Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Russia unveils plans for “invincible” ICBM
RT
In a thinly-disguised message to NATO, which remains uncommitted to the idea of co-operating with Russia in a European missile defense system, the commander of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces (RSVN) said its ICBMs will soon be “invincible”.
According to the commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces (RSVN), Lt. Gen. Sergey Karakayev, Russia's RS-24 new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) will be capable of defeating any possible missile defense system within the next 15-20 years.
Speaking before journalists in Moscow, Karakayev said: "Speaking about combat effectiveness, it is necessary to note the new missiles' ability to be invulnerable before launch thanks to their mobility, as well as their ability to tackle the task of defeating any possible missile defense system within the next 15-20 years, should such a need arise."
Karakayev revealed that some missile complexes are already equipped with the RS-24 missiles.
"The first missile regiment, comprised of two batteries armed with Yars advanced land-based mobile missile systems, equipped with RS-24
intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, entered duty
at the Teikovo missile division, based in Ivanov region, on March 4," the commander told a press conference at Interfax. “This is a weapon that has accumulated the best qualities of the Topol-M missile and has acquired new combat possibilities.”
The missile has characteristics that make it possible to speak about the invulnerability of (these weapons) at all of the sections of their flight course, he added.
Although the Russian commander did not directly mention US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, Moscow has said many times in the past that any missile defense system on its borders will necessarily be perceived as a potential national security threat.
At the NATO-Russia Summit in November, which saw the attendance of President Dmitry Medvedev, it appeared that the ground was set for a real co-operation between Moscow and NATO, the 28-nation military bloc that served as a balancing act against the Warsaw Pact countries during the height of the Cold War.
Medvedev stressed in no uncertain terms that Russia would be forced to defend itself if NATO went ahead and developed the system unilaterally.
If Moscow does not take part in the project, “we will have to defend ourselves,” he warned. The dialog on this issue will continue, but the results should be “clear” to Russia, he added.
Increasingly, and with tremendous possible repercussions for the much-hyped US-Russian reset, NATO seems reluctant to bring the Russians on board the system.
Meanwhile, as talks on missile defense sputter, NATO is attempting to “do its job without sharing know-how and its political and legal guarantees with Russia," Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin told reporters on Monday.
Arguing that NATO is hoping the present standoff over missile defense in Europe will pass, Rogozin said there is no chance of this happening
“No, it won't pass,” he said. “We will get what we want with Russia's interests taken into account, one way or another.”
Meanwhile, Rogozin believes that Russia’s NATO partners will come around to the idea of creating a single European missile defense system with Russia’s direct participation.
Mutual participation in the ambitious project will not only enhance the level of our common security, he stressed, but create a unique co-operation potential.
However, in the unfortunate event that a shared missile defense system does not come to fruition, the NATO ambassador said “Russia will be forced to foot the expense of providing a military-technical answer."
President Dmitry Medvedev and US President Barack Obama are expected to continue their dialogue on missile defense, among other issues, in Deauville, France, where a G8 summit is scheduled for late May.
Preparations for the summit are continuing along diplomatic and military channels, Rogozin said, while mentioning that Russia is prepared to be patient on this extremely critical issue.
"We are in no hurry," he said.
Although Russia has declared its willingness to show patience with NATO on the question of a joint missile defense system, it is clear that Russia’s missile designers will not wait for the last minute to develop their technologies.
Chinese Ultimatum Warns Washington Against Attack on Pakistan
TARPLEY.net
May 20, 2011
China has officially put the United States on notice that Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan will be interpreted as an act of aggression against Beijing. This blunt warning represents the first known strategic ultimatum received by the United States in half a century, going back to Soviet warnings during the Berlin crisis of 1958-1961, and indicates the grave danger of general war growing out of the US-Pakistan confrontation.
“Any Attack on Pakistan Would be Construed as an Attack on China”
Responding to reports that China has asked the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty in the aftermath of the Bin Laden operation, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu used a May 19 press briefing to state Beijing’s categorical demand that the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan must be respected.” According to Pakistani diplomatic sources cited by the Times of India, China has “warned in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China.” This ultimatum was reportedly delivered at the May 9 China-US strategic dialogue and economic talks in Washington, where the Chinese delegation was led by Vice Prime Minister Wang Qishan and State Councilor Dai Bingguo.1 Chinese warnings are implicitly backed up by that nation’s nuclear missiles, including an estimated 66 ICBMs, some capable of striking the United States, plus 118 intermediate-range missiles, 36 submarine-launched missiles, and numerous shorter-range systems.
Support from China is seen by regional observers as critically important for Pakistan, which is otherwise caught in a pincers between the US and India: “If US and Indian pressure continues, Pakistan can say ‘China is behind us. Don’t think we are isolated, we have a potential superpower with us,’” Talat Masood, a political analyst and retired Pakistani general, told AFP.2
The Chinese ultimatum came during the visit of Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani in Beijing, during which the host government announced the transfer of 50 state-of-the-art JF-17 fighter jets to Pakistan, immediately and without cost.3 Before his departure, Gilani had stressed the importance of the Pakistan-China alliance, proclaiming: “We are proud to have China as our best and most trusted friend. And China will always find Pakistan standing beside it at all times….When we speak of this friendship as being taller than the Himalayas and deeper than the oceans it truly captures the essence of our relationship.”4 These remarks were greeted by whining from US spokesmen, including Idaho Republican Senator Risch.
The simmering strategic crisis between the United States and Pakistan exploded with full force on May 1, with the unilateral and unauthorized US commando raid alleged to have killed the phantomatic Osama bin Laden in a compound at Abottabad, a flagrant violation of Pakistan’s national sovereignty. The timing of this military stunt designed to inflame tensions between the two countries had nothing to do with any alleged Global War on Terror, and everything to do with the late March visit to Pakistan of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian National Security Council chief. This visit had resulted in a de facto alliance between Islamabad and Riyadh, with Pakistan promising troops to put down any US-backed color revolution in the kingdom, while extending nuclear protection to the Saudis, thus making them less vulnerable to US extortion threats to abandon the oil-rich monarchy to the tender mercies of Tehran. A joint move by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to break out of the US empire, whatever one may think of these regimes, would represent a fatal blow for the fading US empire in South Asia.
As for the US claims concerning the supposed Bin Laden raid of May 1, they are a mass of hopeless contradictions which changes from day to day. An analysis of this story is best left to literary critics and writers of theatrical reviews. The only solid and uncontestable fact which emerges is that Pakistan is the leading US target — thus intensifying the anti-Pakistan US policy which has been in place since Obama’s infamous December 2009 West Point speech.
Gilani: Full Force Retaliation to Defend Pakistan’s Strategic Assets
The Chinese warning to Washington came on the heels of Gilani’s statement to the Pakistan Parliament declaring: “Let no one draw any wrong conclusions. Any attack against Pakistan’s strategic assets, whether overt or covert, will find a matching response…. Pakistan reserves the right to retaliate with full force. No one should underestimate the resolve and capability of our nation and armed forces to defend our sacred homeland.”5 A warning of full force retaliation from a nuclear power such as Pakistan needs to be taken seriously, even by the hardened aggressors of the Obama regime.
The strategic assets Gilani is talking about are the Pakistani nuclear forces, the key to the country’s deterrent strategy against possible aggression by India, egged on by Washington in the framework of the US-India nuclear cooperation accord. The US forces in Afghanistan have not been able to conceal their extensive planning for attempts to seize or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear bombs and warheads. According to a 2009 Fox News report, “The United States has a detailed plan for infiltrating Pakistan and securing its mobile arsenal of nuclear warheads if it appears the country is about to fall under the control of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or other Islamic extremists.” This plan was developed by General Stanley McChrystal when he headed the US Joint Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. JSOC, the force reportedly involved in the Bin Laden operation. is composed of Army Delta Force, Navy SEALs and “a high-tech special intelligence unit known as Task Force Orange.” “Small units could seize [Pakistan’s nukes], disable them, and then centralize them in a secure location,” claimed a source quoted by Fox.6
Obama Has Already Approved Sneak Attack on Pakistan’s Nukes
According to the London Sunday Express, Obama has already approved an aggressive move along these lines: “US troops will be deployed in Pakistan if the nation’s nuclear installations come under threat from terrorists out to avenge the killing of Osama Bin Laden… The plan, which would be activated without President Zardari’s consent, provoked an angry reaction from Pakistan officials… Barack Obama would order troops to parachute in to protect key nuclear missile sites. These include the air force’s central Sargodha HQ, home base for nuclear-capable F-16 combat aircraft and at least 80 ballistic missiles.” According to a US official, “The plan is green lit and the President has already shown he is willing to deploy troops in Pakistan if he feels it is important for national security.”7
Extreme tension over this issue highlights the brinksmanship and incalculable folly of Obama’s May 1 unilateral raid, which might easily have been interpreted by the Pakistanis as the long-awaited attack on their nuclear forces. According to the New York Times, Obama knew very well he was courting immediate shooting war with Pakistan, and “insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops.”
The Shooting Has Already Started
The shooting between US and Pakistani forces escalated on Tuesday May 17, when a US NATO helicopter violated Pakistani airspace in Waziristan. Pakistani forces showed heightened alert status, and opened fire immediately, with the US helicopter shooting back. Two soldiers at a Pakistani check post on the border in the Datta Khel area were wounded.8
Possible Pakistani retaliation for this border incursion came in Peshawar on Friday, May 20, when a car bomb apparently targeted a 2-car US consulate convoy, but caused no American deaths or injuries. One Pakistani bystander was killed, and several wounded. In other intelligence warfare, Ary One television reported the name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad, the second top US resident spook there to have his cover blown in six months.
US Envoy Grossman Rejects Pakistani Calls To Stop Border Violations
US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman, the replacement for the late Richard Holbrooke, on May 19 arrogantly rejected Pakistani calls for guarantees that no more Abottabad-style unilateral operations would be mounted in Pakistan.9 In refusing to offer such assurances, Grossman claimed that Pakistani officials had never demanded respect for their border in recent years.10
In the midst of this strategic crisis, India has gone ahead with inherently provocative scheduled military maneuvers targeting Pakistan. This is the “Vijayee Bhava” (Be Victorious) drill, held in the Thar desert of north Rajastan,. This atomic-biological-chemical Blitzkrieg drill involves the Second Armored Corps, “considered to be the most crucial of the Indian Army’s three principal strike formations tasked with virtually cutting Pakistan in two during a full-fledged war.”11
The Nation: A CIA-RAW-Mossad Pseudo-Taliban Countergang
One way to provide the provocation needed to justify a US-Indian attack on Pakistan would be through an increase in terrorist actions attributable to the so-called Taliban. According to the mainstream Pakistani media, the CIA, the Israeli Mossad, and the Indian RAW (Research and Analysis Wing) have created their own version of the Taliban in the form of a terrorist countergang which they control and direct. According to one account, “Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives have infiltrated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda networks, and have created their own Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) force in order to destabilize Pakistan.” The former Punjab Regional Commander of the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), retired Brigadier General Aslam Ghuman, commented: “During my visit to the US, I learned that the Israeli spy agency Mossad, in connivance with Indian agency RAW, under the direct supervision of CIA, planned to destabilize Pakistan at any cost.”12 Was this countergang responsible for last week’s double bombing in Waziristan, which killed 80 paramilitary police?According to the same account, Russian intelligence “disclosed that CIA contractor Raymond Davis and his network had provided Al-Qaeda operatives with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, so that US installations may be targeted and Pakistan be blamed….” Davis, a JSOC veteran himself, was arrested for the murder of two ISI agents, but then released by the Pakistani government after a suspicious hue and cry by the State Department.
CIA Claims The New Al Qaeda Boss Lives in Waziristan
If the US needs a further pretext for additional raids, it will also be easy to cite the alleged presence in Waziristan of Saif al-Adel, now touted by the CIA as bin Laden’s likely successor as boss of al Qaeda.13 It is doubtless convenient for Obama’s aggressive intentions that Saif al-Adel can be claimed to reside so close to what is now the hottest border in the world, and not in Finsbury or Flatbush.
In the wake of the unauthorized May 1 US raid, the Pakistani military chief General Kayani had issued his own warning that similar “misadventures” could not be repeated, while announcing that US personnel inside Pakistan would be sharply reduced. In the estimate of one ISI source, there are currently about 7,000 CIA operatives in country, many of them unknown to the Pakistani government. US-Pakistan intelligence sharing has reportedly been downgraded. In response to Kayani’s moves, the CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks once again showed its real nature by attempting to discredit the Pakistan commander with dubious US cable reports that he had demanded more Predator drone attacks, not fewer, in recent years.
Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.
Since May 1, six reported US Predator drones attacks have slain some 42 Pakistani civilians, goading public opinion into a frenzy of anti-US hatred. In response, a joint session of the Pakistani parliament voted unanimously on May 14 to demand an end to American missile strikes, calling on the government to cut NATO’s supply line to Afghanistan if the attacks should continue.14 Since the Karachi to Khyber Pass supply line carries as much as two thirds of the supplies needed by the Afghanistan invaders, such a cutoff would cause chaos among the NATO forces. All of this points to the inherent insanity of provoking war with the country your supply line runs through.
US Wants to Use Taliban Boss Mullah Omar Against Pakistan
The State Department dropped all preconditions for negotiating with the Taliban back in February, and the US is now reported by the Washington Post to be talking with envoys of Mullah Omar, the legendary one-eyed leader of the Quetta Shura or Taliban ruling council. It is apparent that the US is offering the Taliban an alliance against Pakistan. US regional envoy Grossman is hostile to the Pakistanis, but when it comes to the Taliban he has been nicknamed “Mr. Reconciliation.”15 By contrast, the US is said to be determined to assassinate the head of the Haqqani network using a Bin Laden-type raid. The Pakistanis are equally determined to keep the Haqqani as an ally.
If China stands behind Pakistan, then Russia might be said to stand behind China. Looking forward to the upcoming June 15 meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Chinese President Hu praised Sino-Russian relations as being “at an unprecedented high point,” with an “obvious strategic ingredient.” In a press conference this week, Russian President Medvedev was obliged indirectly to acknowledge that the much-hyped Obama “reset” with Russia had amounted to very little, since the US ABM missile program in Romania and the rest of eastern Europe, so obviously directed against Russia, means that the START treaty is of dubious value, thus raising the specter of a “new Cold War.” Given the NATO assault on Libya, there would be no UN resolution against Syria, said Medvedev. Putin has been right all along, and Medvedev is trying to imitate Putin to salvage some chance of remaining in power.
Are We in July 1914?
The crisis leading to World War I began with the Sarajevo assassinations of June 28, 1914, but the first major declaration of war did not occur until August 1. In the interim month of July 1914, large parts of European public opinion retreated into a dreamlike trance, an idyllic la-la land of elegiac illusion, even as the deadly crisis gathered momentum. Something similar can be seen today. Many Americans fondly imagine that the alleged death of Bin Laden marks the end of the war on terror and the Afghan War. Instead, the Bin Laden operation has clearly ushered in a new strategic emergency. Forces which had opposed the Iraq war, from MSNBC to many left liberals of the peace movement, are variously supporting Obama’s bloody aggression in Libya, or even celebrating him as a more effective warmonger than Bush-Cheney because of his supposed success at the expense of Bin Laden. In reality, if there were ever a time to mobilize to stop a new and wider war, this is it.
References
1 http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/china-asks-us-to-respect-paks-sovereignty-independence/articleshow/8454577.cms
2 “China-Pakistan alliance strengthened post bin Laden,” AFP, May 15, 2011, http://www.sundaytimes.lk/index.php/analysis/7546-china-pakistan-alliance-strengthened-post-bin-laden
4 http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/05/08/Gilani-China-best-most-trusted-friend/UPI-96101304911435/
5 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/pakistani_pm_regrets_unilateral_GAOWNTpBXGJaJtwzWaZu0K?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=
6 Rowan Scarborough,”U.S. Has Plan to Secure Pakistan Nukes if Country Falls to Taliban, Fox News, May 14, 2009.
7 “US ‘To Protect Pakistan,” London Sunday Express, May 15, 2011, http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246717/US-to-protect-Pakistan-
9 “US refuses to assure it will not act unilaterally,” http://thenews.jang.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=15758
10 “No US assurance on unilateral ops,” http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/20-May-2011/No-US-assurance-on-unilateral-ops
11 “Getting leaner and meaner? Army practices blitzkrieg to strike hard at enemy,” Times of India, May 10, 2011, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-10/india/29527731_1_three-strike-corps-army-and-iaf-transformational
12 “CIA has created own Taliban to wreak terror havoc on Pakistan, claims Pak paper,” ANI, May 12, http://my.news.yahoo.com/cia-created-own-taliban-wreak-terror-havoc-pakistan-091621821.html
13 “New al-Qaeda chief in North Waziristan,” May 19, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Strauss Kahn Frame-Up: The American Police State Strides Forward
Paul Craig Roberts
GCN Live.com
May 18, 2011
The International Monetary Fund’s director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested last Sunday in New York City on the allegation of an immigrant hotel maid that he attempted to rape her in his hotel room. A New York judge has denied Strauss-Kahn bail on the grounds that he might flee to France.
President Bill Clinton survived his sexual escapades, because he was a servant to the system, not a threat. But Strauss-Kahn, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, was a threat to the system, and, like Eliot Spitzer, Strass-Kahn has been deleted from the power ranks.
Strauss-Kahn was the first IMF director in my lifetime, if memory serves, who disavowed the traditional IMF policy of imposing on the poor and ordinary people the cost of bailing out Wall Street and the Western banks. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation had to be reimposed on the greed-driven, fraud-prone financial sector, which, unregulated, destroyed the lives of ordinary people. Strauss-Kahn listened to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of a handful of economists who has a social conscience.
Perhaps the most dangerous black mark in Strauss-Kahn’s book is that he was far ahead of America’s French puppet, President Sarkozy, in the upcoming French elections. Strauss-Kahn simply had to be eliminated.
It is possible that Strauss-Kahn eliminated himself and saved Washington the trouble. However, as a well-travelled person who has often stayed in New York hotels and in hotels in cities around the world, I have never experienced a maid entering unannounced into my room, much less when I was in the shower.
In the spun story, Strauss-Kahn is portrayed as so deprived of sex that he attempted to rape a hotel maid. Anyone who ever served on the staff of a powerful public figure knows that this is unlikely. On a senator’s staff on which I served, there were two aides whose job was to make certain that no woman, with the exception of his wife, was ever alone with the senator. This was done to protect the senator both from female power groupies, who lust after celebrities and powerful men, and from women sent by a rival on missions to compromise an opponent. A powerful man such as Strauss-Kahn would not have been starved for women, and as a multi-millionaire he could certainly afford to make his own discreet arrangements.
As Henry Kissinger said, “power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” In politics, sex is handed out as favors and payoffs, and it is used as a honey trap. Some Americans will remember that Senator Packwood’s long career (1969-1995) was destroyed by a female lobbyist, suspected, according to rumors, of sexual conquests of Senators, who charged that Packwood propositioned her in his office. Perhaps what inspired the charge was that Packwood was in the way of her employer’s legislative agenda.
Even those who exercise care can be framed by allegations of an event to which there are no witnesses. On May 16 the British Daily Mail reported that prior to Strauss-Kahn’s fateful departure for New York, the French newspaper, Liberation, published comments he made while discussing his plans to challenge Sarkozy for the presidency of France. Strauss-Kahn said that as he was the clear favorite to beat Sarkozy, he would be subjected to a smear campaign by Sarkozy and his interior minister, Glaude Gueant. Strauss-Kahn predicted that a woman would be offered between 500,000 and 1,000,000 euros (more than $1,000,000) to make up a story that he raped her.
The Daily Mail reports that Strauss-Kahn’s suspicions are supported by the fact that the first person to break the news of Strauss-Kahn’s arrest was an activist in Mr Sarkozy’s UMP party – who apparently knew about the scandal before it happened. Jonathan Pinet, a politics student, tweeted the news just before the New York Police Department made it public, although he said that he simply had a ‘friend’ working at the Sofitel where the attack was said to have happened. The first person to re-tweet Mr Pinet was Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor who had previously publicised details of multi-millionaire Strauss-Kahn’s luxurious lifestyle in a bid to dent his left wing credentials.
Strauss-Kahn could just as easily been set up by rivals inside the IMF, as well as by rivals within the French political establishment.
Michelle Sabban, a senior councillor for the greater Paris region and a Strauss-Kahn loyalist said: ‘I am convinced it is an international conspiracy.’
She added: ‘It’s the IMF they wanted to decapitate, not so much the Socialist primary candidate.
‘It’s not like him. Everyone knows that his weakness is seduction, women. That’s how they got him.’
Even some of Strauss-Kahn’s rivals said they could not believe the news. ‘It is totally hallucinatory,’ said centrist Dominique Paille.
‘If it is true, this would be a historic moment, but in the negative sense, for French political life. I hope that everyone respects the presumption of innocence. I cannot manage to believe this affair.’
And Henri de Raincourt, minister for overseas co-operation in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, added: ‘We cannot rule out the thought of a trap.’
Michelle Sabban is on to something when she says the IMF was the target. Strauss-Kahn is the first IMF director who is not lined up on the side of the rich against the poor. Strauss-Kahn’s suspicions were of Sarkozy, but Wall Street and the US government also had strong reasons to eliminate him. Wall Street is terrified by the prospect of regulation, and Washington was embarrassed by the recent IMF report that China’s economy would surpass the US economy within five years. An international conspiracy is not out of the question.
Indeed, the plot is unfolding as a conspiracy. Authorities have produced a French woman who claims she was a near rape victim of Strauss-Kahn a decade ago. It would be interesting to know whether this allegation is the result of a threat or a bribe. As in the case of Julian Assange, there are now two women to accuse Strauss-Kahn. Once the prosecutors get the odds of two females against one male, they win in the media.
It has not been revealed how the authorities knew Strauss-Kahn was on a flight to France. However, by arresting him aboard his scheduled flight just as it was to depart, the authorities created the image of a man fleeing from a crime.
The way Amerikan justice (sic) works is that prosecutors in about 96 percent of the cases get a plea bargain. US prosecutors are permitted by judges and the public to pay for testimony against the defendant and to put sufficient pressure on innocent defendants to coerce them into making a guilty plea in exchange for lesser charges and a lighter sentence. Unless the hotel maid has a spell of bad conscience and admits she was paid to lie, or gets cold feet about perjuring herself, Strauss-Kahn is likely to find that Amerikan criminal justice (sic) is organized to produce conviction regardless of innocence or guilt.
On May 16, the day following Strauss-Kahn’s arrest, the US Supreme Court threw its weight behind the Amerikan police state by destroying the remains of the Fourth Amendment with an 8-1 ruling that, the U.S. Constitution notwithstanding, Amerika’s police do not need warrants to invade homes and search persons.
This ruling is more evidence that every American is regarded as a potential enemy of the state, not only by Airport Security but also by the high muckety-mucks in Washington. The conservatives’ “war on crime” has created a police state, and conservatives, who originally stood for limited government and civil liberty, are euphoric over the expanded and unaccountable powers that a conservative Supreme Court has handed to the police.
On the same day the federal government reached the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling, which forced the Treasury to “borrow” money from federal employee pensions in order to continue funding Amerika’s illegal wars and crimes against humanity. The breached debt ceiling serves as an appropriate marker for a country that has squandered its constitutional heritage and has arrived at moral as well as fiscal bankruptcy.
—
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously an editor for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Influential Swiss Legislator exposes The Bilderberg Group
Mark Anderson
American Free Press
Monday, May 16, 2011
An influential legislator from Switzerland’s largest political party has issued a strongly worded letter to the head of the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, saying that the globalist Bilderberg group’s planned meeting in Switzerland June 9-12 threatens the nation’s deep-seated traditions of populist rule and neutrality as well as bringing many disreputable participants, some of whom are accused war criminals, to the traditionally neutral country.
The legislator, Dominique Baettig of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), was interviewed by this AFP writer last December and soon made headlines when he called for George W. Bush’s arrest for war crimes if he ever set foot in Switzerland. Bush canceled a Feb. 12 visit to Geneva.
Regarding Bilderberg’s pending visit, Baettig informed top cop Mrs. Simonetta Sommaruga: “I wish to draw your attention to . . . the discreet but influential Bilderberg group [meeting] in a hotel in St. Moritz [June 9-12].”
The group is a “global elite of bankers, industrialists, diplomats, U.S. and European NATO brass, crowned heads, media groups, their moguls and editors, as well as heads of state, whether retired or not, which coordinates, exchanges, organizes and structures, out of all democratic control, the major guidelines toward economic globalization.”
To convey the danger of Bilderberg’s influence, his letter adds, “Independence, private property and the private sphere are reduced by the usage of electronic virtual money and by . . . the control of all individuals in a biometric global gulag. . . . Higher debts of the [world’s] countries are encouraged . . . and they become the debtors of supranational private banks.
“Military and police tasks are privatized and military actions to dismantle independent states are planned and coordinated (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya; tomorrow Iran and Syria). The worst being the fact that they prepare the programmed end of traditional democracy, with a power shift from all states to the benefit of non-elected governance entities. . . .”
His letter also notes that this “discreet group develops an ultra-liberal, free-trade society model, with a . . . world currency and the IMF as treasurer.”
Baettig noted that he’s especially troubled after “consulting the [Bilderberg] participants lists of [recent] years” and seeing “the undesirable presence” in Switzerland of certain “personalities” including Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney and others implicated in war crimes, torture and those “who are under investigation by the courts in The Hague, etc.”
Baettig asks Mrs. Sommaruga: “Are your services informed of the participants’ identities? As NATO is actually engaged in war actions (Libya, Afghanistan, targeted assassinations), the participation of NATO brass . . . does represent a major risk of a terrorist action in St. Moritz and, therefore, a serious danger for its inhabitants and neighbors. Not mentioning the . . .image loss for a sovereign and democratic nation which stands for an armed and integral neutrality. . . .”
He added that if “politicians, businessmen and media group owners sharing [globalist] motivations represents ‘crimes against the state,’ then that could undermine Swiss independence with ‘diplomatic treason.’”
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
College Conspiracy
College Conspiracy is an excellent documentary produced by Inflation.us explaining how college education have become a rip off a waste of time and money , often students are indebted for life in order to get that college degree or diploma , often they are degrees in worthlessness as Gerald Celente calls them , useless when it comes to getting a job , , students loans have become like mortgages and College education is the largest scam in U.S. history , with the development in technology the cost of education should become less not more , the future is for online education via the internet the education business is gone out of control
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Pearl Harbor Revisited: From an Anti - Fascist Standpoint
Webster attacks the official story and the popular revisionist story of Pearl Harbor
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Friday, May 6, 2011
Obama vs. Osama: A Very Convenient Death
By Victor Thorn
afp.net
The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (75 miles north of Islamabad), where Osama bin Laden supposedly met his demise on May 1 at the hands of a highly sensitive U.S. ground operation was eight times larger than any other building in the area. Built in 2005, these headquarters, described as “a highly unusual structure,” were well guarded and extremely secure
Didn’t anyone in our military or intelligence community—for six long years—question the purpose of this fortress or the identity of its occupants? A $25 million reward lingered over bin Laden’s head, yet not a single person revealed the whereabouts of the world’s most famous terrorist?
With the NSA’s technological capabilities, not to mention the precision of Google Earth, was no one in our multibilliondollar spook industry capable of locating a Muslim who stands six feet four inches and drags around a dialysis machine?
Only moments after Barack Obama announced the death of this Orwellian perpetual enemy, former national security advisor Stephen Hadley proclaimed, “Osama bin Laden was hiding in clear view.”
Was Hadley’s statement accurate, or is it a bit inconvenient to mention that the Egyptian newspaper alWafd ran a funeral announcement for bin Laden on Dec. 26, 2001? Multiple other reports from a wide variety of sources—ranging back years—flatly stated, in one version or another, that bin Laden has long been dead.
AFP has diligently chronicled such reports that largely seem to have been missed or otherwise suppressed by the elite media in the United States.
Even more incredibly, White House officials described how (according to their version of events) the first intelligence threads pointing to bin Laden’s Pakistani locale arrived in August 2010. Still, he purportedly wasn’t killed for another eight months. How many people can go that long without paying parking tickets, let alone when you are the most wanted man in the world?
Bin Laden’s supposed homicide arrived at a time when Obama’s popularity had plummeted to a dangerously low point. Tycoon Donald Trump hammered him for a month straight with allegations concerning his birth certificate while also calling Obama “the worst president ever.”
Amid this onslaught, Obama teetered, appearing weak as gas prices skyrocketed, the economy sputtered and the war against Libya faced ruin.
NATO’s April 30 assassination attempt on Muammar Qadaffi had backfired, with the Libyan president’s son and three grandchildren killed as “collateral damage.” Global reaction was mounting to the point of outrage as it became clear that the U.S.—under the guise of NATO —violated international law by trying to murder a foreign leader. Obama, like his predecessors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was soon to be labeled a war criminal.
But then, just one day later, bin Laden was reported dead and Obama was hailed as a heroic “dragon slayer.” Is it of any symbolic significance that this announcement came on May 1, the communist International Workers Day?
At any rate, celebrations soon ensued outside the White House as the jubilant and gullible sang God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. While addressing the nation, Obama took credit for the operation, boasting, “I directed Leon Panetta, CIA director, to make the capture of Osama bin Laden our No. 1 priority. . . . I authorized the operation to get bin Laden . . . it came at my direction.”
Obama’s popularity numbers will rise, and GOP criticism of him will be more difficult for a while.
However, th e question arises: Why didn’t Republican George W. Bush and his cronies pull off a similar ploy and stake their claim by killing bin Laden?
Those who believe that the world and American political affairs are actually far more stagemanaged than meets the eye—that much of the partisan conflict we see is actually political theater—provide this answer:
If Bush had made good on his threat of getting bin Laden “dead or alive,” he’d have emerged victorious in his war on terror and Obama’s selection as president would have been more difficult. The powersthatbe needed Bush’s tenure to end on a disastrous note so that the doors could be opened for Obama’s “hope and change.”
So, with Obama’s favorability ratings tanking and a power struggle in Washington threatening to reveal many scandalous aspects of his past, the president’s handlers countered by pulling the ultimate tru mp card—the head of bin Laden.
Of course, the neoconservatives who manage U.S. foreign policy couldn’t blow the whistle on this ruse because, after all, they were the first ones to use bin Laden as a patsy after their falseflag attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
In all, the rewards for Obama are obvious. Often criticized as being unAmerican and tepid on foreign affairs, he now boasted about
“the greatness of our country” during his latenight address to the nation.
On a larger scale, even the military machine—mired in a disastrous Afghan war for nearly a decade—may emerge on a positive note.
Despite squandering over $400 billion battling Afghan tribes, Gen. David Petraeus is being hailed as a hero for commandeering the drone attacks on Pakistan. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s message will clearly be: Our efforts weren’t in vain, because we got bin Laden.
In t he second line of Obama’s May 1 address, the president reiterated that al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 911 and only through “the tireless and heroic work of our military” was the U.S. able to combat global terrorism.
afp.net
The compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan (75 miles north of Islamabad), where Osama bin Laden supposedly met his demise on May 1 at the hands of a highly sensitive U.S. ground operation was eight times larger than any other building in the area. Built in 2005, these headquarters, described as “a highly unusual structure,” were well guarded and extremely secure
Didn’t anyone in our military or intelligence community—for six long years—question the purpose of this fortress or the identity of its occupants? A $25 million reward lingered over bin Laden’s head, yet not a single person revealed the whereabouts of the world’s most famous terrorist?
With the NSA’s technological capabilities, not to mention the precision of Google Earth, was no one in our multibilliondollar spook industry capable of locating a Muslim who stands six feet four inches and drags around a dialysis machine?
Only moments after Barack Obama announced the death of this Orwellian perpetual enemy, former national security advisor Stephen Hadley proclaimed, “Osama bin Laden was hiding in clear view.”
Was Hadley’s statement accurate, or is it a bit inconvenient to mention that the Egyptian newspaper alWafd ran a funeral announcement for bin Laden on Dec. 26, 2001? Multiple other reports from a wide variety of sources—ranging back years—flatly stated, in one version or another, that bin Laden has long been dead.
AFP has diligently chronicled such reports that largely seem to have been missed or otherwise suppressed by the elite media in the United States.
Even more incredibly, White House officials described how (according to their version of events) the first intelligence threads pointing to bin Laden’s Pakistani locale arrived in August 2010. Still, he purportedly wasn’t killed for another eight months. How many people can go that long without paying parking tickets, let alone when you are the most wanted man in the world?
Bin Laden’s supposed homicide arrived at a time when Obama’s popularity had plummeted to a dangerously low point. Tycoon Donald Trump hammered him for a month straight with allegations concerning his birth certificate while also calling Obama “the worst president ever.”
Amid this onslaught, Obama teetered, appearing weak as gas prices skyrocketed, the economy sputtered and the war against Libya faced ruin.
NATO’s April 30 assassination attempt on Muammar Qadaffi had backfired, with the Libyan president’s son and three grandchildren killed as “collateral damage.” Global reaction was mounting to the point of outrage as it became clear that the U.S.—under the guise of NATO —violated international law by trying to murder a foreign leader. Obama, like his predecessors George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, was soon to be labeled a war criminal.
But then, just one day later, bin Laden was reported dead and Obama was hailed as a heroic “dragon slayer.” Is it of any symbolic significance that this announcement came on May 1, the communist International Workers Day?
At any rate, celebrations soon ensued outside the White House as the jubilant and gullible sang God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. While addressing the nation, Obama took credit for the operation, boasting, “I directed Leon Panetta, CIA director, to make the capture of Osama bin Laden our No. 1 priority. . . . I authorized the operation to get bin Laden . . . it came at my direction.”
Obama’s popularity numbers will rise, and GOP criticism of him will be more difficult for a while.
However, th e question arises: Why didn’t Republican George W. Bush and his cronies pull off a similar ploy and stake their claim by killing bin Laden?
Those who believe that the world and American political affairs are actually far more stagemanaged than meets the eye—that much of the partisan conflict we see is actually political theater—provide this answer:
If Bush had made good on his threat of getting bin Laden “dead or alive,” he’d have emerged victorious in his war on terror and Obama’s selection as president would have been more difficult. The powersthatbe needed Bush’s tenure to end on a disastrous note so that the doors could be opened for Obama’s “hope and change.”
So, with Obama’s favorability ratings tanking and a power struggle in Washington threatening to reveal many scandalous aspects of his past, the president’s handlers countered by pulling the ultimate tru mp card—the head of bin Laden.
Of course, the neoconservatives who manage U.S. foreign policy couldn’t blow the whistle on this ruse because, after all, they were the first ones to use bin Laden as a patsy after their falseflag attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
In all, the rewards for Obama are obvious. Often criticized as being unAmerican and tepid on foreign affairs, he now boasted about
“the greatness of our country” during his latenight address to the nation.
On a larger scale, even the military machine—mired in a disastrous Afghan war for nearly a decade—may emerge on a positive note.
Despite squandering over $400 billion battling Afghan tribes, Gen. David Petraeus is being hailed as a hero for commandeering the drone attacks on Pakistan. Moreover, the Department of Defense’s message will clearly be: Our efforts weren’t in vain, because we got bin Laden.
In t he second line of Obama’s May 1 address, the president reiterated that al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 911 and only through “the tireless and heroic work of our military” was the U.S. able to combat global terrorism.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Inside Sources: Bin Laden’s Corpse Has Been On Ice For Nearly a Decade
By Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
A multitude of different inside sources both publicly and privately, including one individual who personally worked with Bin Laden at one time, told us directly that Osama’s dead corpse has been on ice for nearly a decade and that his “death” would only be announced at the most politically expedient time.
That time has now come with a years-old fake picture being presented as the only evidence of his alleged killing yesterday, while Bin Laden’s body has been hastily dumped into the sea to prevent anyone from finding out when he actually died.
In April 2002, over nine years ago, Council on Foreign Relations member Steve R. Pieczenik, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, and James Baker, told the Alex Jones Show that Bin Laden had already been “dead for months”.
Pieczenik would be in a position to know such information, having worked directly with Bin Laden when the US was funding and arming the terror leader in an attempt to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan in the late 70′s and early 80′s (a documented historical fact that talking heads in the corporate media are actually denying today in light of developments).
“I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying,” Pieczenik told Jones during the April 24, 2002 interview.
“And you could see those in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months,” added Pieczenik.
Pieczenik then stated that the video tape of a fat Bin Laden look alike “taking responsibility” for 9/11 that was released in December 2001 was “such a hoax” designed to “manipulate” people in the emotional aftermath of 9/11. The subsequent war in Afghanistan that followed 9/11 was orchestrated “With the agreement of the bin Laden family, knowing fully well that he would die,” said Pieczenik. “And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan.”
In addition to Pieczenik, as we reported in August 2002, Alex Jones was separately told by a high level Republican source that Bin Laden was dead and that his body was being kept “on ice” until Osama’s death could be announced at the most “politically expedient” time.
Continue reading here.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
