though no prior debt was owed.

Image  This particular “camera” is a concept drawing of what the final design will look like. But don’t count on it looking that way after this report or the Fukushima report, many large items which can be excused off as security devices can also house a nuke. Additionally, other types of contracts use equipment that is very suitable for housing an implosion nuke, which is often much smaller than a gun nuke.

Gun type nukes do not produce very predictable results which is a good explanation for why the other two exploded reactors did not produce a mushroom cloud. Reactor 4, which “exploded” had been de-fueled and did not even have a core in it, this was proven with the classified photos in the Fukushima report. This made the explosion at reactor four flatly impossible. The un predictability of gun nukes is a good reason to move away from them, so I expect the gun nuke camera to be a dying breed. Perhaps the Israelis wanted to get rid of old nuclear inventory, and from the crudeness of the looks of the units delivered thus far, I suspect exactly that. I strongly recommend you take the time and read the Fukushima report in full, it’s all documented from official sources, contains about 7 hours of reading material and took hundreds of hours to research out.

With the inadequately explained and inexcusable absense of helium 3, most of the world’s borders are now wide open for Israel to get it’s deterrent fully in place and have been for some time. I believe Israel has multiple nuclear weapons in place in key areas of the United States, Germany, Japan and Brazil, and has plans for or has succeeded in smuggling nukes into many other countries. Israel has been able to make hundreds of nuclear weapons from the reactor in Dimona, and has stolen enough nuclear material from America to make additional thousands. I believe Israel is holding the world nuclear hostage. If anyone says anything, opens their mouth, they get killed. If a nation goes against the will of Israel, and does not submit financially, BOOM. And it will all be blamed on the environment, a meteor, or “terrorists” because after all, TERRORISTS smuggle nukes in through the ports, RIGHT?


The next time that guy you voted for renegs on his campaign promises IMMEDIATELY after inaguration
The next time your government forks over unbelievable cash to Jewish bankers and destroys your future;
The next time your government sends your children off to die in a war against a nation that never attacked you;
The next time a 911 happens;
The next time another SOPA act passes, or some other legislation no one wants passes and directs hatred at a government that needs our support to survive:


consider this article — I know I NAILED IT!

Of course, as usual, you can re-post this everywhere, WITHOUT EDITS, and WITH a link back to this original article.

Thank you,

Jim Stone


Israel Preparing for Armageddon / WW3 On The Eve of Yom Kippur

Israel : Stages largest snap exercise in Golan Heights preparing for War with Iran (Sept 21, 2012)

Gerald Celente Channel The Israeli military has been practicing for what many fear is the inevitable – a confrontation with Iran. Israel is ready to attack with or without U.S. support. China and Russia for some time have been training in joint military exercises, at the same time despite propaganda otherwise, both China and Russia have continued to warn the US-Gov against attacking Iran. Should (either) the Zionist State of Israel (or) the US-Gov attack Iran, it will certainly begin WWIII. Despite the secret cavernous-cities belowground beginning in the South-Western portion in America, these in WWIII would be the deepest graves in the world.

Iran could launch pre-emptive Israel strike-commander

DUBAI (Reuters) – Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state was preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran’s state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television.

“Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it,” Al-Alam said, paraphrasing the military commander.

Hajizadeh said any attack on Iranian soil could trigger “World War Three”.

“We can not imagine the Zionist regime starting a war without America’s support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases,” he said.

“In that case, unpredictable and unmanageable things would happen and it could turn into a World War Three.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made increasing hints that Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear sites and has criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Iran getting the atomic bomb.

Tehran denied it is seeking weapons capability and says its atomic work is peaceful, aimed at generating electricity.

“The Zionist entity is militarily incapable of confronting Iran … the circumstances of the region do not enable it to wage war tomorrow or even in the near future,” Hajizadeh said.

“Our response will exceed their expectations,” he said. “Their assessment of our missile capabilities is wrong. Our response will not only be missiles.”

(Reporting by Zahra Hosseinian and Rania El Gamal; Editing by Sophie Hares)



Reuter’s is misrepresenting what Amir Ali Hajizadeh actually said. Checking with Press-TV we find that Amir Ali Hajizadeh actually said that Iran would counter-attack if Israel tried to bomb Iran but never said anything about pre-emption. Reuter’s is trying to make Iran look like the aggressor in the coming war. Maybe the false-flag is to take place inside Israel itself?

More Americans now commit suicide than are killed in car crashes as miserable economy takes its toll

  • Deaths from suicide up 15pc with fears more deaths go unaccounted
  • $56m suicide prevention plan being rolled out after shocking statistics
  • Harsher penalties for drink driving credited with reducing road deaths

Suicide is the cause of more deaths than car crashes, according to an alarming new study.

The number of people who commit suicide in the U.S. has drastically increased while deaths from car accidents have dropped, making suicide the leading cause of injury death.

Suicides via falls or poisoning have risen significantly and experts fear that there could be many more unaccounted for, particularly in cases of overdose.

Shocking trend: While the number of Americans killed in car crashes has declined over the last decade, the suicide rate has increased

‘Suicides are terribly under-counted,’ said Ian Rockett, author of the study, published on Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health.

‘I think the problem is much worse than official data would lead us to believe. We have a situation that has gotten out of hand.


He added that his goal is to see the same attention paid to other injuries as has been paid to reducing the number of deaths in traffic accidents.

The results were compiled using National Center for Health Statistics data gathered from 2000 to 2009.

Researchers noted a 25 per cent decrease in fatal car accidents, medicalxpress.com reported, while deaths from falls rose 71 per cent, poisoning 128 per cent and from suicide 15 per cent.

Higher automobile standards were credited for the decrease in deaths on the road, with harsher penalties for underage drinking and failing to wear seat belts named as contributing factors.

Previous research has suggested that suicide rates go up during recessions and times of economic crisis.

‘Economic problems can impact how people feel about themselves and their futures as well as their relationships with family and friends,’ Feijun Luo of CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention told Bloomberg.

‘Prevention strategies can focus on individuals, families, neighborhoods or entire communities to reduce risk factors.’

Suicide is now the most frequent cause of injury deaths, followed by car crashes, poisoning, falls and murder.


Wow! Obama Says Israel’s Concerns Over Iranian Nukes Is “Noise” …Update: So Does Ahmadinejad

On “60 Minutes” tonight Barack Obama described Israel’s concerns over Iranian nukes – “Noise.”

But he cares about Israel.

There’s more… Obama also referred to Israel as merely: “ONE Of Our Closest Allies In The Region.”

OBAMA: “Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we’re in close consultation with the Israelis– on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They’re one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.” (CBS’s “60 Minutes,” 9/23/12)

UPDATE: Now get this… Ahmadinejad says the same thing as Obama.
Algemeiner reported:

Interestingly, in an interview with the Washington Post’s David Ignatius published today, Iran’s anti-Semitic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used exactly the same term when describing concerns that the Israelis have raised over the country’s nuclear program.

IGNATIUS: “I want to ask as my first question the one every citizen of the world would like to ask today: What is the chance of a war in Iran that would result from an Israeli attack on your nuclear facilities?”

AHMADINEJAD: “I have spoken about this topic at length, previously. We generally speaking do not take very seriously the issue of the Zionists and the possible dangers emanating from them. Of course they would love to find a way for their own salvation by making a lot of noise and to raise stakes in order to save themselves.

Iran’s IRGC prepared to defend itself against any enemy

If Israel Prepares for Attack, Iran Will Strike Preemptively.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general heading up the aerospace division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. (IRGC), has told Iran’s Arabic language Al-Alam television that his country will strike preemptively if it detects preparations by Israel for an attack.

Iran held a news conference last week stating it has the ability to defend itself against attack.

“Iran will not start any war but it could launch a preemptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it,” the military commander said.

Hajizadeh said an attack by Israel would be supported by the United States. “For this reason, we will enter a confrontation with both parties and will definitely be at war with American bases should a war break out,” he said, mentioning U.S. bases in Bahrain, Qatar and Afghanistan as targets.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain. According to U.S. government figures, there are 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

“We see the United States and the Zionist regime (of Israel) alongside one another and we can by no means imagine that the Zionist regime would initiate a war (against Iran) without the U.S. support,” Hajizadeh said. “There will be no neutral country in the region. To us, these bases are equal to U.S. soil.” He said Iran would definitely attack the bases if war breaks out.

“This war is likely to degenerate into the World War III,” Hajizadeh warned.

Iran’s Commander of the IRGC, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said on Saturday that a war on Iran “will eventually happen,” Press TV reported. “War will happen but it is not clear where and when.”

“Iran will obliterate the Zionist regime if the latter takes any action against Iran,” another IRGC commander, Hossein Salami, told the official IRNA news agency on Sunday.

Officials have warned repeatedly that Iran will close the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it is attacked. Iran’s vice president, Mohammad Reza Rahimi, said in January that “not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz” if Iran is attacked.

Attack of the Drones

As he sat enjoying a roadside picnic in Yemen with a few second cousins and their friends — most of whom the young Colorado native had never met before that day — the teenager and all his companions were killed by two Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator drone.

The finger that pressed the button launching the lethal ordnance was American, and so was 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, the target of the strike.


A question that has never been answered by President Barack Obama — the man who authorizes such assassinations — is what law authorized the murder of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, son of the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also killed by Hellfire missiles fired by a Predator drone. Both men were U.S. citizens, and neither was ever charged with a crime.

Some in the Obama administration, including the president, have argued that such sudden strikes are justified in the face of a credible threat posed by the victim. No such claim has been made in the case of the younger al-Awlaki. He posed no threat to the national security of the United States, but he was killed without opportunity to defend himself before an impartial judge in a court of law.

Denial of Due Process

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was killed in October 2011, and to date the Obama administration has never informed the country of any wrongdoing by this teenager, other than being related to a man (his father) who posted on the Internet anti-American videos that allegedly influenced others to commit crimes. A government-sanctioned assassination of such an individual is repugnant to all those who cherish life, liberty, and the due process that protects them.

An additional denial of due process came from the fact that no known attempt was ever made to capture this young man and take him into U.S. custody. Of course, that could be because he might actually have ended up in a court of law if he had been apprehended; and President Obama, a former lawyer, knows that trials can be long, messy, and unpredictable. It is much quicker and cleaner just to launch a missile and kill someone without going through the hassle of due process.

Finally, with regard to civilian casualties, not even the White House claims that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda or any associated group believed to pose a threat to the United States. He was quite literally killed for being associated with one who was allegedly associated with those allegedly associated with al-Qaeda.

As Tom Junod wrote in Esquire:

But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t on an American kill list. Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Nor was he “an inspiration,” as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone “operational,” as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.

He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who [sneaked] out of his family’s home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him.

Not only was the target of the nighttime drone attack a civilian, but so were the boys sitting with him when two U.S. missiles lit up the area and killed them all. Being merely near a person related to someone accused of being associated with a group allegedly affiliated with an alleged al-Qaeda network is apparently sufficient provocation for becoming “collateral damage” in the U.S. “war on terror.”

Tragically, the unjustified killing of these boys only added to the ever-increasing tally of victims of the death-by-drone program. As of press time, the death toll of people killed by the United States in the Middle East by drone strikes is rising. During the first two weeks of September, for example, 34 Yemenis were killed by missiles fired from U.S. drones, adding to the total of almost 200 people killed in that country in 2012.

How many of those killed were innocent bystanders such as those who happened to be with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? How many of the actual “targets,” like Abdulrahman, were themselves innocent or at least had no demonstrable ties to terrorist organizations? This question will never be known with certainty because the president alone serves as judge, jury, and executioner — and does not believe he is obliged to provide evidence to the American people.

In fact, it would be very naïve to believe the targeted assassination of an innocent like Abdulrahman was an unfortunate miscalculation. When the judicial and executive powers of government are consolidated and restraints on the exercise of power are cast aside, it can be expected — based both on our knowledge of history and on the nature of man — that power will be abused and no one’s rights or life will be safe from elimination by ­despots.

Despite the unconscionable details of the death-by-drone program, President Obama is beginning to tear the shroud of secrecy off this once hush-hush plank in his foreign policy platform.

From his interview with Ben Swann, host of Reality Check on Cincinnati’s Fox affiliate, to his sit-down with CNN’s chief White House correspondent Jessica Yellin, the kill-list compiler-in-chief is gradually exposing details of the principles he purportedly follows before targeting someone for assassination.

When asked by CNN what process he uses to make the life-or-death decisions to deploy the drones to kill a “militant,” President Obama listed five criteria:

• First, “It has to be a target that is authorized by our laws.”

• Second, “It has to be a threat that is serious and not speculative.”

• Third, “It has to be a situation in which we can’t capture the individual before they move forward on some sort of operational plot against the United States.”

• Fourth, “We’ve got to make sure that in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties.”

• And fifth, “That while there is a legal justification for us to try and stop [American citizens] from carrying out plots … they are subject to the protections of the Constitution and due process.”

It appears that none of the deaths authorized by the president meets these criteria. In these interviews, the president consistently defends the fact that he orders drone strikes to assassinate people based on nothing more than his suspicion that they threaten U.S. national security. But for all his apparent frankness, there is one aspect of his drone-based assassination program about which the president has remained tight-lipped.

This silence shrouds the cold and callous manner in which civilian deaths are disregarded by the president when it comes to counting the number of fatalities resulting from his death-by-drone campaign. “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties,” the New York Times reported in an article published May 29, 2012. When read in conjunction with the headline from an Associated Press article reading “Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead,” a picture of global casualness as to casualties begins to emerge.

The Times clarified: “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” (Emphasis added.)

The highly informative New York Times piece illuminates much of the macabre methodology of aggregating the names of enemies of the state to President Obama’s proscription list.

Recounting the scene at one of the regularly scheduled Tuesday intelligence briefings at the White House, Jo Becker and Scott Shane wrote, “The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years.”

It cannot be too soberly restated that these seemingly cold-blooded conferences are occurring every week in the Oval Office and are presided over by the president.

That last fact is essential if one is to understand the era into which our Republic has entered. The president of the United States, in this case Barack Obama, sits in a chair in the White House rifling through dossiers of suspected terrorists. After listening to the advice of his claque of counselors, it is the president himself who designates who of the lineup is to be killed. As the New York Times explains: “Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.”

As a candidate, President Obama, a former adjunct professor of law, ran on a promise of ending foreign conflicts, bringing home the troops, and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. In just over three years, this professor of peace has become the decider of death. In a very real and irrefutable way, the American people have permitted the elected president of the United States (beginning with George W. Bush and the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the Authority for the Use of Military Force, and other similar legislation) to codify a grant of power over life and death.

Does the president feel compelled to make these decisions so as to relieve others of such a heavy burden? No. The New York Times piece reads:

When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser.

There is a salient question that the president would likely laugh at were it to be posed to him: Where is the constitutional authority for creating and issuing kill orders?

The presidential presumption of guilt by association followed by the autocratic order of a lethal drone strike rightly worries many constitutionalists and friends of liberty. In fact, many questions prompted by the president’s drone program remain unanswered. For instance, why can’t these alleged “terrorists” be tried in our federal court system? For decades those accused of terroristic crimes have been formally charged with those crimes, had those charges heard before an impartial federal judge, and been permitted to mount a defense to those crimes.

In fact, a survey of such trials conducted by Human Rights Watch reported that “Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges since 9/11.”

Add to this the story of Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in June 2011 for the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst terrorist act on American soil until 9/11. Extending the full panoply of due-proc­ess rights — including a trial in federal court — did not allow McVeigh or other convicted terrorists to evade justice. Furthermore, the purpose of protecting and providing civil liberties to those accused of crimes is not to set the guilty free, but to avoid punishing the innocent who are wrongly accused of crimes.

And should the president suggest that alleged evildoers cannot be apprehended, he should be reminded that “public enemy number one” Osama bin Laden was reportedly tracked and overtaken by a U.S. special operations team. Why could other less high-value targets not be similarly found by the military? Although bin Laden was reportedly killed in the raid, there is every reason to believe that a team skilled in this type of operation could have captured him alive if those had been the orders they were following.

Once in the custody of the United States, these suspects could be brought to stand trial for their alleged crimes. This would preserve, protect, and defend the fundamental concept of due process, one of the pillars of liberty upon which our Constitution is built.

The constitutional preeminence of due process is found in The Federalist Papers, where Alexander Hamilton warned against its violation in any form: “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”

Due process as a check on monarchical power was included in the Magna Carta of 1215. This list of grievances and demands codified the king’s obligation to obey written laws or be punished by his subjects. Article 39 of the Magna Carta says: “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [dispossessed] or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

Over the years, the Magna Carta was occasionally revised and amended. In 1354, the phrase “due process of law” appeared for the first time. The Magna Carta as amended in 1354 says: “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”

This fundamental restraint on the royal presumption of the power to lop off heads on command was incorporated by our Founders in the Bill of Rights, particularly in the Fifth Amendment that says in relevant part: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

President Obama’s nearly daily approval of drone-delivered assassinations is an effrontery to over 650 years of our Anglo-American law’s protection from autocratic decrees of death without due process of law. When any president usurps the power to place names on a kill list and then have those people summarily executed without due process, he places our Republic on a trajectory toward tyranny and government-sponsored terrorism.

Of course, it would be another matter if those targeted and executed by the president were armed enemy combatants — they were not. Were these suspected “militants” enemy soldiers captured during wartime they would be necessarily afforded certain rights granted to POWs. Those slated for assassination are not allowed any rights — neither the due process rights given to those accused of crimes nor the rights of fair treatment given to enemies captured on the battlefield. The White House has assumed all power over life and death and created ex nihilo a new category of individual — one deprived of all rights altogether.

Violation of the Fourth Amendment

Although the president’s use of drones to execute the war on terror and those he assumes are associated with it has so far only occurred outside the United States, soon drones will slice through the domestic skies, as well. While the sight of drones over U.S. cities and towns is rare right now, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) predicts that by 2020, 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) will be patrolling American airspace.

Scores of these UAVs will be deployed by state and local law enforcement, adding to the many that will be sent airborne by the federal government.

With the rise of the drones comes the rise of several critical questions of constitutionality of their potential uses. One of the most crucial of those inquiries concerns the application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unlawful searches and seizures” and the requirement that warrants be supported by affidavits “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

To shore up the strength of this constitutional barrier, in June Senator Rand Paul introduced a bill to “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.” Paul’s bill mandates: “A person or entity acting under the authority [of], or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Senator Paul explained, “Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics.”

Constitutional conflicts rising in the wake of the domestic deployment of drones have already come up in court in the case of Rodney Brossart, who became one of the first American citizens (if not the first) arrested by local law enforcement with the use of a drone owned by a federal agency. Police launched this loaner after Brossart held the police at bay for over 16 hours.

Brossart’s run-in with law enforcement began after six cows found their way onto his property (about 3,000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota), and he refused to turn them over to officers. In fact, according to several sources, Brossart and a few family members ran police off his farm at the point of a gun. Naturally, police weren’t pleased with Brossart’s brand of hospitality, so they returned with a warrant, a SWAT team, and a determination to apprehend Brossart and the cows.

A standoff ensued, and the Grand Forks police SWAT team made a call to Grand Forks Air Force Base, home to one of the Department of Homeland Security’s squadron of Predator drones. No sooner did the call come in than the drone was airborne, and Brossart’s precise location was pinpointed with laser-guided accuracy. The machine-gun toting SWAT officers rushed in, tased, and then arrested Brossart on various charges, including terrorizing a sheriff.

At a legal hearing on the matter, Bruce Quick, the lawyer representing Brossart, alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. Although the police possessed an apparently valid search warrant, Quick asserts that no such judicial go-ahead was sought for or obtained for the use of the Predator drone to track Brossart. Therein lies the constitutional rub.

In an interview, Quick claims that the police exceeded their authority in several instances, especially when they decided to bypass the Fourth Amendment and illegally search Brossart’s farm. “The whole thing is full of constitutional violations,” he says.

North Dakota state prosecutor Douglas Manbeck defends the deployment of the drone, claiming, “The use of unmanned surveillance aircraft is a non-issue in this case because they were not used in any investigative manner to determine if a crime had been committed. There is, furthermore, no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes.” On August 1, Judge Joel Medd, agreeing with Manbeck, denied the defense’s motion to dismiss.

Senator Paul’s measure, if enacted, would give specific guidance to the judicial branch’s understanding of the Fourth Amendment and the scope of its prohibitions. It would prevent citizens from being subject to surveillance without notice.

In practice, this would help judges apply the principles of the Fourth Amendment to drones in a very specific way. The standards presently used to judge the constitutionality of observation by helicopter or patrol car, for example, would be altered appropriately to fit the rapidly advancing drone technology. The improved legal framework would help law enforcement avoid legally suspect surveillance and would maintain the public’s protection against unconstitutional searches and seizures.

The potential weaponization of police drones is another important consideration, one that combines both constitutional issues of due process and the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure limitations. Glenn Greenwald, formerly of Salon, warned of the likelihood of the gradual shift in the use of drones from surveilling suspects to shooting them: “Many dismiss this concern insisting that when it comes to surveillance drones are no different than police helicopters. Some of these same people dismiss concerns over weaponized drones arguing that there’s no difference between allowing the police to Taser you or shoot you themselves and using a drone to do the dirty work. History teaches, however, that creeping police state powers are entrenched one step at a time.”

Support for this warning is found in a statement made by a member of the Harris County, Texas, sheriff’s department. This agency recently purchased a $300,000 ShadowHawk drone and is apparently excited about its potential. “We envision a lot of its uses primarily in the realm of public safety — looking at recovery of lost individuals and being able to utilize it for fire issues,” Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel said. But in the future, the drone could be equipped to carry nonlethal weapons such as Tasers or a bean-bag gun, McDaniel mused.

For those still doubting the likelihood of such a scenario, read what Dr. Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute wrote (with obvious pride) about the Switchblade drone popular with law enforcement: “It is an ingenious, miniature unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that is also a weapon.”

Taking such comments at their face value, it must be asked, what level of weaponization is permissible for the police? Does local law enforcement need the type of weaponry used by the military, whose mission is very different from that of law enforcement?

Of course, drones aren’t bad per se. There are many lawful possible uses of drones, including wildfire control, tracking suspected criminals for whom a qualifying warrant has been issued, tracking of stolen vehicles, etc. It is the unconstitutional use of drones that is objectionable and that Americans must be vigilant against.


Dangerous and deepening divide between Islamic world, West

* Religion not the only cause of confrontation

* Close ties with U.S. seen as liablity now -analyst

* Arab Spring not as beneficial to West as had been hoped

By Peter Apps, Political Risk Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Sept 23 (Reuters)- For those who believe in a clash of civilizations between the Islamic world and Western democracy, the last few weeks must seem like final confirmation of their theory.

Even those who reject the term as loaded and simplistic speak sadly of a perhaps catastrophic failure of understanding between Americans in particular and many Muslims.

The outrage and violence over a crude film ridiculing the Prophet Mohammad points to a chasm between Western free speech and individualism and the sensitivities of some Muslims over what they see as a campaign of humiliation.

There seems no shortage of forces on both sides to fan the flames. The tumult over the video had not even subsided when a French magazine this week printed a new cartoon showing the prophet naked.

“It’s ridiculous,” Zainab Al-Suwaij, executive director of the America Islamic Congress, said of the violence that on Friday killed 15 in Pakistan alone as what were supposed to be peaceful protests turned violent.

“Yes, this video is offensive but it is clearly a grotesque over reaction that in part is being whipped up by radical Islamists in the region for their own ends. But it does show you the depth of misunderstanding between the cultures.”

Starting last week with a few relatively small embassy protests and a militant attack in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three others, violence has since spread to more than a dozen countries across the Middle East and Asia.

Despite the focus on religion, few doubt there are other drivers of confrontation.

The war on terrorism, U.S. drone strikes, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay prison simply continue, in many Muslims’ perceptions, centuries of Western meddling, hypocrisy and broken promises.

Meanwhile, many Americans see those regions as an inexplicable source of terrorism, hostage-taking, hatred and chaos. In Europe, those same concerns have become intertwined with other battles over immigration and multiculturalism.

“It has always been a difficult relationship and in the last decades it has become even more delicate,” said Akbar Ahmed, chair of Islamic studies at American University in Washington. “Even a seemingly minor matter can upset the balance. … What is needed is more sensitivity and understanding on both sides, but that is difficult to produce.”

Not all the news from the region indicates an unbridgeable gap. Many Libyans, especially young ones, came out to mourn Ambassador Chris Stevens after his death and make clear that militants who killed him did not speak for them. Thousands of Libyans marched in Benghazi on Friday to protest the Islamist militias that Washington blames for the attack.


Still, the “Arab Spring” appears not to have made as many friends for America as Americans might have hoped.

The very countries in which Washington helped facilitate popular-backed regime change last year – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen – are seeing some of the greatest anti-West backlash.

The young pro-democracy activists who leapt to the fore in 2011, Washington now believes, have relatively little clout. That leaves U.S and European officials having to deal with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

There is concern that regional governments such as Egypt might now be playing a “double game”, saying one thing to the U.S. while indulging in more anti-Western rhetoric at home.

It may be something Washington must get used to.

“What you’re seeing now is that (regional governments) are much more worried about their own domestic population – which means being seen as too close to the U.S. is suddenly … a liability,” says Jon Alterman, a former State Department official and now Middle East specialist at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

The current U.S. administration is not the first to discover democracy does not always directly translate into the sort of governments it would like to see.

In 2006, the election victory of Islamist group Hamas in the Gaza Strip was seen helping prompt the Bush White House to abandon a post-911 push towards for democratic change, sending it back towards Mubarak-type autocrats.

Rachel Kleinfeld, CEO and co-founder of the Truman National Security Project, a body often cited by the Obama campaign on foreign policy, said the new political leadership often had less flexibility than the dictators before them.

“Is that difficult for the U.S.? Yes, of course. But it would be a mistake to simply look at what is happening and decide we should go back to supporting autocrats,” she said.

The popular image of the United States in the Middle East stands in stark contrast to the way Americans view themselves.

Western talk of democracy and human rights is often seen hollow, with Washington and Europe only abandoning autocratic leaders when their fate was already sealed and continuing to back governments such as Bahrain still accused of repression.

“The simple truth is that the American people are never going to understand the region because they never ask the right question – which is what it feels like to be on the receiving end of American power,” says Rosemary Hollis, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at London’s City University.


Whoever wins the White House in November will face a string of challenges across the region.

As it faces down Iran over its nuclear program, while backing rebels in Syria and governments in the Gulf, Washington risks being drawn ever deeper into the historic Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian divide within Islam.

Already having to face up to its dwindling influence over Iraq, it must broker its exit from Afghanistan and try to keep nuclear armed Pakistan from chaos.

Then, there are relations with its two key regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, both troublesome in different ways.

Israel is threatening military action against Iran over its nuclear program, and U.S. officials fear Americans would feel the consequences if Israel does attack.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains deadlocked, and Obama’s rival for the presidency, Republican Mitt Romney, indicated in comments earlier this year and made public this month that he sees little chance of any change there.

Saudi Arabia might be a key oil producer and occasionally invaluable ally, but analysts say some rich Saudis, if not the government itself, have long funded and fueled Islamist and Salifist extremism and perhaps also Sunni-Shi’ite tension.

Said Sadek, professor of politics at the American University in Cairo, said people in the Middle East still prefer Obama to the alternative. “He is seen as the only president to ever really reach out to the Middle East. But (it) is a difficult place,” he said. “The countries that have gone through revolutions were always going to be unstable. … You could have perhaps 5 to 15 years of instability.”

While many Americans would like nothing more than to turn their backs on the region, Obama made clear this week he does not see that as an option: “The one thing we can’t do is withdraw from the region,” he said. “The United States continues to be the one indispensable nation.”


America In Distress, CIA, FBI, Navy Seals, And A Colonel In Special Forces Speak Out

Intelligence and Special Operations forces are furious and frustrated at how President Obama and those in positions of authority have exploited their service for political advantage. Countless leaks, interviews and decisions by the Obama Administration and other government officials have undermined the success of our Intelligence and Special Operations forces and put future missions and personnel at risk.

  The unwarranted and dangerous public disclosure of Special Forces Operations is so serious — that for the first time ever — former operators have agreed to risk their reputations and go ‘on the record’ in a special documentary titled “Dishonorable Disclosures.” Its goal is to educate America about serious breaches of security and prevent them from ever happening again.


 he Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Historian Pauline Maier argues that this sentence “asserted one right, the right of revolution, which was, after all, the right Americans were exercising in 1776.”
The chosen language was Thomas Jefferson’s way of incorporating ideas “explained at greater length by a long list of seventeenth-century writers that included such prominent figures as John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke, as well as a host of others, English and Scottish, familiar and obscure, who continued and, in some measure, developed that ‘Whig’ tradition in the eighteenth century.

This right to revolution in the Declaration was immediately followed with the observation that long practiced injustice is tolerated until serious, sustained assaults to the rights of the entire people accumulated to oppress them,[4] then they could defend themselves. This justification had antecedents in the Two Treatises, 1690, Fairfax Resolves, 1774, Summary Views, 1774, Virginia Constitution, 1776, and Common Sense, 1776.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; … mankind are more disposed to suffer, … than to right themselves by abolishing the forms … accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing … a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Gordon S. Wood quotes John Adams, “Only ‘repeated, multiplied oppressions’ placing it beyond all doubt ‘that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties,’ could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government.”

It is time, my friends…. repeated, multiplied oppressions… to deprive us of our liberties warrants a concerted resistance of the People against their government!

The current American Government and all factions of law Enforcement/Military that actively or plan to pursue and uphold any unlawful order against the people.
These current institutions and people behind them are subject to to Treason by the original Constitution.
NDAA, AGENDA 21, PROJECT GARDEN PLOT, REX 84 only to name a few are an immediate threat to our Freedom!

Mitt Romney Has the Lowest Favorability Rating Of Any Presidential Nominee In Modern History — Including All Of the Eventual Losers


Have you ever looked at Mitt Romney on your television screen and thought to yourself, “My God, he looks like an older version of the preppy villain in every 1980′s teen comedy ever produced. Who even likes this guy?”? Well, according to a new paper published by the Pew Research Center, the answer to your question is: virtually no one.

A review of Pew Research Center and Gallup survey data from September finds that Mitt Romney has the lowest favorability rating of any presidential nominee in recent history. In fact, Mitt Romney is the only candidate over the past seven election cycles to be viewed more unfavorably than favorably — and that’s including all of the nominees who went on to lose the election. In fact, while the graph below only goes back to 1988, Andrew Romano over at the Daily Beast sifted through the data going all the way back to 1976 and still couldn’t find any nominee with lower favorability ratings than Romney.

Oh, and this is before the whole “47%” thing went public.


 Photo: Gage Skidmore


Islamic terroroists on the US payroll

Terrorism is OK so long as your on OUR payroll and terrorize the targets WE don’t like.
Examples the US backs or has backed

The Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan,
The Mujahideen of Afghanistan,
Abu Qurah in Jordan,
The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
MEK (Mujahadeen e-Kalk) in Iraq/Iran
Jundullah South Pakistan
Salafi Jihadist, FSA in Syria and this is a number of groups with GCC and NATO sponsors

And then the US supports the government in the Republic of Yemen despite its election only having one name on the ballot.
(ROY) Hadi North Yemen, the US claims to be supporting the government in a fight against “al qaeda” the reality this is still the unresolved conflict between North and South Yemen from their civil war from 94. There was even a secession movement as recently as 2007 but all of that history you see is ignored. Why acknowledge the civil war (almost exclusively fought in the South) or a secession movement when it’s much easier to just scream Al Qaeda and support the puppets. They love the simplistic GI Joe narrative of we are good they are bad, its us vs Al Qaeda. :roll:

But you see its not terrorism when WE do it, and anyone opposing us is either Al Qaeda if it is not a government or the infamous “Next Hitler” if it is a government.

The US also supported the Turkish government even while it was in the middle of ethnically cleanings Kurds, and of course the US supports the Israeli government even as it ethnically cleanses Palestinians. In Uzbekistan the US can support a leader who has both boiled alive and frozen to death his opposition. In Burma the tyrant can hold the elected leader in jail and run ruck-shop. But none of that matters. Most Americans don’t even know where those places are.

The Muslim Brotherhood like Hamas is at best controlled opposition, useful idiots. Interestingly to me is the support for MB back in the 90s. Who was it the FBI was working with trying to pin the WTC 93 bombing on? Egypt by blaming the MB. And yet in court even in the US they were cleared for shooting mr never again Rabbi Meir Kahane. They blamed that on El Sayyid Nosair, yet nothing happened to him, later he was involved in the 93 wtc bombing. Remember that crap? The press was all over the blind sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, this guy despite being on a terrorist suspects list from the State Department just moves to the US and openly lived in New Jersey. He got a green card for christ sake anyway… I dont feel like explaining WTC 93 but think about this Ramzi Yousef who was balmed for it who escaped until ISI caught him in 95 is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the supposed mastermind of the 911 wtc attacks. Yet in 93 it was the FBI itself who allegedly botched a sting operation on a MB cell and gave them real explosives and made no attempt to arrest them. The handler (case officer) for these dupes was Josie Hadas from the Mossad. She fled back to Israel. Yousef goes to the Philippians and the FBI/media tries to spin the whole event as hard as they can to be blamed on Iraq. The main culprit in that blame Iraq bullshit was the CIA’s James Woolsey the same ass hat who went to the UK after 911 and came back claiming Atta met with Iraqis in Prague. That was the original source of those lies that Schmitt and Kagan wrote in WS for PNAC and you all know the story from there.

Of course in Egypt Mubarak was the first pick but they had a real revolution not the manufactured kind like in Libya and Syria. Saying oh no not the MB was like Ber Rabbit saying “please dont throw me in the briar patch”


War Is A Racket A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

He joined the Marine Corps when the Spanish American War broke out, earned the Brevette Medal during the Boxer Rebellion in China, saw action in Central America, and in France during World War I was promoted to Major General. Smedley Butler served his country for 34 years, yet he spoke against American armed intervention into the affairs of sovereign nations.


War Is A Racket        

A speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

Smedley Butler  

WAR is a racket. It always has been

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit. 



The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven’t paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children’s children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.

Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let’s look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let’s group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren’t the only ones. There are still others. Let’s take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That’s all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can’t have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here’s how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn’t any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn’t ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn’t float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying “for some time” methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn’t suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.



Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to “about face”; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another “about face” ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers’ aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn’t need them any more. So we scattered them about without any “three-minute” or “Liberty Loan” speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final “about face” alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don’t even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn’t stand it.

That’s a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don’t forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations…they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side…it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies…to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill…and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.



WELL, it’s a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn’t they?

They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can’t go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.



I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had “kept us out of war” and on the implied promise that he would “keep us out of war.” Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?


An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:


“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money…and Germany won’t.


Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don’t mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.


Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General – United States Marine Corps [Retired]

Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881

Educated Haverford School

Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914,

and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919

Retired Oct. 1, 1931

On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932

Lecturer 1930’s

Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932

Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

Iran edges in on monopoly empire, arms Syria

AVTM #104 The beginning of the end of the American Empire?
To hear the full podcast: http://adamvstheman.com/podcast
Please address hate mail to adam@adamvstheman.com
Donate Bitcoin: 1BWeuWdgjrP8PFAwBwgwU9BUqJNewScouy
Invest here to support ADAM VS THE MAN!

The Money Masters: How Banks Create the World’s Money

The ‘Money Masters’ is a historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth.

With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned “central” bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

India to Send Tank Brigades to the China Border


A new player emerges on the global war games scene.

Geo Currents – by Martin W. Lewis  India’s military recently announced that it would deploy two tank brigades to guard the country’s border with China, one to be stationed in Ladakh (in northeastern Kashmir), and the other in the north Sikkim Plateau.

As Business Standard reports, “Such formations, equipped with main battle tanks and BMP-II infantry combat vehicles, are traditionally used for striking into enemy territory.”

The report also notes that India’s decision was based on the fact that “China’s People’s Liberation Army … has deployed armoured and motorised formations in both their military regions across the Line of Actual Control, as the de facto Sino-Indian border is called.”

It goes on to claim that if China attacks and grabs a section of Indian territory, India will now be able to launch a counter-offense to take over a different piece of Chinese territory.

As this is the 50th anniversary year of the Sino-Indian War of 1962, which cost India the Himalayan territory of Aksai Chin, Indian military officials are keen to argue that their country’s territorial integrity will never again be violated in such a manner.

Despite such talk and actions, the Indian government, like that of China, hopes to avoid any actual conflict. As a result, the two countries are “planning to set up hotlines between army commanders in-charge of their respective border areas along Jammu and Kashmir and Northeastern states in the next three to four months,” as reported in the Economic Times.

Meanwhile, economic ties between the two Asian giants continue to grow. As reported by NDTV, “India and China have entered into a five-year economic cooperation plan to strengthen the trade relationship between the two countries. Trade between China and India is expected to reach USD 100 billion by 2015…”


Iran official: German firm planted bombs in parts meant for nuclear program

Iranian lawmaker says security experts discovered the explosives in components supplied by Siemens and removed them before detonation; firm denies claims.


An Iranian technician works at the uranium conversion facility just outside the city of Isfahan 410 kilometers south of the capital Tehran, Iran, Feb. 3, 2007. Photo by AP
Iran accused Germany’s Siemens on Saturday of implanting tiny explosives inside equipment the Islamic Republic purchased for its disputed nuclear program, a charge the technology giant denied.

Prominent lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iranian security experts discovered the explosives and removed them before detonation, adding that authorities believe the booby-trapped equipment was sold to derail uranium enrichment efforts.

“The equipment was supposed to explode after being put to work, in order to dismantle all our systems,” he said. “But the wisdom of our experts thwarted the enemy conspiracy.”

Siemens denied the charge and said its nuclear division has had no business with Iran since the 1979 revolution that led to its current clerical state.

“Siemens rejects the allegations and stresses that we have no business ties to the Iranian nuclear program,” spokesman for the Munich-based company Alexander Machowetz said.

Boroujerdi, who heads the parliamentary security committee, alleged that the explosives were implanted at a Siemens factory and demanded the company take responsibility.

Any sale of nuclear equipment to Iran is banned under U.N. sanctions, raising the possibility that if it indeed has some, it may have been acquired through third parties. Boroujerdi did not say when or how Iran obtained Siemens equipment. Despite a wide array of international sanctions, Germany remains one of Iran’s most important trading partners.

The U.S. and its allies suspect Iran’s nuclear work is aimed at producing weapons. Iran says it only wants to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and asserts it has been the target of a concerted campaign by Israel, the U.S. and their allies to undermine its nuclear efforts through covert operations.

Some Iranian officials have also suggested in the past that specific European companies may have sold faulty equipment to Iran with the knowledge of American intelligence agencies and their own governments, since the sales would have harmed, rather than helped, the country’s nuclear program.

According to Iran, the alleged campaign has included the abduction of scientists, the sale of faulty equipment and the planting of a destructive computer worm known as Stuxnet, which briefly brought Iran’s uranium enrichment activity to a halt in 2010.

Iran’s nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, said Monday that separate attacks on Iran’s centrifuges — through tiny explosives meant to disable key parts of the machines — were discovered before the blasts could go off on timers.

Abbasi also told the UN nuclear agency in Vienna that “terrorists and saboteurs” might have infiltrated the International Atomic Energy Agency, after the watchdog’s inspectors arrived at the Fordo underground enrichment facility shortly after power lines were blown up through sabotage on Aug. 17.

Iran has repeatedly accused the IAEA of sending spies in the guise of inspectors to collect information about its nuclear activities, pointing to alleged leaks of information by inspectors to U.S. and other officials.

Five nuclear scientists and researchers have been killed in Iran since 2010. Tehran blames the deaths on Israel’s Mossad spy agency as well as the CIA and Britain’s MI-6. Washington and London have denied any roles. Israel has not commented.

Boroujerdi said the alleged leaks of nuclear information to its adversaries by the IAEA may finally push Tehran to end all cooperation with the agency.

“Iran has the right to cut its cooperation with the IAEA should such violations continue,” he said.

‘No more Israel’

Henry KISSINGER. Former secretary of state. Current savant of the state of the world. Do not argue with Mr. Kissinger’s know-how. He already knows how.

Middle East horror. Democratic party dissing Jerusalem. DC’s anti-Israel mentality. Obama, busy raising re-election funds, no time for beleaguered Netanyahu. The Oval Office attitude versus the Red Line. Iran’s oath to destroy our only friend in that part of the world.

Reported to me, Henry Kissinger has stated — and I quote the statement word for word: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.”

I repeat: “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.”


The Johnson Deception

There are many pundits who have opined that Gary Johnson is an important force in this election, that he offers real choice, and more importantly, that Ron Paul supporters should jump ship to the Libertarian party and vote for The Governor.

But before you do so, let’s point out a few inconvenient facts that Governor Johnson doesn’t want to talk about.

Such as the fact that in 1995, the year Gary Johnson became Governor, the State of New Mexico spent a total of $8.1 billion; $4.4 billion at the State Government level, $3.7 billion locally.

In 2003, the year he left office, The State spent $7.7 billion and local governments $5.7 billion, for a total of $13.4 billion.

Population went from 1.7 to 1.9 million over the same period.

The alleged Governor Veto wants you to believe he slashed spending and is a model of fiscal restraint.  The truth is that state level spending increased by about 7.5% annually over his eight-year term.  County and local governments did a better job of restraining spending; their spending advanced by “just” 6.5% annually during the same period.

Population advanced by about 12% over the same period, so don’t let Governor Liar tell you this was all population increase; the facts are that he spent 75% more the year he left office than was spent the year he entered it. 

Much-more-damning, State GDP went up by 38% during the same period, so in point of fact Governor Fraud advanced state spending twice as quickly as the economy of his state grew in size.

The coup-de-grace though is that State Debt was $1.8 billion in 1995 when Johnson took office.  In 2003, when he left, it was a stunning $4.6 billion, or 155% higher.  That’s right — the alleged “Governor Veto” more than doubled New Mexico’s state public debt during his time in office, adding about 12% a year.

For comparison when President Obama took office total public debt was about $10.6 trillion; today it is about $16 trillion, or 51% higher. That’s about a 12% increase annually.

Attention alleged Libertarians: Governor Johnson expanded New Mexico’s public debt just as quickly during his adminsitration as President Obama has during his and he did so during a monstrous economic boom rather than a time of recession.  He has no record to run on when it comes to fiscal restraint; Johnson did just as much damage to New Mexico’s debt profile on a percentage basis as President Obama has nationally!

Governor Johnson is in fact just another big-government promoter that grew spending at twice the rate of the economy of his state and six times as fast as population expanded.  He more than doubled the State’s public debt load. 

He in fact expanded New Mexico’s public debt at a rate approximately equal to that of President Obama.

And all of that government expansion came during the “meat” of the tech and Nasdaq boom, a period during which it was easy to expand the economy faster than the government — if you cared about such things.

Source: usgovernmentspending.com

So what’s Governor Johnson really about?

We know what he’s not about — he’s not about cutting the size of government, as under his administration government expanded in size more than six times faster than the population expanded in his state and double the rate of State GDP growth.  County and local government agencies under Governor Johnson’s administration did a better job of controlling spending (which isn’t saying much) than he did.

And yet Governor Johnson claims from the stump he is going to slash the size of the Federal Governmen and get it out of your life.

Or is he?  He’s not going to get government out of your life when it comes to marriage — he wants to increase that involvement, by shoving the government’s nose in the bedroom of gay people to go along with all the straight couples that are already being abused by big government.  Spend a day in a divorce court listening to the guys in black robes trashing people’s lives before you tell anyone about how great government involvement is in marriage.

In short Governor Johnson is a liar on all counts.  He never reduced spending, he never got the government out of your life, he in fact presided over a 75% expansion in the size of state government in New Mexico which grossly exceeded both GDP and population growth. 

Worse, he expanded State Government debt at a rate approximately equal to that of President Obama.

Those are the rather inconvenient facts.

Add all this up and then try to explain why Governor Johnson is running as a Libertarian.

Here’s one theory that happens to be mine — he’s angry and, like all who aspire to a position in high office, at least a bit full of himself.  Narcissist personalities are part and parcel of high office; you have to tolerate being jacked with for years to obtain the office, and only someone who really likes abusing other people will put up with it.  When the Republican Party threw him under the bus for being “too extreme” for their views he decided to get even and found a bunch of willing dupes who were too greedy and inexperienced to realize that they were being played — the Libertarians.  He dangled the carrot of “averred success” in front of them and they chomped on his claim of being a “smaller government” guy who had actually cut the size of government under his administration without taking the five minutes to determine that he was lying to them — the Libertarian delegates swallowed hook, line and sinker.

Johnson’s goal at this point is singular — to destroy the Republican Party in this election and avenge being told to hit the road.  It won’t take much either; this election is close and there are a few states where a swing of just a couple of percent will guarantee a Romney loss and Obama second term.

That suits Governor Johnson just fine.  He is a true believer when it comes to gay marriage, and Obama will bring that to the fore.  Obama, while no particular friend to pot (despite his claims during the 2008 campaign) is certainly more-tolerant of marijuana than a Republican administration would be, so that’s a win too.  And since Johnson has no problem with growing government — it grew like a damn weed when he was in office in New Mexico — Obama’s expansion of the size of government is quite ok with him as well since it’s about the same rate of increase that Obama has presided over.

At the same time Johnson gets his revenge against those who he believes shut him out, cementing a second Obama term and getting his name in the paper a few times.

That he laid waste any hope of a real third-party choice, trashing the Libertarians’ claim to being for “smaller government” (when his record is that he expanded it by 75%) is just tough cookies — the Libs were too dumb to spend 5 minutes looking at the facts before they nominated him.

Don’t be equally dumb before you go to the voting booth or answer a poll.


The Summer of Muslim Discontent: It’s Not “The Amateur Film” Stupid!

The so-called “Arab Spring:” is a distant and bitter memory to those who fought and struggled for a better world, not to speak of the thousands who lost, life and limb.  In its place, throughout the Muslim world, a new wave of reactionaries, corrupt and servile politicians have taken the reins of power buttressed by the same military, secret police and judicial power who sustained the previous rulers.[2]



Death and destruction is rampant, poverty and misery has multiplied, law and order has broken down, retrograde  thugs have seized political power, where previously they were a marginal force.  Living standards have plunged, cities are devastated and commerce is paralyzed.  And presiding over this “Arab Winter” are the Western powers, the US and EU, – with the aid of the despotic Gulf absolutist monarchies, their Turkish ally and a motley army of mercenary Islamic terrorists and their would-be exile spokespeople.

The legacy of imperial intervention in the Muslim world during the first decade of the 21st century, in terms of lives lost, in people displaced, in economies destroyed, in perpetual warfare, exceeds any previous decade, including 19th and 20th century colonial conquests.  Much of the latest Western mayhem and violence has been compressed in the period dubbed the “Arab Spring” between 2011 – 2012.  Moreover, the worst is to come.  The Western overseers have gained strategic positions of power in some countries( Egypt ), are engaged in prolonged ruinous wars in others ( Syria ) and are preparing for even bigger and more destructive military intervention in still others ( Iran ).

The “Winter of Muslim Discontent” covers an entire arc from Pakistan , Afghanistan in South Asia, through the Gulf region and the Middle East to North Africa .  In the throes of the worst economic crises to hit the West since the 1930’s, the Western imperialist regimes have squeezed their people, mobilized personnel, arms and money to engage in simultaneous wars in five regions and two continents – in pursuit of overthrowing political adversaries and installing clients, even if it results in the destruction of the economy and uprooting of millions.

Let us begin with Egypt , where the Arab Spring has become a case study in the making of the New Imperial Order in the Muslim world.  To attribute the mass violent rebellions across two continents and two dozen Muslim countries to a US made film which desecrates the Prophet Mohammed is the height of superficiality.  At most the film was the trigger that set off deeply rooted hostilities resulting from two decades of US led ravaging and destruction of the Muslim world and more particularly, rage flows from Washington ’s crude intervention against the promise of the Arab Spring.

Egypt:  The Making of a Client State

From day one, in February 2011, Washington sought in every way to prop up the Mubarak dictatorship as thousands of protestors fighting for freedom were killed, wounded or jailed in the major plazas and streets of Egypt .  When Mubarak was forced out of power, Washington sought to retain its influence by turning to his Generals, and backed the military junta which seized power.  As the military dictatorship became the target of huge pro-democracy demonstrations, Washington backed a political power sharing agreement between the dominant pro-Western neo-liberal sector of the Muslim Brotherhood and the military, excluding any but the most superficial democratic and socio-economic reforms demanded by the poor and the working and middle classes.

With the election of President Mohamed Morsi, Washington secured the most fervent advocate of savage “free market” capitalism and the second best (after Mubarak) advocate of retaining Egypt’s status as a US client state in the Middle East.  Morsi, following in the footsteps of Mubarak and in accordance with the Washington and Tel Aviv, closed the trade routes between Gaza and Sinai, traveled to the Non-Aligned Movement in Teheran to deliver the Saudi-Gulf message calling for support of the Western backed armed mercenaries ravaging Syria .  Later he announced plans to privatize publicly-owned enterprises, reduce the deficit via elimination of basic subsidies to the poor, de-regulate the economy to increase the flow of foreign capital and end labor strikes[3].  As a reward for his servility and to ease the process of remaking Egypt as a pliable Western client state, Washington, Saudi Arabia, the IMF, Qatar and the EU have offered Morsi over $20 billion in loans, debt relief and grants[4].  Morsi’s rule depends on playing the ‘spiritual card’ to retain the support of the impoverished Muslim masses, while pursuing a staunch neo-liberal economic strategy and neo-colonial foreign policy.

Given the recent revolutionary pro-democracy and nationalist fervor, Morsi looks for ways to deflect rising socio-economic discontent with his neo-liberal economic policies by adopting an apparently pious Muslim posture – condemning “the film” ridiculing the Prophet and tolerating assaults on the US Embassy in Cairo … which angered Clinton and Obama, who expect total subservience, especially toward the symbols and substance of everything US[5].

From Morsi’s perspective, a one day blow-off of steam aimed at the US Embassy, was the price for his larger agenda of putting an end to the revolutionary democratic and nationalist aspirations of the masses who overthrew Mubarak, especially when Morsi has every intention of “continuing his (Mubarek’s) economic agenda with a stated policy to battle corruption”[6].  Egyptian Muslim and secular populace are profoundly disenchanted with the Brotherhoods betrayal of their promises of welfare, jobs, prosperity and nationalist foreign policy .The “film” served as a “legitimate pretext” to unify their forces:  the protest against “the film” was in reality about the larger socio-economic and political cleavages emerging and the tremendous boost in US influence in Morsi’s Egypt .


The Obama regime led the aerial and maritime war that devastated Libya ’s economy, destroyed its national integrity and allowed a plethora of foreign and domestic terrorist fundamentalist groups to seize control over vast regions of the country[7].  Washington and the UE parachuted a motley group of client ex-pats into government – without any supporting state institutions.  The Islamic fundamentalists, the clans, the gangs, the tribalists, monarchists and dozens of other local warlords who the EU and Washington funded, armed and imported to overthrow Gadhafi did much more – they destroyed the entire fabric of organized civil society, the state and public authority.  In the face of a Hobbesian chaotic world of warring fiefdoms, many people turned to their primary groups – family, clan, religious authorities, which could offer some minimum protection in the home, street and workplace.  The assault on the US consulate was only one of thousands of violent assaults against property and national, regional and local authorities[8].  The very police, military and ministries are infiltrated by competing armed religious and secular factions seeking to secure scarce oil revenues for their particular group.

The Consulate protest and the assassination of the US Ambassador and Special Forces was merely the most publicized act of murderous violence spawned by the US and EU military intervention.  They thought, either out of total ignorance, arrogance or naiveté that they could arm the fundamentalists to do the dirty work of killing off Gadhafi and once their “mission was completed”, they could be discarded like a used condom (or shipped off to Syria as shock troops) and could be replaced by neo-liberal technocrats who would run the country as a Western client state:  turning the oil fields to EU and US oil companies.  Instead Washington and the EU have alienated all sections of Libya society: the millions of beneficiaries of stable secure, secular and prosperous Gadhafi ruled Libya ; the mass of armed Muslim fanatics who demand a fundamentalist state and feel their sacrifices have been pushed aside; the warlords and contrabandists of arms, who demand respect for their territorial acquisitions[9].  And above all the vast majority of all Libyans who have been impoverished by the war and who looked on with indifference or satisfaction as the armed gangs bombed the US Consulate.  The violent protest over the amateur film denigrating the Prophet was clearly the pretext for a vast accumulation of popular and elite grievances which resulted from armed Western intervention.


The seizure of the US Embassy in Yemen follows 33 years of US arming and financial backing of the brutal Ali Abdullah Saleh dictatorship, months of drone warfare and the repression of mass peaceful protests.  The on-going pro-democracy movement in Yemen , which attained massive proportions, has been blocked by US-Saudi intervention and has left in its wake thousands of dead, wounded and jailed Yemenese citizens.  The seizure of the US Embassy, ostensibly over “the film”, had far deeper and more comprehensive causes:  popular discontent with the decades-long US-Yemen alliance and a phony US-promoted “democratic transition”. As in Egypt , Tunisia , as well as in Yemen – personnel changes are designed to sacrifice the incumbent dictator in order to save the client state apparatus (police, military, judiciary) which is the mainstay of US and Saudi power in the Gulf region.       In all the “transitions” the US and EU rely on pliable and servile Muslim politicians to harness religious beliefs to their neo-liberal and pro-imperial policies.


In the case of Tunisia , the Washington-EU leveraged the Islamic Ennahda party in power in order to abort the pro-democracy transformation.  They subsequently heavily subsidized the “free-market” Moncef Marzouki regime which has totally ignored the basic demands which led to the uprising:  mass unemployment, the concentration of wealth and subservience to EU-US foreign policy especially with regard to Palestine , Libya and Syria .  The Islamic regime and party played the usual double game of condemning “the film” and smashing the protest, knowing full well that the street protest could ignite a much more significant demonstration against the regime’s total neglect of the original democratic socio-economic agenda.

Somalia and Sudan

Massive violent protests and attacks against the US embassy have taken place in Somalia and the Sudan .  Washington has been deeply and directly militarily involved in Somalia for over two decades, shifting from a failed marine occupation to financing African military surrogates, including Ethiopia , Kenya and Uganda .  They also engage in drone aerial assaults.  As a result of US military intervention, Somalia is a divided, destroyed and destitute country, where piracy flourishes and three quarters of its people are refugees.  The “film protests” are merely the tip of an ongoing national liberation war pitting radical Islamists against Western backed surrogates and the “moderate” Muslim puppet Sharif Sheik Ahmed regime.

Sudan is the site of a massive protest and violent attack on the US and European embassies.  The ruling elite in the Sudan, subject to US and UE sanctions and a Washington-Tel Aviv-UE funded and armed separatist movement in the oil rich southern Sudan, signed off on an accord which reduced its oil revenues by eighty percent.  As a result of Sudan ’s appeasement of the Western separatist surrogate, living standards in Khartoum have plunged, inflation is rife, unemployment is increasing and the regime has turned its guns from the separatists to its own people.  The attacks on the US Embassy have more to do with the division and impoverishment of the country than with “the film”.  At most the latter served as a ‘trigger’ to ignite the profound frustration against a regime which once upheld the national integrity of the country and of late sacrificed its natural wealth to gain favor with Washington .


Pakistan was the site of mass popular protests in its urban centers as well as in the northeastern periphery.  The embassy attacks and flag burning reflect an ongoing and deepening resentment against more than a decade of US ground and aerial intrusions, violating Pakistanian sovereignty.  The drone bombing of dozens of ‘tribal villages’ has aroused the rage of millions.  The US war waged against Islamic strongholds, its armed intrusion to capture bin Laden and its billion-dollar funding of massive Pakistan military sweeps has led to thousands of deaths and millions of refugees.  Pakistan is a country seething with anger and deep  hostility to anything associated with the USA .  The film merely fed into the cauldron of growing militant, religious and nationalist discontent.  This convicted felon, the pro-US President Zarda and his gestures of protest over the film have no credibility:  He is marking time before he is ousted.

Lesser protests of “the film” took place in Malaysia , Indonesia , Nigeria and elsewhere where the US has been less ubiquitous in interfering in the military and political order.

The size, scope and violence of the protests against “the film” are highly correlated with the depth, destruction and destitution directly linked to US military and political intervention.


Faced with a sharp and militant backlash to its on-going counter-revolutionary offensive in the Muslim world, Washington is demanding that its ‘new’ Muslim clients increase “security” – strengthen the police state and crack down on mass protest movements[10].  Washington is once again on the defensive.

The shifting relations of power, between popular movements and the US-EU, have once again become more acute.

In the first phase, Washington and its EU allies were caught by surprise and severely challenged by the mass pro-democracy movements which overthrew or threatened their client rulers in Tunisia, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere – what was dubbed the “Arab Spring”.

The second phase was the Western reaction to countermand, to halt and reverse the popular pro-democracy movement, via alliances with malleable Islamic leaders ( Egypt , Tunisia and Yemen ) and by launching and escalating armed struggles via Islamic extremists in Libya and Syria .  They also buttressed the despotic royal regimes in the Gulf.

Barely a few months later the neo-colonial clients, imposed by the US and EU, revealed its fragile foundations:  The fraudulent “transitions” produced servile, rulers incapable and unwilling to address the socio-economic demands of the pro-democracy movements.

The third phase of the struggle now pits a more complex scenario than the earlier “binary conflict” of dictatorship versus democracy.  Today we witness conflicts between neo-liberal Islamists in power against secular and Muslim trade unionists and the poor fundamentalist Muslims fighting for the US (Syria) and against the US (Libya) while secular (Syria) and Islamist (Iran) regimes joining forces facing Western-backed Islamist mercenaries and nuclear-armed Jewish threats.  Whether it is Pakistan , Somalia or the Sudan – wherever the US has gained client states it has imposed war policies that impoverish the masses.

The Islamic terrain of struggles for both the imperial powers and the popular masses reflects the discrediting and decimation of secular rulers and popular civil society organizations.  The religious institutions have become the refuge, the cloak and the war cry of the dispossessed and the property classes.

A careful study of the two decades of US and EU wars in the Muslim world, finds little evidence of “corporate” oil influence in the conduct of imperial wars.  Instead they are essentially imperial military wars.  What we see everywhere is the large scale destruction of the means of production; the massive dis-accumulation of capital; the massive displacement of millions of productive workers, scientists and engineers who produce wealth.  What investors are going to make large scale, long term investments in Afghanistan , Yemen , Somalia , Syria and Libya when their property and lives are in danger from bands of warring ethno-religious warlords armed and trained by US Special Forces?

Big investors do not confide in the stability of corrupt, servile, unpopular client regimes buttressed by the US and EU.  Investors count ten lost years in Iraq at a cost of billions in oil profits.  The US was not at war for oil as some benighted leftist pundits claim.

Military imperialism has led to ruin and rule followed by ruin and run.  The only, and obvious beneficiary of the Western wars on the Muslim countries, is the Jewish state of Israel , whose billionaire political influentials and political acolytes in the Pentagon, Treasury, National Security Council, Congress and the US mass media designed and promoted these disastrous wars against the Muslim world.  Most recently they have promoted the US counter-attack, turning the ‘Arab Spring’ into a ‘Muslim Summer of Discontent’.

There is and there will be no closure on the wars as long as Israel claims supremacy in the Arab world.  The US , is and will be, in permanent war with the Muslim world as long as its foreign policy and political structures are influenced by the Israeli-Zionist power configuration.

No empire prior to the US has sustained such huge financial losses and gained so little in economic rewards.  No previous empire has destroyed so many countries without establishing a single viable productive colonial or neo-colonial regime .Yet to read and hear from our most prominent journalists that the massive, widespread and violent Muslim protests against the symbols and substance of US imperial power are about an “amateur film defaming the prophet” boggles the mind.  The pundits ignore the fact that mass unrest and anti-imperial assaults preceded and will follow the ‘film’ incident.  A decade of savaging a dozen countries and dislocating tens of millions from Libya to Pakistan , passing through Somalia , Syria , Iraq , Pakistan and Yemen has left an indelible mark on the consciousness of those who suffered and those who struggle and especially among the new generation of pro-democracy fighters who will not accept the roll back of their Arab Spring.

The world-wide protest is not merely opposed to “the film” and the mediocre anti-Muslim reactionaries who produced it, but of the entire political and cultural Islamophobic ambience in the US which nurtures this kind of film.  Beginning with the massive round-up of thousands of innocent Muslims by uber-Zionist Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security,  continuing with the FBI surveillance and infiltration of hundreds of mosques and following the Zionist sponsored rabble rousing campaign in New York City against a cultural center and the purge of a highly respected Arab-American educator; and the rabid weekly anti-Moslem Christian-Zionist rants to 40 million US followers; and the AIPAC-promoted US Treasury appointments, and subsequent sanctions against independent Muslim countries, Muslims have a solid bases for believing that Islamophobia is embedded in US culture.  No thoughtful Muslim in the world believes the film was an aberration since Hollywood ’s pro-Israel film and TV moguls have always demonized and grotesquely caricatured Muslims, portraying them as blood-thirsty villains, ignorant barbarians and worthless playboy sheiks.

Obama’s sending of the Marines and warships to defend the missions merely reinforces the image and reality that the US presence in the Muslim world  is based on force and arms.  There are no critical reflections in US political circles on the larger cultural and political issues involved at home and abroad which arouse the passion and rage now spreading to 20 Muslim nations and beyond.

Islamophobia is not simply an attitude of a minority of marginal extremists, it is part and parcel of  policies engaging in large scale on-going wars against a dozen Muslim nations, in policing millions of US Muslims and in arming a Jewish state engaged in uprooting Palestinians and threatening to bomb 75 million Iranian Muslims.


[1] FT Reporters, “Rage at Amateur Film Spreads”, Financial Times, 9/14/12, p. 2.
[2]James Petras, The Arab Revolt and the Imperialist Counterattack, ( Atlanta : Clarity Press 2012) 2md Edition
[3] Borgou Daragahi, “Investment Drive Aims to Boost US Influence in Morsi’s Egypt ” FT 9/10/12, p. 4.
[5]FT 9/13/12, p. 10.
[6]FT 9/10/12, p. 10
[7]FT 9/13/12, p. 11
[8]FT 9/13/12, p. 4
[9] Mel Frykberg, “Consulate Attack was just the Latest in Rising Violence in Libya ” McClatchy Washington Bureau, 9/12/12.
[10]  FT 9/14/12, p. 2.  Roula “Fool ya” Khalef a reliable mouthpiece of the US echoes Clinton ’s commands in her diatribe “Islamist Leaders (sic) have power and Responsibility to Defuse Tensions”

Behind the Deepening Crisis with Iran: The Real Story Versus the Cover Story

Recently, President imposed new sanctions on which according to reports have been very effective, causing a sudden major devaluation of ‘s currency. The Iranians correctly understand that they are under attack, and have threatened to respond by closing the strait of Hormuz, through which a large percentage of oil from the Mideast flows to the global economy.


If the crisis deepens and Iran makes good on its threat to close Hormuz, there is little doubt that the US will intervene to reopen the strait. This will lead to a shooting war for which Iran will be blamed, even though the recent US sanctions were tantamount to overt aggression.

I believe the US will exploit the situation to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. But, even more importantly, the US will target Iran’s conventional missiles. Indeed, I believe this is the real reason for US sanctions in the first place, and for the buildup of tensions in recent days. Despite public perceptions, and all the rhetoric about , the present crisis has nothing to do with Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. In my opinion, that is just a cover story.

The real issue is the fact that Iran has upgraded its medium range conventionally-armed missiles with GPS technology, making its missiles much more accurate. This means Iran can now target ‘s own nuclear, bio and chemical weapons stockpiles, located inside , as well as the Dimona nuclear reactor.

In short, Iran has achieved a conventional deterrent to Israel. Therefor, statements by officials that Iran has no nuclear weapons program are in my view probably correct. Presently, Iran does not need nukes to deter Israel. It can do so with its GPS-guided medium range missiles. The Israelis are no doubt gnashing their teeth over this, because they now find themselves threatened by their own WMD stockpiles, and by their own nuclear reactors, especially Dimona, all of which have become targets.

A few direct hits by Iran could cause a toxic plume, killing thousands of Israelis. A worst case might signal the end of the state.

It is important to realize that Iran would never launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel because the Iranians know that the US/Israeli response would be devastating. However, if Iran comes under attack first, all bets are off. Iran will defend itself. A counter attack on Israel cannot be ruled out because Iranian leaders understand clearly (even if the American people do not) that the crisis has been manufactured, on Israel’s behalf.

From the Israeli standpoint, the present Iranian deterrent (though conventional) is simply unacceptable. Israel’s military strategists have always insisted on total freedom of movement. This is why Israel refused a US offer many years ago to sign a defense pact with the US. Such a treaty would have limited Israel’s freedom of movement, and this was unacceptable. Israel’s leaders preferred to remain independent. Israel has always insisted on the “freedom” to intimidate its neighbors, whenever and howsoever it chooses. Iran’s conventional missiles now curtail that “freedom.” Israeli officials probably worry, for example, that Iran’s conventional missiles would limit its freedom to attack in , in a future conflict. is closely allied with .

I believe the present crisis has been manufactured to create the pretext for a US air campaign to take out Iran’s conventional sites. The US will also target Iran’s nuclear facilities, but the primary target will be Iran’s conventional missiles. The US will be doing Israel’s bidding. The Zionist tail will be wagging the servile US dog.


Obviously, you can’t generate public support for such a bombing campaign, on Israel’s behalf. Hence the cover story about nukes and the alleged Iranian threat to wipe Israel off the map, all of which is untrue but very effective propaganda nonetheless.

The problem for the US is that depriving Iran of its conventional deterrent will not be easy to accomplish. Indeed, it will be even more difficult than taking out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s conventional missiles are probably dispersed widely. If they come under attack, the purpose of the air campaign will be transparently obvious to the Iranian leadership. Faced with the prospect of losing their deterrent, the Mullahs may well decide to fire their conventional missiles. If they do and manage some direct hits on Israel’s nuclear-bio-and chemical weapons stockpiles, the ensuing disaster will prompt an Israeli response. Israel may even resort to the Samson Option, and attack Iran with nukes. Words cannot describe the horrific scale of such an outcome. Unfortunately, it is all too possible.

Early in the war, US naval  forces in the Gulf will also come under attack. No mistake, Iran has enough anti-ship cruise missiles to pose a grave threat to the US naval presence in the Gulf. Thousands of US sailors are now in harm’s way, and at risk.

We must rally to prevent such a war. Peace activists must now marshal every asset for peace that we possess. The American people need to know the truth. This is a phony crisis. Yet the danger is very real. Now is the time to speak out with all of our strength. Tomorrow could come too late.

Mark H Gaffney’s forthcoming book, Black 9/11, will be released soon by Trineday Press. It can be ordered at www.trineday.com


Turkey mobilizes more troops following Syrian cross-border bombardment

Free Syrian Army moves command center to Syria for first time in bid to unite opposition


A Turkish military truck transports a mobile missile launcher to the Syrian border, in Iskenderun, Turkey, on Wednesday. (photo credit: AP Photo)


Ankara deployed artillery and anti-aircraft units to the Syria border following clashes between the Syrian army and rebels that left Turkish citizens injured, Turkish media reported on Saturday.

The deployment follows Syrian army shelling that wounded two Turkish citizens on Thursday near the border city of Sanliurfa. President Bashar Assad’s forces fired artillery rounds at rebels in an attempt to retake control of the Tel Abyad border crossing.

The rebels captured the border crossing from government forces on Wednesday. Since late July, opposition forces have seized at least three key border crossings with Turkey and others on Syria’s eastern border with Iraq.

Turkey’s mobilization was the most recent fortification of its southern border with Syria. Ankara has transferred numerous armored and artillery units and missile batteries to the border provinces of Hatay and Sanliurfa since the June 22 downing of a Turkish reconnaissance aircraft by the Syrian military.

In related news, the Free Syrian Army announced on Saturday that it has relocated its headquarters to Syria from Turkey.

Brig. Gen. Mustafa al-Sheikh, who heads the FSA’s Military Council, told The Associated Press that the move aims to unite all rebel groups. He said Saturday that the move was made the week before, without specifying its new location.

FSA commander Col. Riad al-Asaad issued a video titled “Free Syrian Army Communique Number 1 from Inside” that the command has moved to “liberated areas.”

The FSA has been the most prominent of the rebel groups trying to remove President Bashar Assad from power. But its commanders have come under criticism in the past for leading from Turkey, and its authority over numerous locally-based networks of fighters is limited.


Senate reaffirms US commitment to stop Iran from obtaining nukes

Resolution — passed 90-1 — specifies that it should not be viewed as authorization for military force


The Senate side of the United States Capitol building in Washington, DC (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has overwhelmingly approved a resolution that reaffirms US efforts to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and says containment of a nuclear-capable Iran is not an option.

By a vote of 90-1 early Saturday, the Senate backed the nonbinding measure that specifically states that it should not been interpreted as an authorization for the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Passage of the resolution comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pressed Washington to spell out what would provoke a US-led military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Senate acted in the final hours before Congress broke for its weekslong recess.

The measure was introduced months ago by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman. It endorses continued economic and diplomatic pressure on Tehran until it agrees to suspension of its uranium enrichment program in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, cooperates with international inspectors and reaches a permanent agreement that its program is for peaceful purposes.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who cast the only “no” vote, had spoken out against the resolution as an excuse for the use of military force.

Congress has passed — and President Barack Obama has signed — tough sanctions on Iran to limit its oil sales, hamper its economy and make it difficult for Tehran to finance its uranium enrichment program.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.


Sen. Rand Paul Speech on the Senate Floor Regarding his Filibuster – 9/21/12

How to End the Fed, and How Not To


It would be very easy to end the Federal Reserve System. Congress would write the following bill. The president would sign it.

  1. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and all subsequent amendments to that act are hereby revoked.

  2. The gold that belongs to the United States government, and which is kept on deposit with the Federal Reserve System, is hereby transferred to account of the United States Treasury.

If the Federal Reserve System has made any secret agreements with other central banks regarding the ownership of that gold, those arrangements would become legally null and void. The Fed would own no gold of its own to deliver. Ownership would revert to the United States government.

If other central banks wanted to sue the Federal Reserve System, an exclusively private entity acting on its own authority alone, to recover any gold the Fed had promised to deliver, they would have the right to do so. If they really thought the Fed could deliver on those agreements merely because a court ordered it to, they could hire lawyers and sue.

Andrew Jackson versus Central Banking

There is a legal precedent for all this. In 1832, Henry Clay and his allies in Congress decided to make a political issue of the Second Bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve System of that era. It was a presidential election year. Clay proposed the rechartering of the bank four years early. The bill passed Congress. The Wikipedia account of what happened next is accurate. A confrontation took place between Nicholas Biddle, the most arrogant central banker in history, and President Jackson. How arrogant? He believed he could crush Andrew Jackson, and said so in private letters.

Jackson mobilized his political base by vetoing the re-charter bill and — the veto sustained — easily won reelection on his anti-Bank platform. Jackson proceeded to destroy the Bank as a financial and political force by removing its federal deposits, and in 1833, federal revenue was diverted into selected private banks by executive order, ending the regulatory role of the Second Bank of the United States.

In hopes of extorting a rescue of the Bank, Biddle induced a short-lived financial crisis that was initially blamed on Jackson’s executive action. By 1834, a general backlash against Biddle’s tactics developed, ending the panic and all recharter efforts were abandoned.

In February 1836, the Bank became a private corporation under Pennsylvania commonwealth law. It suspended payment in 1839 and was liquidated in 1841.

Jackson did not have to do anything else besides pull its accounts. The bank could not compete. It was a legal appendage of the US government, although privately owned. It went belly up.

So would the Federal Reserve System. Its profits would henceforth be taxed by federal and state governments. Its authority to regulate commercial banks would end. It would no longer establish reserve requirements. Excess reserves owned by the commercial banks that are held on deposit at the Federal Reserve would no longer be backed by the US government in any way. They would probably be pulled out overnight — all $1.5 trillion worth. This would be a bank run like no other in banking history.

The Federal Reserve and its allies — virtually the entire intellectual class — use this fear to maintain its position as the quasi-public bureaucracy in charge of America’s money. It lured the nation into the lobster trap of debt — debt undergirded by Federal Reserve fiat money and congressional deficits — and the country cannot see a way to get out on a pain-free basis. There is no pain-free escape, as we will find over the next two decades: hyperinflation or the Great Deflationary Default or both.

The government’s debt and the monetary inflation cannot go on indefinitely. Either the dollar dies or else the debt is repudiated. Maybe both.

Goodbye, Fed

What would replace the Federal Reserve System? Nothing. Without any federal government connection, there would be no central bank.

What would be the new currency of the United States? Not Federal Reserve Notes, I suspect. Something else. But what? Whatever the free market creates.

Who would bail out Congress when it runs huge deficits? Not the Federal Reserve System. Then who? Maybe nobody. Preferably nobody. What would be there with QE3? Not the Federal Reserve System. Then what? Preferably nothing.

There is an old political slogan: “You can’t beat something with nothing.” But the free market’s system of supply and demand, profit and loss, is not nothing. Replacing crony banking and the legal authority to print counterfeit money is positive. It is like replacing cancerous cells with normal cells. It is a vast improvement.

Problem: removing cancerous cells surgically with no anesthetic is painful. People put off the operation as long as they can. The cancer spreads.

Proposed Reforms by Economists

The great error of every scheme to reform the Fed, or regulate the Fed, or even replace the Fed, is this: it establishes a professionally designed system of money management that relies on a committee of government-paid economists. These schemes have this in common: they never rely exclusively on the free market to determine what money is. They always place a committee in charge. The committee is supposed to be staffed by economists. In short, the reformers all invoke central planning of some kind.

The starting point of any economically plausible system to end the Fed should be a commitment to avoid all forms of central economic planning, for all of the reasons that Ludwig von Mises set forth in his classic 1920 essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.

Here is the problem in both theory and practice: academic central-bank reformers believe in central economic planning. They do not trust the free market in the area of money. They all think that a committee of government-salaried experts has greater wisdom than the free market.

The central benefit of my proposed reform is that it does not rely on any committee. It does not rely on coercion by the government. It relies exclusively on the free market. This is why Keynesians will reject it, Friedmanite monetarists will reject it, supply-siders will reject it, Greenbackers will reject it. None of them believes Mises’s 1920 essay.

If I had the motivation, the time, and the curiosity, I would write a book on various proposed reforms of the Federal Reserve System. But why bother? None of the proposed reforms will ever gain wide acceptance. Academic economists do not agree on much of anything, other than the wisdom of central banking. They agree with Marx, who defended the idea of a central bank in his famous ten steps to communism.

Besides, Congress will not enact any carefully designed reform. If it enacts anything, it will be some last-minute scheme proposed by a joint congressional committee that is advised by the secretary of the treasury (Goldman Sachs) and the chairman of the Fed’s Board of Governors in the middle of a financial catastrophe. In other words, it will be a replay of October 2008.

“Trust the Federal Government!”

In order to illustrate my point — the economists’ credulous faith in committee-managed money — I am going to dissect a plan of monetary reform offered by an obscure academic economist. Why bother? Because his plan goes back to a plan proposed by Henry Simons, who taught Milton Friedman. It also goes back to Irving Fisher, the inventor of the statistical-index number.

As we shall see, the author calls for pure fiat money, issued by the government. His proposal features 100 percent reserve banking, but it explicitly denies any need for a gold standard. The money supply would be controlled by the government. In short, we can trust the government to manage the money supply. Here is what Henry Simons proposed in 1934:

100 per cent reserves, simply could not fail, so far as depositors were concerned, and could not create or destroy effective money. These institutions would accept deposits just as warehouses accept goods. Their income would be derived exclusively from service charges — perhaps merely from moderate charges for the transfer of funds by check or draft.… These banking proposals define means for eliminating the perverse elasticity of credit which obtains under a system of private, commercial banking and for restoring to the central government complete control over the quantity of effective money and its value.

This is cited in a refutation of Simons written by Professor Huerta de Soto, an Austrian School economist and legal theorist. It appears on page 732 of his detailed book, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles ([1998] 2012). The key phrase is this: “restoring to the central government complete control over the quantity of effective money and its value.” There is nothing free market about this proposal. It is statist to the core.

Simon Says

Henry Simon’s disciple is Professor Herman Daly. He is retired. He has for a generation been a major promoter of zero-growth economics (ZGE). He has challenged the central confession of faith of virtually all economic policy making. A list of his books tells the story: Toward a Steady-State Economy (1973); Steady-State Economics (1977; 1991); Valuing the Earth (1993); Beyond Growth (1996); Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics (1999); and Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development (2007). The title of the last book is intriguing. How you can have sustainable development in a zero-growth economy is surely a puzzle. But, honestly, it is a puzzle that I do not choose to solve. I think sustainable development implies economic growth. If it doesn’t, I’ll pass. He is a self-proclaimed green economist — green as in ecology, not as in “cash on the barrelhead.” (Most economists are green in the latter sense.)

In an essay on banking reform, he proposes the other kind of green economy: cash on the barrelhead. He asks,

If our present banking system, in addition to fraudulent and corrupt, also seems “screwy” to you, it should. Why should money, a public utility (serving the public as medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account), be largely the by-product of private lending and borrowing? Is that really an improvement over being a by-product of private gold mining, as it was under the gold standard?

You can see where this is headed: (1) money as a “public utility” (government); (2) gold as bad, because it is private. He is a Chicago School economist of the old school: a fiat-money man. He wants green, not gold. He wants paper, not metal. He wants government, not private ownership. He wants badges and guns, not contracts. He sounds like a Greenbacker. “Why should the public pay interest to the private banking sector to provide a medium of exchange that the government can provide at little or no cost?”

Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt; we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements.

I am also for 100 percent reserves, as a matter of the law against fraud. Professor De Soto explains this in 800 pages. But I am not in favor of the US Congress’s being in charge of the money supply. Yet he wants a committee of expert economists and statisticians to determine the money supply.

To make up for the decline and eventual elimination of bank- created, interest-bearing money, the government can pay some of its expenses by issuing more non interest-bearing fiat money. However, it can only do this up to a strict limit imposed by inflation. If the government issues more money than the public voluntarily wants to hold, the public will trade it for goods, driving the price level up. As soon as the price index begins to rise the government must print less. Thus a policy of maintaining a constant price index would govern the internal value of the dollar. The external value of the dollar could be left to freely fluctuating exchange rates.

He is a committee man. They are all committee men. They all exercise faith in committees of economists.

Who, exactly, will make sure that the US Congress will not inflate? Who will enforce the rule that the money supply — undefined — will raise prices back to zero-price increases?

He never mentions this. Fed reformers never do. “Trust Congress,” they imply. Old-time-religion Greenbackers actually do say this. The PhD-holding reformers never do.

Then he invokes John Maynard Keynes:

Alternatively, if we instituted John M. Keynes’ international clearing union, the external value of the dollar, along with that of all other currencies, could be set relative to the bancor, a common denominator accounting unit used by the payments union. The bancor would serve as an international reserve currency for settling trade imbalances a kind of gold substitute.

So, he went from the gold standard (bad) to a committee appointed by Congress (good). Now he moves to a New World Order committee that is totally separated from Congress (best). He is not a 100 percent pure Greenbacker after all. He is a Keynesian-Chicagoan-internationalist, zero-growth, ecological Greenbacker. He is unique. Fortunately.

Then he comes clean. He admits where this idea came from.

In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks.

There it is: an appeal to Frederick Soddy, one of the patron saints of Greenbackism and its cousin, technocracy. Soddy was a monetary crank. He is still cited by Greenbackers. I have never before seen a PhD-holding economist have the courage or the honesty to cite him.

Also, there is Irving Fisher, who invented the index number — the tool that Daly’s committee would use to plan the economy through planning the monetary system. He is the man Milton Friedman called America’s greatest economist. He was challenged by Ludwig von Mises in Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit (1912). He believed in the same fiat-money system that Daly proposes. He lost his fortune and his sister-in-law’s fortune in the Great Depression. He was the author of this insight, published on October 17, 1929:

Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as [bears] have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.

A week later, the crash began.

If he was the greatest economist in American history, why was he also the most bonehead forecaster in American financial history? I offer this suggestion: his statistical methodology misled him.

Daly concludes:

To dismiss such sound policies as extreme in the face of the repeatedly demonstrated failure and fraud of our current financial system is quite absurd. The idea is not to nationalize banks, but to nationalize money, which is a natural public utility in the first place. The fact that this idea is hardly discussed today, in spite of its distinguished intellectual ancestry and common sense, is testimony to the power of vested interests over good ideas. It is also testimony to the veto power that our growth fetish exercises over the thinking of economists today.

I dismiss all of this as fiat-money crackpottery. It is central planning by monetary committee. Some version of this doctrine is held by virtually all mainstream economists. Professor Daly is simply the most open about the doctrine of money by bureaucratic government committee.


The economics guild today is burdened by a century of erroneous monetary theory. Central planning is the universal doctrine still: central planning of money. The quest for power through politics has been the dream of all would-be philosopher kings from the days of Plato. It is the dream that politicians will listen to experts at all times, especially times of crisis.

This dream is inherently crackpot. Why would anyone with any understanding of politics take it seriously? But economists do take it seriously — all except the Austrians


Private city in Honduras will have minimal taxes, government


Small government and free-market capitalism are about to get put to the test in Honduras, where the government has agreed to let an investment group build an experimental city with no taxes on income, capital gains or sales.

Proponents say the tiny, as-yet unnamed town will become a Central American beacon of job creation and investment, by combining secure property rights with minimal government interference.

“Once we provide a sound legal system within which to do business, the whole job creation machine – the miracle of capitalism – will get going,” Michael Strong,  CEO of the MKG Group, which will build the city and set its laws, told FoxNews.com.

Strong said that the agreement with the Honduran government states that the only tax will be on property.

“Our goal is to be the most economically free entity on Earth,” Strong said

Honduran leaders hope that the city will lead to an economic boom for the poverty-stricken country south of Mexico. The average income in Honduras is $4,400 a year.

“[It] will bring a lot of investment into the country [and be] a center for many employment opportunities for our people,” Honduran President Porfirio Lobo Sosa has said.

The laws in the city will be separate from those in the rest of Honduras. Strong said that the default law that will be enforced in the city will actually be based on Texas state law, which has relatively few regulations.

“It will be Texas law with more freedom of contract. Texas scores well on state economic freedom rankings,” he explained.

“Texas law is also very familiar to American business people, and it is very familiar to Hondurans, because a lot of Hondurans have gone there or have family there.”

Investors who think the city will do well will also be able to buy land there.

“There will be a free market in land,” Strong said.

The rules for immigrating to the city have yet to be finalized, but are expected to be loose.

“It will be designed to be very welcoming to those with a minimum threshold of skills or capital,” Strong said. However, businesses in the city will be required to employ a minimum proportion of native Hondurans – a requirement imposed at the outset by the Honduran government to ensure that the city’s benefits largely go to Hondurans.

To insure the city against political change, the Honduran Legislature has agreed that a two-thirds majority will be required to interfere with the city.

MKG will invest $15 million to begin building basic infrastructure for the first model city near Puerto Castilla on the Caribbean coast, said Juan Hernandez, president of the Honduran Congress. That first city would create 5,000 jobs over the next six months and up to 200,000 jobs in the future, Hernandez said.

Strong said construction could begin in months.

“First, we will build the critical infrastructure — roads, water, power, sewers,” Strong said. “In collaboration with the [Honduran] government, we will then create the city’s government system and the security, and 3 to 6 months after that we will build the first factories.”

The MKG Group city is the first to get approval, but Honduras plans to create other “free cities” as well.

The bill to allow the creation of such cities passed the Honduran Legislature nearly unanimously, by a vote of 126 to 1. But not everyone is on board with the project. Left-wing Hondurans have filed a complaint before the Honduran Supreme Court, arguing that the free cities project violates their constitution and treats “national territory as a commodity.”

The indigenous Garifuna people in Honduras also have protested the creation of free cities, saying that they are worried the cities will be built on their land.

Strong said that they need not worry.

“The media reports are full of inaccuracies. We’re not even remotely close to [the Garifuna]. We’re literally hundreds of miles away,” he said.

Additionally, the new city will be built on unoccupied land.

“We will be selecting unoccupied land so that everyone will be opting in by choice,” Strong said.

But some oppose the project being built anywhere in Honduras.

“I can’t help but suspect that the promise of plenty of jobs is nothing but a Trojan horse,” Teofilo Colon Jr., who runs the Garifuna cultural group Being Garifuna, told FoxNews.com.

“The prospect of setting up a charter city, with its own laws, [that] is sovereign to itself and doesn’t have to pay taxes, is a dubious one at best. It’d be tantamount to inviting pirates to come in and have free reign to essentially raid the country’s resources/riches.”

The MKG Group says its plan, however, is not to take advantage of natural resources, but rather to attract entrepreneurs using good laws and low taxes.

Strong cited Hong Kong as a city that prospered under that model.

“Hong Kong’s poverty once was roughly on the level of Africa. Today it is one of the wealthiest places.”

Strong says that the same could happen in Honduras.

“We’ll see Hondurans having more jobs, higher income, and more security than they’ve ever had.”

FSA moves HQ from Turkey to Syria to prepare offensive against Assad


Syria’s main rebel group has moved its command center from the Turkish border into central Syria to prepare for an offensive against President Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Damascus. The Free Syrian Army made the announcement via video message.

It’s the first video message to be recorded by the Free Syrian Army (FSA) from Syria since the group founded its command center in Turkey 19 months ago, Al Jazeera reports.

“To the Syrian people, its freedom fighters and all the armed factions, we are glad to let you know that the leadership of the FSA has moved into Syria following arrangements made with other brigades that included securing liberated areas with the hope of launching the offensive on Damascus,” FSA commander Riyad al-Assad said.

Brig. Gen. Mustafa al-Sheikh, who heads the FSA’s Military Council, said the move was made last week, but declined to give the exact location of the new headquarters, AP reports. He said the move was designed to unite all rebel groups within Syria.

As the FSA continues to fight to overthrow the Syrian president, Riyad al-Assad made it clear that the international community should not be become too involved in the country’s domestic affairs.

“Since we left our country we suffered all sorts of regional and international interference and political pressure, we were isolated. Their goal was to have the FSA replace Assad once he is gone, but we categorically made it clear that we would never betray our people, reiterating that only the Syrians should decide their future institutions,” he said.

Border battles

­As the 18-month conflict continues, Syrian National Council head Abdel Basset Sayda has warned that the fighting could trigger higher levels of extremism in neighboring states.

The Local Coordination Committees activist group says at least 38 people were killed by security force gunfire on Saturday, as the fighting inched closer toward Syria’s borders.

At least 11 soldiers and five fighters were killed in clashes in the Orm and Kaf Jum areas of the Aleppo province, near the Turkish border, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

AFP reported that loud explosions from shelling could be heard across the city of Aleppo.

Rebel fighters also shot down a fighter jet as it flew over the northern town of Atarib in Idlib province, a witness told Reuters. However, officials dismissed the reports.

The witness said rebel fighters were attacking a military base near the town when the jet flew over, prompting the rebels to shoot it down with anti-aircraft guns.

On the Jordan-Syrian border, Jordanian border guards clashed with an armed group, leading to the arrests of the gunmen.

In Lebanon, insurgents attacked an army post in the Arsal region overnight, according to an official military statement.

“This was the second time in less than a week that the Free Syrian Army has entered Lebanese territory…the army leadership will not allow any party to use Lebanese territory to implicate Lebanon in events in neighboring countries, and reaffirms its determination to protect Lebanese territory,” the statement said.


Medical Professionals Who Torture

Will There be Accountability?


In the history of state-sponsored torture, a rarely acknowledged truth is that accountability only takes place in countries where the torturing government has fallen from power.  Victors tend neither to acknowledge nor to hold themselves accountable for torture.


In the , apparently we are no different. Recently, Holder dismissed the final two of 100 cases of alleged torture under investigation.  But, as the recent death of reminds us, our nation’s struggle with torture is far from resolved.  During his years at Guantánamo, Mr. Latif was subjected to extensive , often with his hands in cuffs and his arms pinned.  Because of his suicide attempts and hunger strikes, he was also housed in a psychiatric ward and force-fed through tubes in his nose.  Since 2002, at least six have successfully committed suicide, and hundreds have tried.  Thus, while abusive may have stopped, their effects continue to reverberate in the lives of those subjected to them.  Like the majority of the 167 men who remain in indefinite detention at Guantánamo, Mr. Latif was never charged with any crime.  His freedom was taken from him; his mind was broken, and he never saw justice.


Much has been written about the lawyers and personnel involved in water-boarding and other cruel punishment of detainees. There is less public awareness of the prominent role that medical professionals and in particular psychologists played at every stage of the development and implementation of the abusive interrogation techniques and detention conditions.  And this, sadly, is not unusual. We know from trials in other countries where torture is practiced that medical professionals, including psychologists, frequently play a role in attempting to extract information from prisoners because torture is at its core a psychological process.  In fact, the International Rehabilitation Council for Victims reports that a health professional was involved in 50% of the cases they’ve seen.

This is why, from to Chile to South Africa to the , medical professionals have been held accountable for torture. They have been subject to trials and tribunals, and to ethical sanctions from national professional bodies. It is still possible, in spite of the dismissal of criminal cases by the , to hold medical professionals responsible for egregious violations of medical and professional ethics. There may be insufficient evidence that these doctors violated the law as it was twisted by the Bush administration , but there should be no confusion as to whether these doctors and psychologists violated their professional ethics, as well as international law.

However, despite their participation in a well-documented, government-sponsored and publicly acknowledged campaign of torture and despite ample evidence of direct complicity of medical professionals in the research, development, oversight and in some cases direct implementation of the torture program, thus far, no doctor or has been held to ethical account by a state licensing body or a professional association.

Most of the names of the individuals involved in these programs are not known. But public documents have revealed the name of one New York State licensed psychologist: Dr. .  Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that, while Senior Behavioral Science Consultant at the U.S. Station at Guantánamo Bay, recommended a series of escalating physically and psychologically abusive interrogation tactics to be used on detainees.  A number of these techniques were applied under ’s direct supervision and, eventually, similar techniques were also used on detainees held in U.S. custody in Iraq and .

Thus far, neither the (where Leso remains a member in good standing), nor the licensing board of the State of New York, nor the courts have been willing to investigate or sanction Dr. Leso.

We brought a professional misconduct complaint against Dr. Leso in New York, the state that licenses him to practice psychology.  His abusive tactics, first brought to bear against Guantánamo prisoner “063,” , included sexual humiliation, sensory deprivation, extreme sleep deprivation, and exposure to extreme cold.  Interrogation log records reveal that Dr. Leso was present for and supervised that brutal interrogation, which went on for a grueling 49 days, 20 hours per day. In fact, reviewing al-Qahtani’s treatment, the Bush-appointed Convening Authority for the Guantánamo Military Commissions, , threw out the case against him, stating that “his treatment met the legal definition of torture.”

The New York Office of Professional Discipline refused even to open an investigation. Along with the New York Civil Liberties Union, we initiated litigation to force the New York OPD to look into these abuses.  At the hearing in Manhattan, New York’s Attorney General acknowledged, “This doctor, Dr. Leso, apparently was asked to use his skills as a weapon; not to help the mental health of the detainees.” Unfortunately, the Office of Professional Discipline and the court failed to take action– despite the fact that New York regularly strips licenses from psychologists for far less egregious conduct.

We believe that our country, which has brought justice to torturers elsewhere, must now bring the same standards to bear here at home. We call on the American Psychological Association to investigate the case against Dr. Leso, which has been before its Ethics Committee for five years. And we call upon the to enact the Gottfried Duane Bill.  This bill expressly defines professional obligations in the context of detention abroad and explicitly states that NY-licensed health professionals are prohibited from any involvement in torture or other abuse of detainees.  Such an explicit prohibition will ensure that in the future these fundamental ethical obligations will be unambiguously clear to healthcare professionals, the Office of Professional Discipline, and the courts.

At Nuremberg, following the trial of the “Major ” where judges were drawn from the four victorious powers, the United States convened military tribunals for the lesser war criminals. Among these were the famous “Doctors’ Trials” which set standards for the conduct of doctors in the treatment of detainees and prisoners, still in effect today. It is time for the United States to show that we hold ourselves and our health professionals to the same ethical and legal standards that we imposed on those whom we defeated in the past.  We must work for justice in the U.S. to ensure that the costs and consequences of 9/11 do not eclipse our commitment to the rule of law, to human rights, and to ethical medical practice.

Steven Reisner, Ph.D. (drreisner@gmail.com) is a founding member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology (www.ethicalpsychology.org) and President-elect of (www.psysr.org).

Kathy Roberts (kroberts@cja.org) is a Staff Attorney at the .  Her work focuses on investigating and litigating impact cases on behalf of survivors of torture and other severe human rights abuses.


Fiona Apple facing up to 10 years in jail over Texas marijuana bust


Singer Fiona Apple may face serious jail time in Texas thanks to a state law that classifies possession of any amount of hashish, no matter how small, as a third-degree felony.

In Texas, a third-degree felony is punishable by up to 10 years in prison, or no less than two, along with a fine of up to $10,000.

Apple was arrested Wednesday at a west Texas narcotics checkpoint near the Mexican border. Hudspeth County, where she was stopped, is notorious for busting celebrities on their way through Texas from California. Other high-profile busts in Hudspeth include rapper Snoop Dogg, country singer Willie Nelson and hacker George Hotz.

Police said a drug dog alerted them to Apple’s tour vehicle. Inside, they discovered a backpack that contained about four grams of marijuana and four grams of hashish. Hashish is also marijuana, but Texas differentiates between the two because hashish is more expensive and has a higher concentration of the plant’s psychoactive compounds.

The state is one of a handful that’s implemented more severe penalties for people caught with what the law calls “resinous extractives of Cannabis,” which it categorizes similarly to synthetic substances that mimic the effects of marijuana, like “Spice” and “K2.” Most states treat hashish similarly to marijuana and impose identical penalties for minor possession.

Texas, however, counts up to four grams of hashish as a third-degree felony. Go even a hair over four grams and the state jumps the offense class up to a second-degree felony, carrying a potential jail term of up to 20 years. Suspects caught with more than 400 grams fall under the law’s first-degree felony classification, which carries a potential jail term of 99 years.

Apple reportedly posted a $10,000 bail bond on Thursday and was released. Her promoter did not respond to Raw Story‘s request for comment.

This video is from E! Online, published Friday, Sept. 21, 2012.


Senate Rejects Rand Paul’s Call to Cut Aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt


Photo of Sen. Rand Paul: AP Images

Three minutes after midnight Friday leading into Saturday morning, the Senate rejected by a vote of 81 to 10 a proposal offered by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to hold aid to the governments of Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan pending the surrender to U.S. authorities of those suspected of carrying out the attack on U.S. diplomatic offices in Egypt and Libya. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered in the attack on the Libyan consulate.

Senator Paul’s bill also contained a clause requiring the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, currently imprisoned by the Pakistani government, before any more money would be sent to Islamabad. Paul observed,

In no way should the United States government be sending money to governments who are not our ally, who blatantly do not respect our country, and who work to compromise the safety of our allies and citizens abroad. I am pleased that the Senate leadership has listened to my pleas for an end to this and have agreed to debate and vote on this pressing issue.

Dr. Afridi is believed to have played a vital role in the manhunt that led to the locating and killing of Osama bin Laden. He is being held in a Pakistani prison on a 33-year sentence. Afridi ran a vaccination program that was allegedly just a front for a CIA operation to obtain a DNA sample that would verify bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan. A senior CIA official told the New York Times that the effort ultimately was unsuccessful.

Senate leaders from both major parties were reluctant to take a vote on the measure and only relented after Senator Paul successfully filibustered Friday night, forcing the issue.

In advance of his filibuster, Senator Paul mailed “Dear Colleague” letters to members of the House of Representatives urging them “to pass a bill cutting all foreign aid to any country that fails to secure our embassies, as well as demanding accountability from the countries of Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya, that were recently involved in the violence directed at our embassies.”

In a similar letter to fellow senators, Paul informed members of that body that he intended to filibuster and would hold up work on any other matter until his bill was given a vote.

Both letters reminded recipients that Senator Paul’s first choice is to “demand a full stop to the flow of foreign aid money to these countries.” He went on to propose other options that could accomplish a similar goal:

Significant cuts that are less than the full amount of foreign aid could be considered, coupled with redirecting a portion of the money into the improvement of security at our diplomatic facilities. If these countries cannot secure American lives and property, our increased cost of doing so must come out of the money set aside for aid.

The following senators joined Senator Paul in voting to attach these conditions to the delivery of funds to the named governments:

Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho); Jim DeMint (R-South Car.); Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa); Mike Lee (R-Utah); Jerry Moran (R-Kan.); Jim Risch (R-Idaho); Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.); and Patrick Toomey (R-Penn.).

During that same pre-dawn session, the Senate approved 90-1 a bill declaring that the United States will take action to thwart Iran’s purported plan to develop nuclear weapons. Rand Paul was the only senator who voted against the measure.

Fox News reported that the measure is “non-binding” and “should not be construed as an authorization for the use of military force or a declaration of war.” The resolution specifically states, however, that the United States will not “rely on containment of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran.”

Despite denials that this resolution will be used to justify armed intervention in Iran, similar soft-pedaling was heard after September 11, 2001 and American troops are still dying in the Middle East 11 years later.

Not surprisingly, among the chief sponsors of the bill were members of the war-drum corps: Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). “If Iran is ever allowed to obtain nuclear weapons capability, containment will be almost impossible,” Graham said in a statement.

Currently, the United States sends over $4 billion annually to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt.

Following the conclusion of Friday’s/Saturday’s business, congressmen bugged out of Washington headed for the campaign trail.


Houston officer kills double amputee in wheelchair


Yahoo News  HOUSTON (AP) — A Houston police officer shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.

Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.


She said the man came “within inches to a foot” of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.

“Fearing for his partner’s safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon,” Silva told The Associated Press.

Police did not immediately release the name of the man who was killed. They had been called to the home after a caretaker there called and reported that the man in wheelchair was causing a disturbance.

The owner of the group home, John Garcia, told the Houston Chronicle that the man had a history of mental illness and had been living at the house about 18 months. Garcia said the man had told him that he lost a leg above the knee and all of one arm when he was hit by a train.

“He sometimes would go off a bit, but you just ignore it,” Garcia told the newspaper.

Silva identified the officer as Matthew Jacob Marin, a five-year veteran of the department. He was immediately placed on three-day administrative leave, which is standard in all shootings involving officers.

Houston police records indicate that Marin also fatally shot a suspect in 2009. Investigators at the time said Marin came upon a man stabbing his neighbor to death at an apartment complex and opened fired when the suspect refused to drop the knife.

On Saturday, Marin and his partner arrived at the group home around 2:30 a.m. Silva said there were several people at the house at the time. The caretaker who called police waited on the porch while the officers went inside, she said.

“It was close quarters in the area of the house,” Silva said. “The officer was forced into an area where he had no way to get out.”


Purpose For DHS Buying Sniper Bullets Is For Preemptive Crowd Control


Steve Quayle Alerts  They likely figure as follows: rather than dealing with a massive protesting crowd in the streets – prevent this to begin with by keeping them in their homes to begin with.

They position snipers all over high places, or in choppers overhead, in any major metropolitan area – they publicize this fact on state T.V. – then when anyone so much as sticks their head outside of their window – well, that’s it for them. Pictures for all to witness at noon.

Their idea is to instill such terror into the minds of the masses with this stratagem – that nobody will dare violate a curfew to congregate to protest = city locked down. Finito. This is why they say ‘no warning shot is to be given.’ Their purposes is not to protect, not even to warn, but to instill terror in the masses – by the threat of a curfew violator being killed by a silent stealthy unseen foe half a mile away. Here one moment – gone the next instant. Fear of the unseen mortal threat.

Likely, they have special sniper response squadrons ready to fly to any rioting city needing lockdown. See?

Look for such specialized military units, and for increased funding and training for such. Maybe open up a line on your show for one patriot among them to call in?


Sep 19, 2012


War games kick off in Russia with amphibious beach landings


Examiner  Monday was the first day of training exercises named “Kavkaz 2012″ (the Russian word for the Caucasus Mountains). It involved over 8,000 Russian military personnel using air defense, artillery, armored vehicles and some of Russia‘s most powerful rockets. It was one of the largest Russian military operations this year.

The war games will use dozens of aircraft and nearly 50 helicopters, simulating an invasion of Russian territory.

Addressing the troops at maneuvers in the Caucasus Mountain region on the country’s southern border, near where Russian troops invaded neighboring Georgia in a five-day 2008 war, Putin warned the “use of military force was rising worldwide.”

“You are all educated people, you see what is happening in the world. You see unfortunately that the use of force is increasing in international affairs,” said Putin, wearing a beige jacket, flanked by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov and the Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov.

“That all speaks to the fact that we should keep our powder dry and that Russia’s defenses must improve,” he said from a wooden podium, his eyes fixed on soldiers in uniform.
The war games kicked off September 17, 2012 at four different test grounds at a time.

Russia’s Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin was closely watching the war games.

He said that the Russian armed forces should “always be ready to defend Russia’s national interests and security.” The drills are due to last until September 22nd, 2012, according to Pravda.ru

Watch video: http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/war-games-kick-off-in-russia-with-amphibious-beach-landings/21946/

‘Long overdue’: 55 names of unfairly imprisoned US Guantanamo inmates released


AFP Photo / Virginie Montet


It has been three years since the US government approved a list of Guantanamo Bay detainees for release. On Friday, the names of those 55 inmates who had been authorized for transfer were made public.

­The Department of Justice stated that there was no longer a “need to withhold” the information. However, the prisoners in question remain on the island.

The US government has previously said that a list could not be released as it would hinder efforts to repatriate and resettle prisoners in other countries. A large proportion of the men are believed to be Yemeni.

In January 2010, President Obama suspended further transfers to Yemen, saying the country’s atmosphere was too “unsettled” to be certain that detainees wouldn’t engage in terrorist activities.

Shane Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights claims the list still “seems to not include the Yemenis cleared for conditional release.”

She added that the government noted in its brief that for a number of cleared men “it still needs to seek formal court approval to release their names. That should not be a problem, but will take time, and people reading the list should know that some cleared men are not listed only because of this legal technicality.”

Although it is only the names which are being provided, the action has been described as “long overdue” by Vincent Warren, executive director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. A statement has also been issued by the American Civil Liberties Union, saying that “it is well past time for our government to release and resettle these unfairly imprisoned men.” The list has been kept confidential since 2009.

Warren went on to point out that “most of the 55 men listed have endured [up to] 11 years of indefinite detention without charge or trial, despite the unanimous assessment…that these men could be safely released or transferred.”  He insisted that not appearing on the transfer list is still “no indication of wrongdoing.”

Earlier this month, Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif was found dead in his cell at Guantanamo Bay, making him the ninth prisoner to have died in custody. He had been ordered freed in 2010 after respondents “failed to demonstrate that the detention of Latif is lawful.” His name does not appear on the list.

Obama pledged to close Guantanamo by 22 January 2010, and the failure to do so led Amnesty International to slam the detention facility’s existence. “[It] is leaving a toxic legacy for human rights.” Shabnum Mustapha, Amnesty’s International’s program director in Scotland, said.

“Ten years on and it is an absolute disgrace that 171 detainees, including Shaker Aamer, are still behind bars at Guantánamo, their most basic of human rights ignored – no charge, no trial and no access to justice,” Mustapha said.

There are now 167 detainees being held overall, and the 55-name list only includes those of detainees approved for transfer. It does not list the names of prisoners who have been categorized as recommended for prosecution, indefinite detention, and conditional detention. The ACLU has sought these names of in a Freedom of Information request, but has as of yet received little in response.

Each captive held at the facility costs taxpayers approximately $800,000 per annum – more than 30 times the cost of keeping a captive on US soil, according to the Miami Herald 2011 report. That’s also more than the most expensive four-year US college degree.


Emergence of Police State Expedites the Fascist Takeover of America


Occupy Corporatism – by Susanne Posel  As our Constitutional Republic descends into a total Fascist Dictatorship, there is a clear emergence of a police state to facilitate the instillation of this incredible takeover. Americans are monitored at every point of their existence; surfing the internet, speaking on the phone, text messages, emails, social media routines, CCTV cameras on every street corner, TSA internal checkpoints, Stasi networks through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) See Something, Say Something campaign. And the list goes on and on . . .

Coinciding with the severe restriction on our freedoms afforded us by our Constitution; the US government is amassing unmistakable amounts of armory designed for protection against an unknown threat. The DHS have acquired an estimated 2,500 heavily armored vehicles under the cover of Police Rescue.

More ammunition has been solicited by the DHS. Within the next 4 years, they expect to acquire 200,000 million rounds of .223 rifle bullets.

For training snipers, DHs have ordered two types of .308 caliber rounds – blanks and 168 grain hollow point boat tail ammunition. This new purchase adds to the 1.8 billion rounds of ammunition they have solicited for months in preparation for – something.

The amount of ammunition purchased by the federal government is estimated at more than 1 billion rounds in 2012 as well as riot gear, bulletproof checkpoint outposts equipped with red and green stoplights, human shaped paper targets for practice – not to mention the LRADs and other crowd control and containment equipment.


In August of this year, Major General Jerry Curry asked“who does the government intend to shoot?”

Curry asserted that: “No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens.”

In addition to bullets, the federal government through FEMA have begun ordering more MREs as a replenishment of stocked meals with a shelf life of 30 – 36 months. Because FEMA has made the solicitation, it may be assumed that these MREs are for disaster relief; however knowing how nefarious previous purchases have been, it would leave anyone feeling dubious.

TruNews radio host Rick Wiles believes that with the massive amount of Russian troops entering the US through Canada, there is a Congressional hitlist and most on Capitol Hill will be assassinated.

Wiles goes on to point out that Janet Napolitano is a front puppet for the DHS, which is actually run by Valerie Jarrett – the communist with ties to Frank Marshall Davis who was a mentor of Obama (and his alleged real father). This marks a communist takeover of our Constitutional Republic.

Last month, the Colorado National Guard in Cokedale, Colorado was seen using an earth mover as they were “improving streets and drainage by installing inlet boxes. They came into Cokedale with 3-4 dozers, 2-3 graders, a couple of front end loaders, 6-8 dump trucks, a bobcat, a handful of hum v’s, and a tanker truck for fuel.

Cokedale is being “reworked” to accommodate quartering for troops with a headquarters under a covert operation.

The Congressional Research Service released a report that expounds on the use of military on American streets for enforcement action against civilians. This document states that the Patriot Act gives the US government permission to use military to assist law enforcement in the establishment of a terrorist infiltration, civil unrest, disaster relief and if needed as first responders.

This renders Posse Comitatus useless.

According to George Foresman, former undersecretary of the DHS: “When the military is used – whether the decision is made by the president or governor – there has to be an intimate understanding of Posse Comitatus, and unfortunately, this is not the case. Frankly, this CRS report is a document that every key decision-maker or adviser should keep in their bottom desk drawer as a reference, just above their resignation letter. If they don’t, the resignation letter might be the next document they need.”

In preparation for the expected unraveling of our nation, the DHS have referred to a documententitled, FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations, which outlines policies and procedures for detaining Americans in internment or FEMA camps. The use of the UN, the Red Cross and other federal agencies is laid out as a combination of US civil and federal authorities that will work in tandem during “man-made disasters, accidents, terrorist attacks and incidents in the US and its territories.”

Those placed into internment camps are there for “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power.” Detainees will be “indoctrinated” to facilitate support for the US government by designated psychological operations officers.

Those psy-ops officers are trained to detect:

• Malcontents
• Agitators
• Those with antagonistic attitudes
• Political activists
• Give instructions to detainees
• Assist military personnel with population control
• Execute psy-op commands in line with US policies and directives

Although the YouTube video has been scrubbed by the NSA-controlled Google and their myriad of services, the information is still available concerning thousands of FEMA ordered coffins that are believed to be designated for use after a false flag attack in or near the Chicago-metro area. Training meeting required by FEMA and DHS for county officials for hazard preparedness under a mitigation plan for dealing with floods, fires, tornadoes and civil unrest.

DHS and FEMA wanted to have specific intel on where the county stored their hazardous materials, weapons, helicopters; as well as infrastructural information on airports, power stations, sub-stations and other means of connectivity between local government and citizens for the sake of mitigating impact during martial law.

In addition, FEMA was concerned about where mass graves could be dug and if there were other storage areas that could facilitate such a large amount of dead bodies. The local sheriff’s office was advised to purchase as many rounds of .223 ammunition as possible as well as contingency plans for police, fire and other municipal stations for crowd control and possible refugees from the metropolitan Chicago area.

Admit preparations, the US government is engaging on massive propaganda campaigns with simple lies directed at the average American who is distracted with daily survival. Mainstream recognition is short and the injection of feudalism is easily done in plain sight and without detection. Meanwhile redistribution of wealth and disinformation pervades the conversation of the masses. This establishes a control grid that Delphi’s each other, causing internal misdirection and fabrication which assists the lies told in the mainstream media.

This psychology claims success as the entire system facilitates all other aspects of fake revolutions, false flags and oblique approaches that cause the formation of a new truth which defies all the known laws of psychics. And so truth remains subjective in the social consciousness at a time when complete transparency is necessary for the very survival of our Constitutional Republic.


Obama and The “Dungbeetle” are Coming For Your Internet

Obama plans to violate the Constitution again and issue yet another executive order.

The latest EO would create a government program protecting vital computer networks from cyber attacks, according to Bloomberg. The Department of Homeland Security would establish cybersecurity standards that companies could “voluntarily adopt to better protect banks, telecommunication networks and the U.S. power grid from electronic attacks.”

As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, cyber attacks do not threaten the power grid in the United States. Critical infrastructure in the U.S. is rarely connected directly to the public internet. “The fact of the matter is that it isn’t easy to do any of these things. Your average power grid or drinking-water system isn’t analogous to a PC or even to a corporate network,” writes Michael Tanji for Wired.

Despite this, the government has perpetuated propaganda designed to scare average Americans into backing cyber security legislation. In July, the Department of Homeland Security said companies controlling the country’s power grid, water filtration facilities and a nuclear facility have come under hacker attack.

Regardless of the sustained propaganda effort, the public has not demanded lawmakers pass legislation allowing government to impose cybersecurity measures on public and private infrastructure companies.

In August, despite the best efforts of “top military and national security officials,” a much-anticipated (by government) cybersecurity bill went down in the flames in the Senate. A Republican filibuster killed “years of bipartisan efforts to establish stricter security standards and, some experts say, could leave the nation vulnerable to widespread hacking or a serious cyberattack,” the Washington Post reported.

Obama’s latest EO was contrived after the failure to push through legislation in the Senate. “The administration is contemplating using an executive order because it isn’t clear Congress would pass a cybersecurity bill,” reports Bloomberg.

In other words, the imperial presidency controlled by Obama’s globalist handlers will once again violate the Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 1, that states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The Constitution does not say that if Congress fails to pass legislation, the president can then implement it by executive fiat. Specific bills must originate in the House and Senate and then go to the president for signature in order to become law.

“An executive order is one of a number of measures we’re considering as we look to implement the president’s direction to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyberthreats,” said White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. “We are not going to comment on ongoing internal deliberations.”

Jerry Brito and Tate Watkins noted last year that cybersecurity is a big and booming industry. “The U.S. government is expected to spend $10.5 billion a year on information security by 2015, and analysts have estimated the worldwide market to be as much as $140 billion a year. The Defense Department has said it is seeking more than $3.2 billion in cybersecurity funding for 2012,” they wrote in August/September issue of Reason magazine.

The military-industrial complex is the tip of the spear of the national security state. Cybersecurity supposedly protecting against exaggerated and phantom threats is a key element of the public-private partnership takeover of industry.

Bernanke – My Goal is to Wreck Social Security

In June of each year the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) reinvests a significant portion of its investment portfolio in newly issued Special Issue Treasury Securities. The interest rates on these bonds is set by a formula that was established in 1960. The formula was designed to insulate the SSTF from transitory changes in interest rates by averaging market based bond yields over a three-year period.

Bernanke’s Fed has set interest rates at zero the past four years. In 2012 the 1960′s formula has finally caught up with the SSTF. It got murdered on this year’s rollover.

The following is from the SSA (link). It shows what has matured this year and what new investments have been made. I will be breaking down sections of this report, so don’t get eye strain looking at this:


Consider the bonds that matured in 2012:


$135 billion of old bonds matured this year. This money was rolled over into new bonds with a yield of only 1.375%. The average yield on the maturing securities was 5.64%. The drop in yield on the new securities lowers SSA’s income by $5.7B annually. Over the fifteen year term of the investments, that comes to a lumpy $86 billion. It gets worse.

Bernanke has pledged that he will keep interest at zero for a minimum of another two years. The formula used to set interest rates for SSA looks back over the prior three years. Therefore, SSA will be stuck with a terrible return on its investments until at least 2017.

I anticipate that the formula will result in still lower investment returns for the next five years, but I’ll conservatively use the rates set this year to evaluate the consequences to SSA. The following looks at what is maturing at SSA:


A total of $543 billion of securities with an average yield of 5.6% is coming due in the existing ZIRP window. The reduction in income from the 4.2% drop in yield translates to a nifty $23 billion a year, for fifteen years ($350b). It gets worse.

As a result of the Fed’s extended ZIRP policy, and the SSA’s interest rate setting formula, it is now a certainty that interest income at SSA is going to substantially drop over the coming decade. The problem is that SSA has provided projections for its interest income over this time period that don’t jive with this reality. From the 2012 SSA report to Congress:


The SSTF believes it will earn an average of 4% over this period. That is not possible any longer. I calculate that the most SSA could earn is an average of 2.3% (it could be significantly lower). The drop in yield translates to a reduction in income of $535B over the forecast period. That’s a lot of dollars.

Consider again the base case provided by SSA in April. The following compares the size of the trust fund based on SSA’s estimates and my adjustments for what interest income will be (everything else is constant).


Based on a realistic assessment of interest income at SSA, the trust fund tops out in 2015, its peak value will be ~$2.823B. The SSTF has reported that the TF will top out at $3,061B, and that milestone will not be reached until 2021. Essentially, the train wreck will happen six years earlier then assumed, and the TF will be $250B short. It gets worse.

The other key ingredients in the SS “pie” are tax receipts from workers and the amount of monthly benefit payments (the assumptions used is that GDP growth will average 4%, and unemployment falls to 5.5% –  no recessions over the ten-year horizon). These are not realistic assumptions. This means that once the SSTF hits its peak in 2015, the run off in assets will happen very quickly.

The SSTF has stated that the date in which the TF falls to zero will be 2033. The actual termination date of the TF is much closer than that. It could come as early as 2023.

Anyone who is 55 or older should be worried about this. Based on current law, all SS benefit payments must be cut by (approximately) 25% when the TF is exhausted. This will affect 72 million people. The economic consequences will be severe. The drop in SS transfers translates into a permanent drag on GDP of 2%. In other words, when this happens, the country will be unable to have any significant positive growth for a long time to come.

I know I will get comments from readers who have worked 40 years and paid into SS and now want it back. I tell those folks in advance that I’m sorry, but they will have to accept a cut in benefits. It will happen it about ten-years. Make your plans accordingly. If you don’t like these conclusions, write a letter to Bernanke. It’s well past time that the true consequences of his monetary policies are understood. He’s not just breaking the backs of small savers; he’s killing Social Security.


Tracy Diaz Show – Daniel Johnson PANDA (People Against NDAA)

The Talking Liberty Show – Tracy Diaz interviews Daniel Johnson the founder of PANDA People against NDAA 9-20-12 on LibertyChat.com

Obama’s Shaky Libya Narrative

Sources say the attack on the Libyan ambassador was pre-meditated, with the possible collaboration of a Libyan politician. Eli Lake on the continuing collapse of the official U.S. line.

Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.


In this Sept. 14, 2012 file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaks during a Transfer of Remains Ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., marking the return to the United States of the remains of the four Americans killed this week in Benghazi, Libya. (Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo)


In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”


Now there is mounting evidence that the White House’s initial portrayal of the attacks as a mere outgrowth of protest was incorrect—or, at the very least, incomplete. The administration’s story itself has recently begun to shift, with Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, telling Congress on Wednesday that the attackers may have had links to al Qaeda and Carney characterizing the incident as a “terrorist attack.” (Hillary Clinton announced on Thursday that she was putting together a panel to look into the incident.)

But other indications that the White House’s early narrative was faulty are also beginning to emerge. One current U.S. intelligence officer working on the investigation into the incident told The Daily Beast that the attackers had staked out and monitored the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack, a move that suggests pre-planning.

What’s more, two U.S. intelligence officials told The Daily Beast that the intelligence community is currently analyzing an intercept between a Libyan politician whose sympathies are with al Qaeda and the Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade—which had been charged with providing local security to the consulate. In the intercept, the Libyan politician apparently asks an officer in the brigade to have his men stand down for a pending attack—another piece of evidence implying the violence was planned in advance. (Plenty of Libyans, of course, did try to protect the consulate. “Many of those Libyans died in the gunfight fighting off the attackers,” one of the officials said. “But there were some bad apples there as well.”)

“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in,” says one senior retired CIA official.

On the other hand, a U.S. intelligence official stressed that it was still early days for the investigation. “It is important to accept that with events like this it takes time to figure out what happened and determine which data points are relevant and accurate,” this intelligence official said. “That process is happening right now.” The National Security Council declined comment, and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment.

One other aspect of the administration’s story appears shaky as well. Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice responded to allegations that there wasn’t enough security at the embassy by saying, “Tragically, two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function. And indeed, there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”

“I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.”

Rice was referring to two ex-Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who died during the violence.

But two former special operators and a former intelligence officer, two of whom had worked with Doherty, told The Daily Beast that Doherty and Woods’s job was not to protect Ambassador Chris Stevens. That job falls to Regional Security Officers or RSOs. During the fighting, some RSOs who were supposed to protect the ambassador apparently became separated from him.


“Glen died for Tyrone and Tyrone died for Glen,” one of the former special operators told The Daily Beast. “They fought bravely, but they did not die protecting the ambassador.”


Latest in protests of anti-Islam film

A look at Friday’s protests and events connected to the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims,” produced in the United States, and vulgar caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in a French satirical weekly. At least 49 people, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, have been killed this month in violence linked to the film, which also has renewed debate over freedom of expression in the U.S. and in Europe.


At least 19 people were killed and nearly 200 injured as protests by tens of thousands turned violent in the cities of Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi and the capital of Islamabad after the government encouraged peaceful demonstrations and declared a national holiday – “Day of Love for the Prophet.”


About 900 people peacefully protested the film in the capital, Kabul, chanting, “Death to America” and burning an effigy of President Barack Obama and a U.S. flag. A few hundred demonstrators also protested inside a mosque in the eastern city of Ghazni.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed out at the West over the film. Speaking at a military parade in Tehran, he said: “In return for (allowing) the ugliest insults to the divine messenger, they – the West – raise the slogan of respect for freedom of speech.” He called this explanation “clearly a deception.”


The United States closed its diplomatic missions across Indonesia due to continuing demonstrations over the film. Small and mostly orderly protests were held outside the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, in the cities of Surabaya and Medan, and in other smaller towns. No violence was reported.


About 3,000 people, mostly followers of Iranian-backed Shiite Muslim groups, protested the film and caricatures of the prophet in the southern city of Basra. Demonstrators carried Iraqi flags and posters of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, chanting, “Death to America” and “No to America.” They burned Israeli and American flags.


About 2,000 Muslims burned effigies of Obama and American flags at a protest after Friday prayers in the capital, Colombo, demanding that the United States ban the film.


More than 2,000 people marched through the streets of the capital, Dhaka, to protest the film. They burned a makeshift coffin draped in an American flag, and an effigy of Obama.


Tens of thousands of supporters of the Shiite Hezbollah movement held a raucous protest in the eastern Lebanese city of Baalbek. Later, a few thousand supporters of a hard-line Sunni cleric gathered in the capital, Beirut. Both demonstrations directed outrage at the U.S. and Israel over what they believed was a grave insult to Muhammad.


Police enforced a daylong curfew in parts of Indian-controlled Kashmir’s main city, Srinagar, and chased away protesters of the anti-Islam film. Authorities also temporarily blocked cellphone and Internet services to prevent viewing the film clips.


Several hundred people gathered in the city of Freiburg in southwestern Germany to protest the film, while a few hundred demonstrated in the western city of Muenster. The Interior Ministry postponed a poster campaign aimed at countering radical Islam among young people due to tensions caused by the online video insulting Islam. Germany is home to an estimated 4 million Muslims.


About 70 people gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in the capital Oslo to protest the film, shouting, “Obama, Obama, we’re all Osama!”


Constitutional law professor Harry Roque of the University of the Philippines defied a ban by university officials and showed students the film’s 14-minute trailer. He said the film was “trash and nothing but trash,” and will not convince people Islam is evil.


Culture changes at VA hospitals as more female vets seek health care

Built in 1938, at the beginning of World War II, the Hampton VA hospital was designed for an all-male military.

Things have changed over the course of 70 years, and now women make up almost 15% of those serving on active duty.

Believe it or not…Hampton Roads has the fastest growing population of female veterans, double the national average.

Now, they have a new place to go for their health care needs.

“We are in a part of the VA Medical Center where it’s just for us.”

Hattie Cannady is a former Army helicopter refueler, and one of the many female veterans who came out for the ribbon cutting of the new Hampton VA Women’s Clinic.

She is looking forward to less running around the hospital grounds, trying to fit in different appointments with different doctors.

“At times, it has been a day venture, because you want to have everything done,” said Cannady. “Now, it’s a whole different realm for how we are going to be cared for.”

Because now, both her physical and mental health needs will all be met under one roof.

“From head to toe, meaning inside and outside, because a lot of things that go on inside can reflect on our health,” said Cannady.

“We make sure we engage psychological needs as well as physical needs of our patients,” said Dr. Terri Lockhart, the Director of Primary Care at the Hampton VA Hospital.

Dr. Lockhart says every woman who comes into the new medical clinic will be screened for signs and symptoms of mental illness.

The growing need is staggering; one out of every five female vets from Iraq or Afghanistan are diagnosed with PTSD.

One in five female VA patients also say they were sexually assaulted or sexually harassed during their time in service.

Those women will get care for it all in the new clinic.

“My message to the women veterans is that we are here for you. We really appreciate your service, and we want to give back to you on every level possible,” said Dr. Lockhart.

The new facility will start seeing patients on October 1st.

Watch video: http://wtkr.com/2012/09/21/culture-changes-at-va-hospitals-as-more-female-vets-seek-health-care/

Nevada Republican to Harry Reid: Make our day, release your 2011 tax return


Should Sen. Democratic leader Harry Reid follow in the footsteps of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney by releasing his 2011 tax return?

Dave Buell, chairman of the Washoe Country Republican party in Mr. Reid’s political backyard of Nevada, certainly thinks so.

“Senator, make our day and release your 2011 tax return,” he said in an email blast Friday evening.

Citing an anonymous source, Mr. Reid has repeatedly claimed in recent weeks that Mr. Romney “didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.”

Mr. Romney countered that over the past ten years he never paid less than 13 percent of his taxable income and that “Harry Reid’s charge is totally false.”

Shortly after Mr. Romney released the additional tax information, Mr. Buell blasted out the email calling for Mr. Reid to come clean and release hits tax records “so that all Nevadans can see that he is paying his fair share.” He added, “In addition, Mr. Reid should explain to all of us how he became a millionaire on a bureaucrat’s salary. Mitt Romney earned his money by investing in companies, people and creating jobs in the private sector while Harry Reid made his money by taking money from the private sector and redistributing it through government.”

Mr. Buell also pointed out that Nevada has had the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Mitt Romney Releases Newly-Filed 2011 Tax Returns

Mitt Romney has finally released his newly filed 2011 tax returns paying a 14.1% tax rate on the year writing off 30% for charitable donations.

Everyone has been desperately waiting for this. At 3:00 pm it will be publicly released. Hopefully, shortly thereafter we can proceed with the discussion of important things such as the complete economic collapse of not only America, but the entire world (which is apparently now hooked into voting for Obama as disclosed earlier). For those strapped for time here is the summary: Romneys 2011 tax rate 14.1%, Charity donations: 30%; Obamas tax rate: 20.5%, Charity donations: 22%. And going back, “Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.”

From Romney’s website:

This morning, Gov. and Mrs. Romney filed their 2011 tax return with the IRS. At 3:00pm today, the Romney for President campaign will be posting the 2011 return online.

The complete 2011 tax return, with full schedules, statements, and attachments, will be made available with all other previously-disclosed information at www.mittromney.com/disclosure.

Also posted will be a notarized letter from the Romneys’ tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (PWC), giving a summary of tax rates from the Romneys’ tax returns for the 20-year period of 1990-2009.

In advance of the posting of these new documents, I wanted to provide some top-line details.

Regarding the newly-filed 2011 Tax Return:

  • In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
  • The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
  • The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
  • The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
  • The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor’s statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

As with the 2010 tax return, the 2011 tax return will appear as four separate documents. It includes Governor and Mrs. Romney’s Form 1040 as well as three underlying Massachusetts trusts detailing the sources of their income. Those are The W. Mitt Romney Blind Trust, The Ann D. Romney Blind Trust, and The Romney Family Trust.

The investments within the trusts are managed on a blind basis by me, the trustee. I have sole responsibility for making, holding and disposing of the investments.

Regarding the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:

  • In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.
  • Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Finally, in addition to new documents related to tax filings, the campaign will also be posting on the same website physician letters for both Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan, making public their current state of health.

After you have reviewed all of the newly-posted documents, you may have further questions. The campaign asks that you direct them to an e-mail account set up for that purpose. That e-mail address is returns @ mittromney.com.


Obama’s $9B ‘Green Stimulus’ Created 900 Jobs: $10M Each



Manufactured Presidential Assassination Attempt Expected To Justify Martial Law

White Owl Conspiracy – by Susanne Posel  In total, there have been a record 48 assassination attempts on President Barack Obama. Most of these “threats” have turned out to be either staged or unsubstantiated by way of having no real intention to put Obama’s life in danger. However, the idea continues to loom on the social consciousness.

The Secret Service has intercepted an alleged threat on Obama’s life made by a resident of Charlotte, North Carolina. The suspect, Donte Jarmar Sims, was arrested and is being detained based on suspicion of planning to assassinate Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

Sims had made 5 Twitter messages in a 14 minute period that stated “”Ima hit president Obama with that Lee Harvey Oswald swag” and “Well Ima Assassinate president Obama this evening !… Gotta get this monkey off my chest while he’s in town.” A specialist for the Secret Service who monitors Twitter found Sims’ tweets.

According to the Secret Service, Sims admitted after being interrogated that he hates Obama.

Sims, an African-American, does not fit the barrage of assassination threats made by North Carolina residents of late. This state appears to have many people, mostly white men, who want to kill Obama.

Jerry Blanchard, back in 2008, threatened to kidnap and kill Obama with a military grade sniper rifle.

The LA Times supposed in an article published in 2008 that there was a plot to kill Obama on national television at the DNC.

Former Marines, Nicholas Daniel Hanke and Kody Brittingham, were arrested for making death threats directed at Obama.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State predicted in 2008 that Obama might be assassinated as JFK had been killed in Dallas, Texas.

Andrew Adler, owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times, called for the assassination of Obama in a column published in January of 2012. In response, the Zionist-sponsored National Jewish Democratic Council condemned Adler saying that the published statements were “the height of irresponsibility to make the horrific suggestion that the State of Israel should assassinate the President of the United States of America.”

According to a DHS informant, the plan concerning a false flag attack released the warning of an anonymous DHS informant is explained as a staged assignation attempt on Obama that will be linked to a white supremacist group that will be used to incite black and Hispanic Americans into starting riots all across the nation.

In this scenario a race war will be the situation needed to implement martial law effectively locking down the US, US Army control of the urban cities, erecting DHS checkpoints on all major points of travel, severe restrictions on travel for all citizens and the suspension of elections to ensure that Obama remain seated as the President of the US.

The DHS informant stated: “The DHS is actively preparing for massive social unrest inside the United States. He then corrected himself, stating that ‘a civil war’ is the more appropriate term. Certain elements of the government are not only expecting and preparing for it, they are actually facilitating it.”

Reported in Haaretz back in 2010 the “Obama’s election may usher a political climate that could produce an assassination attempt…It is most likely, though, to be a lone assassin, rather than an organized network.”

Muammar Gaddafi had been extremely vocal about his belief that the Zionist-controlled Israeli government would be behind an assassination attempt against Obama.

The Joint Threat Assessment memo entitled the “2010 State of the Union Address: Joint Threat Assessment”, which propagandized terrorism against Obama claimed that Obama would be attacked by a “lone offender” who would be a member of the US military. The JTA blueprint is a document classified as a deniable asset and could have come directly out of the Haaretz article.

The manufactured threat of US veterans stems from the 2009 Department of Homeland Security report entitled Rightwing Extremism . This report clearly outlined that veterans, because of their diverse training in tactical operations, would be a decisive threat to the US government’s plans to declare martial law against the American public in the near future. Defined in the document were domestic extremists, particularly white supremacists, were proposed to be the newest and most dangerous threat to the US since al-Qaeda.

The US Armed Forces have suddenly discovered that white supremacists have infiltrated the US military and will the assistance of the FBI-sponsored Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Zionist-controlled Anti-Defamation League (ADL), they are creating a training course to teach active duty military how to spot those infiltrators in their own ranks.

The plot is laid out for a possible assassination attempt on Obama. The federal agencies involved are preemptively blaming the US veterans . The facts all point to a Zionist-sponsored scheme that is supposed to incite a race war in the US which would justify martial law .


Heavily-armored DHS vehicles seen on road


Fellowship of Minds  Remember these posts on FOTM?:

Once More Into the Breach

I really did not want to write about Israel again this week, but the outrageous manipulation of the Democratic Party platform, moves in California to make any criticism of Israel a hate crime, and news that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had dressed down the U.S. ambassador in the presence of a congressman before insisting that the United States has no moral right to judge Israel has made it unavoidable to go “once more into the breach, dear friends.”


Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers describes explosive confrontation between Netanyahu and American Ambassador Dan Shapiro last month in Jerusalem over Obama’s administration’s Iran policy.


There is a fundamental issue at stake here. That is, does the United States have a national interest in its dealings with the countries in the Middle East that is fundamentally distinct from the Israeli interests?

It is a question for dummies, as the answer is clearly yes. Well, if the answer is yes, why are leading politicians and talking heads insisting that the answer is no? Why are so many prominent Americans prepared to ignore the U.S. national interest in support of a foreign nation that has been the source of numerous armed conflicts, that has spied relentlessly on the U.S., and that is a serious drain on the U.S. Treasury? One might add that Americans have become terrorist targets as a consequence while the sharp decline in the favorable views of the United States around the world is largely attributable to the ties to rogue state Israel, even if the Bushes and Obamas have no doubt done their bit through the policy of unrestricted preemptive warfare that has evolved over the past11  years.

The ability of the Israel lobby and of the government of the state of Israel itself to interfere with the U.S. political process has never been more evident than in the past few weeks. At the Republican convention in Tampa, the following appeared in the party platform:

We affirm our unequivocal commitment to Israel’s security and will ensure that it maintains a qualitative edge in military technology over any potential adversaries. We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state … the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror…. We call on Arab governments throughout the region to help advance that goal. Israel should not be expected to negotiate with entities pledged to her destruction. We call on the new government in Egypt to fully uphold its peace treaty with Israel … elements like Hamas and Hezbollah must be isolated because they do not meet the standards of peace and diplomacy of the international community.

In Charlotte a week later, the text of the Democratic Party platform on Israel initially appeared to reveal a shift in thinking in the White House. Coming on the heels of a “significant” scale down in planned joint military exercises with Israel and Gen. Martin Dempsey’s comment in London that “I don’t want to be complicit” in an attack on Iran, it seemed to signify that Obama might be interested in recalibrating the relationship with Tel Aviv. Unlike the 2008 platform, the 2012 version omitted a declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, did not rule out that some future peace settlement might find Palestinian refugees resettled in the their former homes in Israel, and did not specifically call for the “isolation” of Hamas.


Rep. Eric Cantor, speaking for the Romney campaign, attackedthe Democrats on Tuesday and called on “all friends of Israel to condemn the president’s abrupt break with our closest ally in the Middle East.”

Romney also chimed in:

“It is unfortunate that the entire Democratic Party has embraced President Obama’s shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. Four years of President Obama’s repeated attempts to create distance between the United States and our cherished ally have led the Democratic Party to remove from their platform an unequivocal acknowledgment of a simple reality. As president, I will restore our relationship with Israel and stand shoulder to shoulder with our close ally.”

Then AIPAC and its friends in the Democratic Party struck back:

On Tuesday night former Florida congressman Robert Wexler spoke in defense of Israel, citing America’s “unflinching commitment” to that nation.

He told a reporter, “The speech I delivered was not a typical convention speech. It was actually a significantly substantive speech, in terms of foreign policy about a particular country. To my knowledge, it was the first time that a speech of that nature has been made at either a Democratic or Republican convention outlining an administration’s policy about Israel.”

That Jerusalem is and should be the capital of Israel was re-inserted into the draft on Wednesday, leading to a ridiculous voice vote presided over by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in which the amendment was clearly voted down three times before Villaraigosa announced that it has passed by the necessary two-thirds.

It was a procedure somewhat reminiscent of Stalin standing in front of the Supreme Soviet and calling for a vote. Thanks to the intervention, the final plank on Israel in the Democratic platform now includes: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.”

And it didn’t end there, lest anyone think that the Dems were not sufficiently hewing to the Israeli line. President Obama made it known that he had personally been supportive of the reinstatement of the Jerusalem language.


Los Angeles Mayor and Democratic Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa calls for a vote to amend the platform at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012. Photo by Associated Press /Chattanooga Times Free Press.


Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz noted that the Democratic platform was “100% strongly pro-Israel,” adding how proud she is to be “the first Jewish woman to represent Florida in Congress.” She claimed the missing endorsement had been a “technical omission,” but her veracity is questionable. A couple of days earlier she had stated that she’d “heard no less than [Israeli] Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.” An angry Oren denied that he had ever said anything such thing.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York also weighed in, calling the affair “a mistake” by platform drafters, “an act of omission, not commission.” AIPAC, which had denied any hand in the changing platform, was smug in victory. In a statement on the brouhaha, it affirmed, “We welcome reinstatement to the Democratic platform of the language affirming Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Together, these party platforms reflect strong bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

Note that no other country friendly to the United States was the subject of a laudatory convention speech. Nor did any other nation receive similar special consideration from the platform writers of either party.

Israel stands alone, as if it were the key U.S. relationship in the entire world and, unfortunately, for many politicians who ostensibly represent United States congressional districts, that just might be true.

And there is no mercy for those who deviate from the agenda.


Ron Paul, who has said that the nation’s dysfunctional foreign policy motivated him to run for president, was humiliated by the GOP during his visit to the convention but was given a parting nudge as he went out the door by way of a 15-minute video that very carefully did not mention his views on America’s overseas involvements.

But even the careful parsing of Paul’s career was not enough for those for whom Israel is deeply ingrained in their political psyches.

The Republican Platform committee was immediately attacked by the National Jewish Democratic Council: “ For paying tribute to this man who disparaged the U.S.-Israel relationship on Iranian television and empathized with Iran’s nuclear weapons program — on top of the history of his hate-filled newsletters — is a national disgrace. Romney and the RNC should cancel the tribute and end this dangerous strategic partnership once and for all.”


Most of the attention on Israel and the U.S. was understandably centered on the two conventions, but Israel and its allies have clearly been pushing forward on a number of other fronts. On Aug. 28, California HR 35, entitled “Relative to Anti-Semitism,” was passed on a voice vote in the Assembly after no debate with 66 out of 80 assembly members signing on.

The resolution is ostensibly intended to prevent harassment of Jewish students on campus over their political views. But it cites in its “whereas” portion seeking to make the case for the resolution: “(4) student- and faculty-sponsored boycott, divestment, and sanction campaigns against Israel that are a means of demonizing Israel and seek to harm the Jewish state; (5) actions of student groups that encourage support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah and openly advocate terrorism against Israel and the Jewish people; and (6) suppression and disruption of free speech that present Israel’s point of view.” It unambiguously equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Many student and civil liberties groups find the equation a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech. Cecilie Surasky of Jewish Voices for Peace notes, “This resolution wants the University of California system to treat Israel differently from virtually every other country in the world, including the United States, by claiming much criticism of Israeli policies is hate speech.”

And it has just been reported that late last month Rep. Mike Rogers, Republican from Michigan, sat in on a meeting in Israel that included Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro. Rogers confirmed that the Israeli PM engaged in a sharp confrontation with Shapiro, saying he was at “wit’s end” over the Obama administration’s lack of “clarity” on red lines for Iran. Rogers, in a radio interview, basically agreed with the Israeli position, saying that the White House had not “outlined an endgame” and made it clear to the Israelis (or the Iranians) that any proposed military action is actually on the table.

And that was all before Netanyahu denounced Washington publicly during a press conference on Tuesday while on a visit to Bulgaria, saying pointedly, “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” The Israeli newspaper Haaretz interpreted the language to be a demand that the United States give Iran an ultimatum that would likely result in war. Haaretz called the prime minister’s precise words “an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government.”

Why is all of this important? It is important because a serious debate about an asymmetrical bilateral relationship in which Benjamin Netanyahu is now demanding that the United States enter a war in which many Americans will likely die and the U.S. economy will be devastated is not taking place. Instead, our political and chattering class think it is better to go with the flow. Would I describe the politicians and journalists who are along for the ride as Quislings? Probably, but the label is not as important as an understanding of the damage they are inflicting on our country. Congressmen like Mike Rogers should think first of the people who elected him, not Israel. Mitt Romney, who has never served his own country in uniform, appears prepared to go to war at the behest of a not completely rational Benjamin Netanyahu while America’s two major political parties, at the national and state levels, are seeking to outdo each other to accommodate Israel at every turn.

Perhaps it is time for the American people to begin to recognize that these fifth-column politicos are betraying our country and its vital interests. But maybe it is too late for that. The propaganda mill in favor of Israel and all its works has been grinding for far too long, and too many people appear to be convinced that what is good for Israel is good for the United States.



NATO Official Rules Out Military Intervention in Syria

NATO does not believe that military intervention in Syria would bring any improvement in the security situation there, a senior alliance official said Friday, according to AFP.

Germany’s Manfred Lange, Chief of Staff of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said the military was telling leaders that there was no good case for military action and the political process had to be pursued.

“The military advice is (that) there are not sufficient visible signs at the moment that a military intervention could lead to an improvement of the security situation,” Lange was quoted as having said.

“The political process has to be pushed forward, sanctions need to take effect. At the moment, this situation cannot be solved by the military in a responsible way,” he told a briefing.

He added that with little prospect of action at the United Nations “it is clear that the Alliance doesn’t have any military plans on Syria.”

NATO concluded a seven-month air campaign in Libya last year which helped rebels oust former leader Muammar Qaddafi and there has been speculation such an operation could be repeated in Syria if UN approval was obtained.

Permanent UN Security Council members Russia and China oppose any such intervention, even as the death toll mounts steadily in Syria where rebels are trying to topple President Bashar al-Assad.

Russia and China have used their veto power three times to block UN Security Council resolutions targeting the Syrian regime.

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)


Gingerly Pussyfooting Around the Third Rail: Semi-Brave Washington Post Ombudsman Mentions Israel’s Nukes

Stephen Sniegoski argues, while the mainstream rants continuously about the danger of  Iran’s nuclear program, it rarely mentions the implications, or even the fact, about Israel’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The Washington Post recently devoted a brief article to this issue, in which Patrick B. Pexton, dared to touch on the taboo subject of Israel’s nuclear-weapons program in a piece titled “What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?” but dealt with it in a very gentle and defensive manner.

For a number of years the mainstream media and politicians have been in an uproar about Iran’s nuclear program, alleging that the Islamic state is developing a nuclear weapons program, or at least the capability of developing nuclear weapons, and thus threatening the peace of the world. But no reputable source claims that Iran actually possesses a nuclear weapons arsenal.




In 2009, the then-dean of the Washington White House Correspondents, Helen Thomas, was so intrepid as to ask President Obama in his inaugural press conference if there were any Middle Eastern countries that currently possessed nuclear weapons. President Obama was caught flat-footed, uttering that he did not want to “speculate” (somehow America’s varied claims about Iran’s nuclear program do not count as speculation), and then, resorting to the verbal gymnastics common to American politicians, dodged the question as best he could. (A little over a year later, Thomas would be hounded out of journalism for what were widely regarded as anti-Semitic remarks about Israel, which were made in private but were video-recorded by an individual unknown to Thomas who turned out to be a an ardently pro-Israel rabbi, and then publicized by the major media.)

On August 31, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, dared to touch on the taboo subject of Israel’s nuclear-weapons program in a piece titled “What about Israel’s nuclear weapons?” The Post’s ombudsman is supposed to deal with complaints about the newspaper and he began by noting: “Readers periodically ask me some variation on this question: ‘Why does the press follow every jot and tittle of Iran’s nuclear program, but we never see any stories about Israel’s nuclear weapons capability?’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-what-about-israels-nuclear-weapons/2012/08/31/390e486a-f389-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html  http://wapo.st/OzRZvs

Pexton then offered some ostensible reasons for such a state of affairs. He wrote: “First, Israel refuses to acknowledge publicly that it has nuclear weapons. [Israel’s policy is known as “nuclear ambiguity.”] The U.S. government also officially does not acknowledge the existence of such a program.” But the very purpose of a purportedly free media is to ferret out and mention things that governments don’t acknowledge. And the fact that Iran actually denies trying to develop nuclear weapons does not prevent the U.S. media from charging it with that very activity.

Then Pexton glommed onto the idea that since Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) its nuclear weapons are not ipso facto illegal and that it is under no legal obligation to have them inspected, whereas since Iran did sign that treaty it is not allowed to develop nuclear weapons and must allow for full inspections of all of its nuclear facilities. Pexton maintains that “the core of the current dispute is that Tehran is not letting them [International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) weapons inspectors] have unfettered access to all of the country’s nuclear installations.”It is not apparent that the NPT actually allows inspectors to have “unfettered access” to go wherever they want. And while the IAEA has found some faults with Iran’s adherence to the NPT,Israel and the United States go beyond the letter of the Treaty in demanding that Iran be prohibited from developing a “nuclear weapons capability” or engaging in the enrichment of uranium to high levels that could lead to nuclear weapons. Such demands would inhibit the promotion and sharing of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which is one of the fundamental “pillars” of the NPT and a significant reason why countries lacking nuclear weapons would be motivated to become Treaty members. Iran thus has some justification in claiming that its treaty rights in this area have been violated by existing sanctions.

Furthermore, the NPT does not give the United States the right to enforce its provisions—even if they were being violated—by attacking Iran, and still more outrageous would be the claim that it would be legal for Israel to enforce a treaty to which it is not a party.

And, finally, Iran could withdraw from the NPT, which it could legally do according to Article X of the Treaty, which allows such a move if “extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” To do so, Iran would simply be required to give the reasons for leaving and three months’ notice. In sum, the clear-cut legal distinction between Israel and Iran on the nuclear weapons issue made by Pexton does not actually seem to exist.

Next, Pexton points out that Israel “has military censors that can and do prevent publication of material on Israel’s nuclear forces.” But is Iran without such censorship? If this were the case, then all the charges that the Islamic Republic is an oppressive government, which is the fundamental argument for “regime change,” would have to be abandoned. And if Iran does have censorship, then its existence cannot be a reason for the failure to discuss Israel’s nuclear program.

Then Pexton attributes the failure to discuss Israel’s nuclear program to the fact that Israel and the United States “are allies and friends.” This explanation obviously contains much truth, but it is insufficient. It is not the whole truth and is certainly not a justification for the existing situation. It is an admission of bias, while most people, even government leaders and media officials, profess to believe in truth. An obvious question would be: why can’t the light of truth shine through on this issue?

This same critique could also apply to Pexton’s next exculpatory explanation: “not being open about Israel’s nuclear weapons serves both U.S. and Israeli interests.” More than this, while it obviously serves Israel’s interests, to be seen as biased in favor of Israel does not benefit U.S. interests in regard to the rest of the Middle East or, for that matter, the rest of the world. This has been a concern of U.S. diplomatic officials from the time of the creation of Israel.

Then Pexton tells an obvious, but rarely mentioned truth: criticizing Israel “can hurt your career.” He quotes George Perkovich, director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “It’s like all things having to do with Israel and the United States. If you want to get ahead, you don’t talk about it; you don’t criticize Israel, you protect Israel.”

But Pexton ends up his article by trying to show that he really identifies with the best interests of Israel, and thus implies a benign intent, and even justification, for the current blackout and double standard on Israel’s nukes, while simultaneously chiding the lack of press coverage of the subject. In exonerating Israel, he avers: “I don’t think many people fault Israel for having nuclear weapons. If I were a child of the Holocaust, I, too, would want such a deterrent to annihilation. But that doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t write about how Israel’s doomsday weapons affect the Middle East equation. Just because a story is hard to do doesn’t mean The Post, and the U.S. press more generally, shouldn’t do it.” Note that in his effort to show his identification with Jewish suffering, Pexton plays the obligatory, and often debate-ending, Holocaust card.

The problem with what Pexton asserts is that the Jews of Israel are not facing annihilation, whereas, as a result of Israel’s nukes, its neighbors do confront such a possibility. And it is quite understandable that they do not like that situation and there is no moral reason why they should have to face annihilation any more than the Israeli Jews.

Moreover, contrary to what Pexton claims in his above statement, many people around the world do fault Israel for having nuclear weapons. For example, the 120-nation Nonaligned Movement in its 16th global summit recently voted for global nuclear disarmament, with no exception for Israel. And the Arab states for a number of years have advocated that the Middle East become a nuclear weapons-free zone. Even a majority of Israeli Jews in a November 2011 poll favored the idea of a nuclear weapons-free zone, though it was made known to them that this would entail Israel giving up its nuclear arsenal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_nuclear_weapon_free_zone  http://bit.ly/PP6NW6

Finally, many Americans might oppose the nuclear double standard, too, if its stark reality were often thrust before them in the same way that the alleged misdeeds of Iran are placed in the media’s spotlight. It is quite understandable that an issue ignored by the mainstream media would not attract widespread public attention.             

What Pexton leaves out in his discussion of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is also of the utmost significance. First, while Pexton invokes legalistic arguments in his quasi-apologetic for the status quo, it is not apparent that the United States government is following federal law on this issue. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended by the Symington Amendment of 1976 and the Glenn Amendment of 1977 prohibits U.S. military assistance to countries that acquire or transfer nuclear reprocessing technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. For the United States to provide aid in such cases requires a special waiver from the office of the President, and it has issued such a waiver for Pakistan, another non-signatory of the NPT with nuclear weapons. But, in line with Israel’s wishes, the United States government does not want to publicly recognize Israel’s nuclear weapons, and thus eschews this approach. Hence, it directly violates federal law in its provision of aid to Israel, America’s foremost foreign aid recipient.

United States actions regarding Israel’s nuclear weapons program may also run afoul of the NPT. There is considerable evidence that Israel has relied on material and technology from the United States in order to develop its nuclear weapons arsenal. Grant Smith, who has been studying recently declassified U.S. government documents on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, wrote in response to Pexton’s article: “The ongoing clandestine movement of material and technology out of the U.S. may mean America has violated Article 1 of the NNPT, since according to the GAO it has never apparently taken successful efforts to stem the flow.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy.html          http://bit.ly/PW5n0s

Moreover, it is not apparent that Israel would only resort to nuclear weapons to prevent the annihilation of its populace; rather, it might use its weaponry to prevent any type of significant defeat. The Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, revealed this mindset in an interview with British commentator Alan Hart in April 1971 for the BBC’s Panorama program. Hart queried Meir: “Prime Minister, I want to be sure that I understand what you are saying . . . . You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and the whole world down with it?” And Meir replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.” (Alan Hart, “Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews,” volume 2, 2005, p. xii)

http://www.palint.org/article.php?articleid=60    http://bit.ly/R4OS0K

In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, it has been argued by analysts such as Seymour Hersh that Israel used the threat of launching nuclear missiles to blackmail the United States to begin an immediate and massive resupply of the Israeli military. It was correctly perceived in Israel that American strategy intended to delay any resupply in an attempt to let the Arabs achieve some territorial gains and thus force Israel to be more pliable and trade the occupied land for peace.

Grant F. Smith pointed out in his response to Pexton that blackmail of the United States government was not simply restricted to the Yom Kippur War of 1973, but has been a major purpose of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. “As understood by the CIA back in the early 1960s,” Smith stated, “Israel’s nuclear arsenal is primarily used to coerce the United States to provide enough benefits that they will never have to be used.”

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/israels-nuclear-arsenal-is-used-to-coerce-the-us-on-middle-east-policy.html        http://bit.ly/PW5n0s

Since the United States government has given in to this blackmail it would seem that it believes that Israel is not simply bluffing.

In sum, Pexton offers a rather tepid and incomplete account of Israel’s nuclear program and its ramifications, one that often verges on the apologetic. Still, given the limited parameters of permissibility in the American mainstream on anything concerning Israel, even broaching this subject is courting danger, and for this Pexton has been lauded by Phil Weiss as having “some spine,” especially for noting that to give Israel negative publicity on its illegal settlements can lead to the destruction of one’s career.



And that fact underscores how unfree American society is on the whole subject of Israel. Grant Smith, however, after pointing out the shortcomings of Pexton’s article, writes: “The Washington Post in particular seems to want to play a role in shoring up the decrepit policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’ [rather] than enlighten readers about the true role of Israel’s arsenal in US and Iranian relations.” It is apparent that in the mainstream the full truth about Israel’s nuclear weapons remains strictly verboten.


Helen Thomas on her one question for Obama

White House Press Corps longest-serving member says Obama lost credibility when he dodged her question on Israeli nukes. Watch Pt2 of this story at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10EzWt1KE-Y


Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: