Washington, USA - Ron Paul warns of social unrest and martial law heading to the United States.

The dollar is about to crash warns Ron Paul, he says that the way the US is going will create social unrest which will then “force” the government to protect the citizens. If government does not protect it’s citizens then they will claim social unrest will grow, this will then in fact create martial law.

“We are rapidly moving to a dangerous time in our history”.

Check out the video. [see above]

From Fromtheold.com 2-8-2010

8 FEBRUARY 2010

by Pino Cabras*

Many are the inconsistencies concerning Flight AA77 which allegedly struck the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. on September 11, 2001. We will not enumerate them here; other articles on this site already provide a detailed list of them. But new elements have recently emerged, resulting from investigations carried out by independent journalists. We reproduce below an extract from Strategie per una guerra mondiale, a book by Pino Cabras. It brings to light the inordinate proportion of passengers on board Flight 77 who had ties with the military sector and who were officially reported dead on September 11, 2001 at the Pentagon.

The Voltaire Network article dealing with the cockpit door of Flight 77 [1] - which revealed disturbing details, little if at all examined by the official investigations, but which call for a closer look even by non-official investigations - had already drawn our attention to a certain number of the anomalies linked to that terrible day. The baffling profile of Charles F. Burlingame is but one anomaly. On board Flight 77 there was a high density of passengers who worked at classified positions in the Defense sector: between 16 and 21 persons out of a total of 58 passengers.

The majority were aerospace engineers. One of them, Mr. Yamnicky, who worked in that capacity for the Veridian Corp., was a longtime CIA operative. Another passenger on the list, Mr. Caswell, led a team of about one hundred scientists for the US Navy. Others worked for Boeing and Raytheon in El Segundo, California, on a project dubbed Black Hawk.

We present here some information regarding these noteworthy Flight 77 passengers, who belong to the lists which were obtained by scanning the obituary columns on the Web or in newspaper articles published in the days following the attacks.

1. John D. Yamnicky Sr., 71, from Waldorf (Maryland), was on a business trip on American Airlines Flight 77. He was a retired naval aviator, who retired as Captain in 1979 when he joined Veridian Corp., a Virginia-based military contractor, where he worked on fighter aircraft and air-to-air missile programmes. His son, John Yamnicky, said his father worked on the development of the F/A-18 fighter jet. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1952, John Yamnicky Sr. became a Navy test pilot, flying an A-4 attack plane and would sometimes tell stories of his travels and Navy service in Korea and Vietnam. “He crash-landed five times and walked away from them each,” said Cindy Sharpley, a friend of the family. “But not this last one.” (AP, 2001)
He graduated from the Navy Test Pilot School at Patuxent River in 1960 and also obtained a Master’s Degree in international relations from George Washington University in 1966. He was promoted to Captain in 1971; he spent years on bases and aircraft carriers, first as a naval aviator, then as director of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland and finally as a manager of various aircraft and weapons programmes for the Department of Defense.

2. William E. Caswell, born in Boston (Massachusetts) in 1947, was a third-generation physicist whose work at the Navy was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. They don’t even know exactly why he was headed to Los Angeles on the doomed American Airlines Flight 77. “It was a trip he often took,” said his mother, Jean Caswell. “We never knew what he was doing there because he couldn’t say. You just learn not to ask questions.” [2]
In a Princeton University publication, his thesis director stated that, in the 80’s, when he learned that the US Navy was looking for a scientific expert for a classified project involving advanced technology, he submitted Bill Caswell’s name. «I didn’t take part in his daily work, although on all counts it was still related to his thesis : in no time he climbed to a top post to head a team of more than one hundred researchers in one of the most exacting branches of the US Navy.» His technical and managerial skills were appreciated by all his colleagues and earned him the highest rewards and distinctions from the U.S. Navy. In a twist of fate, it was precisely for this project that he was travelling on Flight AA77 and ultimately perished in the crash.

3. and 4. Wilson Falor “Bud” Flagg, 63, born in Millwood (Virginia), was a Rear Admiral in the US Navy and a pilot for American Airlines until his retirement. He was one of the three admirals censored by the US Navy in the context of the Tailhook conference scandal in 1991, relating to acts of sexual violence. His wife Darleen, also 63, died in the crash with him.
The Tailhook incident effectively ended his further advancement and prompted him to leave the Navy to join American Airlines. According to his nephew Ray Sellek, Flagg continued to pay frequent visits to the Pentagon to provide technical advice, and even had an office there.

5. Stanley Hall, 68, was from Rancho Palos Verde (California). He was director of programme management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. “He was our dean of electronic warfare”, explained one his colleagues at Raytheon, a Defense Department supplier. Hall had developed and fine-tuned antiradar technologies. He was a sober and competent man, somewhat of a paternal figure. «Many of our young engineers considered him their mentor», declared Raytheon’s spokesperson Ron Colman.

6. Bryan C. Jack, 48, from Alexandria (Virginia), was responsible for crunching America’s defense budget. He headed the Pentagon’s programming and fiscal economics division. He was on his way to California to teach a course at the Naval Postgraduate School. His colleagues said he was a brilliant mathematician and top budget analyst. He had worked at the Pentagon for 23 years.
Jack had married artist Barbara Rachko in June 2001. She worked all week in her New York studio and they would only see each other on weekends, either at their Alexandria house or at their New York appartment. Barbara Rachko is a licensed commercial pilot and worked seven years as a naval officer. She was no longer on active duty but still served as US Navy reserve commander.

7. Keller, Chandler ‘Chad’ Raymond. Chad was born in Manhattan Beach (California) on October 8, 1971. He was an eminent engineer specialized in propulsion technologies and project manager at Boeing Satellite Systems. [3]

8. Dong Lee, 48, from Leesburg (Virginia), worked for Boeing Co. as an engineer.

9. Ruben Ornedo, 39, from Los Angeles (California), was a propulsion engineer at the Boeing Comany in El Segundo (California).

10. Robert Penninger, 63, from Poway (California), worked as an electrical engineer for BAE systems, a Defense Department supplier.

11. and 12. Robert R. Ploger III, 59, from Annandale (Virginia), was a software architect at Lockheed Martin Corp., and his wife Zandra Cooper.

13. John Sammartino, 37, from Annandale (Virginia), was technical manager at XonTech Inc. in Arlington (Virginia), a research and development firm linked to the military sector and specialized in defense missiles and sensor technologies. It was bought in 2003 by Northrop Grumman, another company that produces for the military. The holder of an AA Platinum card, Sammartino was an assiduous traveller and was headed for Los Angeles to attend a conference at the Van Nuys company, together with his colleage Leonard Taylor. After graduating from University, Sammartino had been hired as an engineer by the Naval Research Lab ; he had worked for XonTech Inc. for 11 years.

14. Leonard Taylor, 44, was technical group manager at XonTech Inc. He was born in Pasadena (California) and lived in Reston (Virginia). He graduated from Andover High Scool in 1975 and from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in 1979. [4]

15. Vicky Yancey, 43, from Springfield (Virginia), was going to attend a business meeting in Reno, but hadn’t planned to be on Flight AA77. Yancey, a former naval electronics technician, worked for the Vredenburg company, a Defense Department supplier. She had intended to leave Washington earlier but her departure was delayed due to a ticket problem, as her husband explained to the Washington Post. She called her husband ten minutes after boarding to let him know that she had finally managed to get a seat on the flight. [5]

16. Charles F. Burlingame III, 52, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1971 ; he was flight commander of AA Flight 77. Burlingame was a naval reserve officer and had even worked in the Pentagon wing that was struck by the plane [according to the official version, Note by the editor].

17. Barbara K. Olson, 45, was a conservative lawyer and commentator. She was known to television viewers as a self-assured, politically active journalist who represented the conservative mindset. In the Washington social and political landscape, she and her husband, Theodore B. Olson, formed a very influential couple. Theodore Olson was a high-profile lawyer who had successfully defended George W. Bush’s disputed Florida election before the Supreme Court. President Bush named Olson to the post of US Attorney General, entrusting him with the responsibility of shaping the Administration’s strategy vis-à-vis US courts.
The story of the telephone call is indeed very odd. Mr. Olson claimed that while he was in his office at the Department of Justice on Tuesday morning, he received a call from his wife allegedly made from a cell phone on board flight AA77 to tell him that the plane had been hijacked. This version was reprobated considering that it was impossible to use a cell phone from a plane. In a subsequent, modified version Barbara Olson was supposed to have used a passenger seat-phone. But as reported in another Voltaire Networkarticle, there is no record of any such call.
Married for 4 years, the Olsons were perfectly complementary in terms of style. As a television commentator, she was the more outspoken of the two, while he kept a low profile in consonance with his role as a constitutional lawyer in charge of the Republican establishment.
Barbara Olson was one of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s most relentless critics, against whom she conducted merciless investigations. Among other things, she wrote a book titled Hell to Pay (Regnery 1999), in which she disparages Hillary Clinton, followed by another one titled Final Days (Regnery, 2001), which was published posthumously. [6]

18. Karen Kincaid, 40, from Wahington D.C. A native of Iowa, she was a lawyer with the Washington firm of Wiley Rein & Fielding, specializing in communications legislation. She was on her way to Los Angeles to attend a conference on the wireless communications industry. With her husband of five years, Peter Batacan, also a lawyer working for another firm, Kincaid was training to take part in the upcoming Marine Corps Marathon scheduled for October 28.
Wiley Rein & Fielding is a powerful legal outift working for the Republican camp, that was involved in the vast legal action that helped Bush and Cheney overcome the controversial period of the post-2000 elections and which constituted an essential tool for the defense of «white collar» criminal cases.

19. Steven ‘Jake’ Jacoby, 43, was a vice president and chief operating officer of a paging and wireless messaging service called Metrocall Inc., based in Alexandria (Virginia), which ranks as the second largest paging company in the United States. « The fact that Metrocall’s technical operating network continued to function and provide critical communications during this horrific event was a tribute to Jake”, said Co-worker Vice Kelly, Chief Financial Officer. In his last positon, Jacoby supervised the development of a multiple-frequency wireless messaging system for emergency worker and medical field use. It was Metrocall that supplied the equipment used by emergency responders who were on the scene in New York and Washington on 9/11 …

It should be pointed out that the same disproportionate number of passengers with military connections can also be observed in respect of the other 9/11 flights.

Three Raytheon employees were on flight AA11 that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Raytheon is one of the principal defense suppliers, and a pillar of the Global Hawk remote control technologies, highly cherished by the Pentagon. Among the various hypotheses which are impossible to prove, but which are nevertheless technically plausible and worthy of a deeper investigation, is the one concerning remote controlled aircraft.

There are a number of disturbing features about Raytheon. A USA Today article published in October 2001 announced that in August 2001 Raytheon had executed, six times over, a perfectly smooth test landing in a New Mexico air base involving an unpiloted Boeing 727 belonging to Fedex.

The system emitted radio signals from the end of the runway which were transmitted to the plane. The ground electronic devices coordinated their location through GPS. No pilot could intervene during the moneuvre. We’ll say it again : this is a technology which was fully operational and readily available in August 2001, one month before the fateful attacks.

Already at the beginning of 2001, a special plane linked to the Global Hawk programme had crossed the Pacific Ocean, from the USA to Australia, with no one on board.

As we have just seen, the main actors involved in these programmes as well as other aerospace experts were officially declared dead on September 11, 2001.

One of the objections often raised against the likelihood of an internal conspiracy hatched by the US institutions and intelligence apparatus is the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of keeping such a secret when so many plotters and executors were involved. The architects of the tragedy we witnessed on 9/11 are in any case ruthless enough to also sacrifice those who might have blown the whistle, mixing them with the other victims. The remains of the victims were handled entirely by the military. It is therefore difficult to tell how and where the passengers died.

For the moment, this is merely a research hypothesis.

Pino Cabras Italian journalist and Director of the alternative information site Megachip. His most recently published book is Strategie per una guerra mondiale. Dall’11 settembre al delitto Bhutto (Aisara, 2008). This author’s articles To send a message

Additional remarks by Thierry Meyssan When I was in Tehran in September 2002, I had the opportunity to discuss in depth the events of September 11 with Hussein Shariatmadari, Director of the Kheyan press agency and spokesperson for the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution. It was my first encounter with someone who had such a detailed knowledge of the events. We continued our discussion until late in the day. On this occasion, he shared with me the investigative findings of his associates. They had pursued the same hypothesis as the one advanced by Pino Cabras, but with far greater means at their disposal. They had constituted biographical profiles for each of the passengers on all four planes. Their findings showed that 75% of the passengers had connections with the Pentagon, not only on flight AA77 but also on all the other flights. [1] September 11, 2001: Flight AA77 could not have been hijacked!, Voltaire Network, 30 November 2009. [2] Excerpt from a Chicago Tribune article, September 16, 2001. [3] Source: Los Angeles Times, September 21, 2001. [4] Source: Globe Star, September 27, 2001. [5] Source: Chicago Tribune. [6] Source: New York Times obituary, September 13, 2001.			READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE ]]> http://noliesradio.org/archives/12092/feed http://noliesradio.org/archives/12085 http://noliesradio.org/archives/12085#comments Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:38:18 +0000 noliesradio http://noliesradio.org/?p=12085
Global Research, February 8, 2010
World Socialist Web Site - 2010-02-06

As US and British troops prepare to attack the town of Marjah in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province, military commanders and the media are openly comparing the operation to the November 2004 siege of Fallujah, one of the bloodiest war crimes of the Iraq war.

The operation in central Helmand province, long an area of intense resistance to the US-led occupation, will constitute the largest military offensive since Washington invaded the country in October 2001. At least 15,000 troops are expected to lay siege to the Helmand river valley town, which has 80,000 inhabitants and is said by the US military to be a stronghold of the Taliban.

A total of 125,000 people live in the district around Marjah, which is an agricultural center 350 miles west of Kabul. The population has been swelled by Afghans fleeing villages occupied by US Marines last summer, following President Barack Obama’s order shortly after he took office to send 21,000 more troops into Afghanistan.

US Marines, frustrated and enraged over casualties suffered at the hands of an unseen enemy who is able to attack and then blend back into the local population, will be unleashed against the town in a violent military assault, with predictable results.

Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, commander of the US Marines in southern Afghanistan, spelled out the character of the upcoming offensive. Those found in Marjah would have three options. “One is to stay and fight and probably die,” he said. “The second one is to make peace with his government and reintegrate.” The third would be to attempt to escape, “In which case we’ll probably have some people out there waiting on them as well.”

“We’re going to go in big,” said Nicholson, commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade. “I’m not looking for a fair fight,” he added.

In a highly unusual move, the US command has publicly announced plans for the offensive. “It’s a little unconventional to do it this way, but it gives everybody a chance to think through what they’re going to do before suddenly in the dark of night they’re hit with an offensive,” said General Stanley McChrystal, the senior US commander in Afghanistan.

The stated intention of revealing the target of the upcoming offensive is to allow civilians to flee before the Marines move in. It also provides a preemptive alibi for the US offensive by painting those who fail to heed the warning as die-hard Taliban who deserve to be killed.

Stratfor, a military-intelligence web site with close ties to the US state apparatus, reported Thursday that “the assault is likely to include the cordoning off of the area, so many of the fighters dedicated to its defense will probably be forced to fight to the death or surrender.”

The article continued: “With assaults on Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq under their belts, the Marines are experienced with this sort of urban assault.”

What is the record of urban assaults of “this sort”?

The Marine assault on Fallujah in November 2004 reduced most of the city of 300,000 people to rubble, as warplanes dropped thousands of tons of explosives and helicopter gunships and battle tanks fired missiles into buildings and strafed the area with cannon fire.

The US military command claimed to have killed 2,000 “insurgents,” but the real death toll remains unknown. Civilians who remained in the town were subjected to the same bombardment. Some were shot to death during the door-to-door raids that followed, and others were killed while fleeing. Wounded fighters were summarily executed, and medical facilities were targeted for military attack. All those in the city were denied food, water and electricity for more than 10 days.

The operation was a vicious exercise in collective punishment against the population of Fallujah for the killing there of four Blackwater mercenaries and the city’s protracted resistance to foreign occupation. It embodied the criminality of the entire war and was characterized by multiple and gross violations of the laws of war.

If American military commanders are to be believed, a similar operation is being prepared in Afghanistan, and for similar reasons. The town of Marjah is to be turned into a killing field.

As in Fallujah, vengeance plays a role. US military forces have seen a steady escalation in casualties over the past year, while the CIA suffered a humiliating attack at the end of December that left seven of its operatives dead on the Afghan border.

In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the US military command sees value in making an example of a population center known as a center of resistance to occupation, sending a message to the entire country that such resistance is futile and will be met with slaughter and destruction.

This bloodletting is officially justified in the name of a never-ending struggle against terrorism. Behind the propaganda, the driving force of the war in Afghanistan, like the war in Iraq, is the attempt by America’s ruling elite to counter the crisis of US capitalism through the use of force and the seizure of strategic positions in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, both centers of vast energy reserves.

A year ago, when Barack Obama entered the White House, there existed hope among broad layers of the American people that his inauguration would turn such words as Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, Blackwater, torture and rendition into the lexicon of a dark and shameful, but closed, chapter in US history.

The preparation of the Marjah offensive only underscores that, far from being ended, the crimes of the Bush administration are continuing and escalating under the Democratic president.

Today there are more US troops deployed abroad in colonial-style wars and occupations than under Bush, and the killing has spread from Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan and Yemen. The Obama administration is seeking $322 billion for the two ongoing wars and occupations, a figure that will doubtless be swelled by further demands for “supplemental” funding.

The supposed candidate of “hope” and “change” has emerged ever more clearly as the hand-picked agent of sections of the political establishment and military-intelligence complex that wanted to effect certain tactical changes in policy, while continuing to employ militarism abroad and wage a relentless assault on the working class at home.

American working people cannot accept a new round of war crimes carried out in their name. The demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and other foreign troops from Afghanistan must be joined with a political offensive against the Obama administration and the financial oligarchy that it defends.

© Copyright Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site, 2010

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

LordMoncktonTourAust
Source www.youtube.com
February 03, 2010

Part 1 of 2 - Highlights of Lord Christopher Monckton’s Melbourne Presentation at the Sofitel Melbourne. Recorded 1st February 2010.

Dahr Jamail

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: The U.S. Army)t r u t h o u t, February 6, 2010 On December 27, in the eastern Kunar region of Afghanistan, ten Afghans, eight of whom were schoolchildren, were dragged from their beds and shot by US forces during a nighttime raid. Afghan government investigators said the eight students were aged from 11 to 17 years. This incident is but one example of countless atrocities US military personnel have carried out in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, US military personnel torturing detainees in Abu Ghraib, Iraqi civilians suffering the violence meted out by US forces, or US forces detaining schoolchildren in Baghdad, the list of atrocities is seemingly endless.Dr. Stjepan Mestrovic, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M University, has written three books on US misconduct in Iraq: “The Trials of Abu Ghraib: An Expert Witness Account of Shame and Honor,” “Rules of Engagement?: Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq,” and “The ‘Good Soldier’ on Trial: A Sociological Study of Misconduct by the US Military Pertaining to Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq.” He has three degrees from Harvard University, including a Master’s degree in clinical psychology, and has been an expert witness in psychology and sociology at several Article 32 hearings, courts-martial, and clemency hearings involving US soldiers accused of committing crimes of war in Iraq, including the trials of prison guards involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Dr. Mestrovic’s books meticulously document how the US Army, as an institution, has become dysfunctional, and how illegal rules of engagement (ROE) are issued by officers and politicians at the top of the Army’s hierarchy, but only low-ranking soldiers are punished for carrying out those same rules and orders. As an example, in one of the several hearings Dr. Mestrovic has attended as an expert witness, US soldiers openly admitted they had shot a 75-year-old man who had emerged unarmed from his house, but because the soldiers were following the rule to shoot all “military aged males,” neither they nor their officers were charged for that death. Truthout recently conducted an extended two-part interview with Dr. Mestrovic. Truthout: Can you describe the process that occurs within the US military that leads to a mindset that allows atrocities to occur? How is it that soldiers commit atrocities like murdering an unarmed 75-year-old Iraqi man? Dr. Mestrovic: This mindset is rooted in American history and might be peculiar to it. By way of metaphor, it might be characterized by a line from a You Tube video, “Startrekking Across the Universe,” wherein the fictional Captain Kirk says: “We come in peace, shoot to kill.” In the classic work, “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville captured this seeming contradiction in American “habits of the heart” with regard to Native Americans, slaves and all those deemed as “other.” Tocqueville points out that unlike the Spaniards, English or French conquerors, the Americans went out of their way to pass laws and enact treaties to justify their mistreatment of others. So, for example, slavery was considered immoral, but was legal. Similarly, extermination of the Indians was immoral, but the government signed treaties before it broke them. So-called “witches” were executed only after they were given trials and assigned lawyers. And so on. It seems that Tocqueville captured an important aspect of American culture that continues to this day. Fast-forwarding to World War II, the US engaged in numerous acts that some historians and lawyers believe could have been called war crimes had the US lost that war. Examples include the firebombing of German and Japanese cities, and of course, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fast-forwarding further to the Vietnam War, the US established policies of “search and destroy” missions in “free-fire” zones. The important point is that these acts were justified by all sorts of legal jargon about “status-based” targets (which apparently means that the target is considered “hostile” simply by existing, and therefore constitutes a potential threat). This sort of legalizing of acts that otherwise might be considered atrocities has continued in the current, long war on terror. For example, it is no secret that John Yoo and other White House lawyers went out of their way to make torture seem lawful. In this and other acts, the government continues to behave in the manner described by Tocqueville. Focusing directly on the incident in question, there is no doubt that the Army regarded the killing of the unarmed Iraqi man as lawful. The ROE for that mission was to kill every military-aged Iraqi male on sight, and that is what the soldiers did. The victim was pre-designated as a “status-based” and “hostile” target based upon existing American military law. Some may regard the killing of the man as murder, because he was unarmed and did not show any signs of hostile intent. None of that matters from the point of view of the mindset we are discussing here. In fact, all the military as well as civilian attorneys with whom I have spoken agree that had the soldiers carried out their ROE that day and killed on sight all the Iraqi males they encountered that day, no charges would have been pressed against any of them. Their “mistake,” from the mindset being discussed here, is that they showed mercy and took some of the Iraqis as prisoners, and then killed them. From their point of view, they were still carrying out the original ROE by killing the prisoners. In fact, they were told not to take any prisoners. But from the legal standpoint of the American cultural mindset, there are legal rules for treating and killing prisoners, which are different from killing “status-based” or pre-designated targets. It would take us too far astray to discuss the further contradictions in American lawspeak. The more important point is that legal scholars and lawyers in the courtroom cannot agree on the terminology that should be used to describe what happened. It is as if it is an event that literally cannot be put into words. I should mention just some of the legal morass. For example, technically and legally, the Iraqi males were not “prisoners” or “prisoners of war” (who have rights under the Geneva Conventions) but were designated as “detainees.” To be sure, there are rules about the treatment of “detainees,” but these are different from the rules pertaining to real “prisoners of war.” No one is entirely certain about the legal status of “detainees.” The overall point is that the mindset which led to this atrocity is that the victims were pre-designated as targets in a lawful manner. But this mindset only raises numerous legal, cultural and moral issues, and does not close the door to them. Truthout: Explain why, through your research, you call the institution of the US Army “dysfunctional?” Dr. Mestrovic: One could start with the observation by Samuel Stouffer in his 1949 classic, “The American Soldier,” which still holds. Namely, Stouffer observed that the US Army, like all armies, is archaic and authoritarian in its structure while its soldiers come from a democratic society. Democracy and authoritarianism do not mix, and lead to dysfunction. Stouffer found that commissioned officers are treated almost like royalty whereas low-ranking soldiers are treated as less than full Americans. I have found numerous, glaring examples of dysfunctions in my research based upon this basic contradiction that was uncovered by Stouffer. For example, I found it shocking that US soldiers at Abu Ghraib slept in jail cells (just like the detainees did) and did not have access to toilets, not even portable toilets. Part of the democratic spirit is that all persons should have equal access to basic human needs. Shocking testimony by the supply officer at the Abu Ghraib trials was that the soldiers at Abu Ghraib did not have access to suitable or sufficient food, water, light or sleep. From Stouffer’s perspective, this state of affairs can be described as positively medieval: the “leisure class” (commissioned officers) looked after its needs and interests, but did not look after the interests of its low-ranking soldiers. So much attention has been paid to the photographs regarding the mistreatment of “detainees” at Abu Ghraib, that hardly anybody has noticed the Army’s mistreatment of its own soldiers during this mission. In fact, I have come across systemic dysfunctions in numerous war crimes cases. Sleep deprivation is a huge problem. Sleep should be considered a necessity like food and water, because chronic sleep deprivation for soldiers leads to errors in judgment, including moral judgment. But soldiers told me that they routinely slept less than four hours per day. Another issue is PTSD. I have come across numerous cases of soldiers who were diagnosed with PTSD who were not treated and who were sent out on combat missions despite this diagnosis. Why aren’t commanders and commissioned officers mindful of the basic, human needs of their soldiers? Part of the answer might be that in a truly democratic society, individuals would protest and demand their rights to basic human needs, including sleep and treatment for PTSD. But the Army is an authoritarian society, so apparently soldiers have no recourse but to obey. These are among the observations that have led me to conclude that the Army is dysfunctional. Truthout: Please give some of examples of this. Dr. Mestrovic: I’ve already given some examples in relation to Stouffer’s observations about the American soldier in combat. Let me give a few more examples with regard to military law. In general, the US soldier gives up many Constitutional rights by joining the Army. The court-martial system is as archaic and authoritarian as the rest of the army structure. Military judges and prosecutors are not the equals of the accused, but are his or her military superiors. That fact alone changes the dynamics of the military legal process. Let me put it this way. It is a cruel irony that alleged terrorists such as KSM who will be tried in civilian US courts will be granted more Constitutional rights than soldiers who are accused in the military court-martial system. Another cruel irony is that several corporate law firms have volunteered their services, pro bono, in defense of alleged terrorists at Guantanamo and elsewhere, in the interests of protecting Constitutional rights. But to my knowledge, not a single corporate law firm has volunteered to defend the Constitutional rights of US soldiers. Most people do not think about the huge discrepancy between the democratic structure of American society versus the authoritarian structure of the American military. I should end with a quote from a soldier interviewed by Stouffer: “We just want to be treated like Americans again.” I believe Stouffer’s observation still applies. (To be continued in Part 2.)

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Stop Nato, February 6, 2010

When Romanian President Traian Basescu disclosed on February 4 that his nation’s Supreme Defense Council had “approved a U.S. proposal that Romania takes part in the anti-rocket shield system” and that “Terrestrial interceptors will be located inside the national territory,” [1] many readers may have been taken by surprise.

They need not have been, though, as the expansion of the U.S. global, layered, integrated interceptor missile system into the Black Sea was as foreseeable as it is inevitable.

Previous articles in this series forecast just such an eventuality. Just that certainty. [2]

Later on the 4th when a better translation of Basescu’s comments was available, the New York Times confirmed that the Romanian head of state pledged that his nation “was prepared to negotiate with the United States to accept ground-based interceptors as part of an antiballistic missile defense system. He said it could be working by 2015.”

Basescu added that “the proposal accepted by the Supreme Defense Council came from President Obama, whose under secretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen O. Tauscher, was in Romania.” [3]

That he stipulated the year 2015 and mentioned the State Department’s Tauscher are both significant facts. Tauscher signed the agreement with Polish Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski last December to deploy American mid-range interceptor missiles and troops to the Eastern European nation. Two weeks ago Komorowski’s ministry announced that U.S. Patriot missiles and troops would be stationed at a Baltic Sea site only 35 miles from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave.

Russia was no more pleased with that news than about U.S. ground-based missiles being stationed in Romania, as will be seen later.

Keeping in mind Tauscher’s longstanding role in promoting American interceptor missile plans in Europe, which will be examined in detail further on, the State Department nonetheless formally describes her role as Senior Adviser to the President and the Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament.

Last year, two days after President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on the same day, September 17, that the U.S. was abandoning plans to station ten ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and transfer a modified X-band missile radar from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean to the Czech Republic, Gates described in the New York Times the alternative project, what Obama characterized as a “stronger, swifter, and smarter” missile shield program far broader in scope and intent than his predecessor’s.

Gates wrote of a three-phase plan that would begin with “proven, sea-based SM-3 [Standard Missile-3] interceptor missiles – weapons that are growing in capability,” then be followed by a “second phase, which will become operational around 2015? and “involve putting upgraded SM-3s on the ground in Southern and Central Europe. All told, every phase of this plan will include scores of SM-3 missiles, as opposed to the old plan of just 10 ground-based interceptors….” [4]

While deploying scores – 40, 60, 80, 100? – of SM-3 interceptor missiles adapted for ground deployment in both the south and east of Europe (by Central Europe read Eastern Europe), “our military will continue research and development on a two-stage ground-based interceptor, the kind that was planned to be put in Poland, as a back-up,” Gates added. [5]

The White House and the Pentagon had not retreated an inch on plans to establish an impenetrable missile shield along Russia’s western borders, one that could potentially threaten the nation’s strategic forces and disable its ability to retaliate and so credibly maintain a deterrence capability. In fact, as Gates explicitly stated, plans for ten ground-based midcourse missiles in Poland are to be superseded by several times more SM-3 and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 [PAC-3] anti-ballistic missiles as well as a proposed 50,000-pound mobile missile launcher [6] and ground-based missiles in the final analysis anyway.

Shortly after the official shift in U.S. interceptor plans in Europe – and beyond into the Caucasus, the Middle East and even further – Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher put to rest hopes that even the Polish and Czech locations would be left out of wider-ranging plans. At a symposium hosted by the pro-NATO Atlantic Council, one also addressed by the head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, Tauscher delivered a speech which the Washington Post commented on as follows:

“The undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, Ellen Tauscher…said discussions are already underway with Poland to base missiles there, and talks have begun with the Czech Republic about making it the headquarters for command and control elements associated with the system.

“Tauscher said European allies, who were initially troubled by the hasty announcement canceling the George W. Bush-era system, have come to support the Obama administration’s plan, which would permit earlier deployment and provide wider coverage than the earlier one.”

She was quoted saying “Remember, this is a NATO-wide European missile defense system as opposed to a bilateral missile defense system” and paraphrased vowing “there would be additional opportunities for allied countries to participate in missile defense.

“Another land-based radar system, which was also part of the Bush plan, for example, will need to be located in southeastern Europe.” [7]

Not only missile radar but missiles themselves will be based in Southeastern Europe, substantially south of Poland and east of the Czech Republic.

As the last head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, told a Pentagon gathering two years ago, “A powerful, ‘forward based’ X-band radar station could go in southeastern Europe, possibly in Turkey, the Caucasus or the Caspian Sea region.” [8]

There is nothing new and nothing unsurprising about the announcement that American interceptor missiles are headed to Romania.

As for Tauscher, there is no discontinuity with her work, either.

She came to her current position in the State Department from that of chairperson of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee in the U.S. Congress.

During that tenure she was a consistently determined promoter of interceptor missile development and deployment.

A brief chronology from the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency will document the unimpeded continuation of her efforts from the Bush to the Obama administrations.

On missiles in Poland:

“I would feel better if this were a NATO framework we were operating in.” [9]

On global missile shield plans and space war:

“Rejecting the recommendations of a sub-committee, Representatives Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) and John Larson (D-CT) restored $150 million to Pentagon ‘boost phase’ missile defense programs, $48 million for future missile defense systems, including space sensors, $12 million more for sea-based sensors and language to allow $160 million for a highly controversial European missile defense site.” [10]

On expanding Bush’s missile plans to encompass all of Europe:

“This is a crucial element for the US Congress. US missile defense must protect all NATO territories and be fully interoperable with the NATO system. We want more clarity about how these two systems can work together”. [11]

While in the Czech Republic:

“The missile defence system must be fully incorporated in NATO and it must protect Europe and the United States, U.S. Democrat Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher told a press conference today….Tauscher also said that the radar base could not operate without the missile base in Poland.

“She added that the anti-missile system to be stationed in the Czech Republic and Poland is to be connected with another system defending against other type of missiles. ‘We are looking for a system of systems,’ she said.” [12]

Back in Washington:

“House Armed Services strategic forces chair Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) told reporters Nov. 8 that final congressional defense authorization language for fiscal 2008 should hew to her subcommittee’s drive to ‘NATO-ize’ U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMDS) system efforts based in Europe.

“Speaking to defense writers in Washington, Tauscher said she would like to see U.S. ground-based midcourse defense (GBMD) elements there [Europe] – like a proposed radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptors for facilities in Poland – become the ‘long-range’ aspect of a NATO system complimented by European short- and medium-range systems.

“Tauscher specifically named NATO’s Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALT-BMD) program – which could include the PAC-3, THAAD [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense], and Aegis BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] systems….” [13]

In March of 2009, shortly before assuming her State Department post – for promoting arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament, recall – she remained an avid proponent of missile deployments in Europe and stated “We need to move in a NATOized way. Eventually we will develop a short- and medium-range system….We can certainly bolt on a long-range system once it has been tested.” [14]

She was back in Prague last November and beforehand said “the command for the managing and control of elements of the new version of anti-missile defence could be stationed in the Czech Republic.” [15]

Tauscher’s project for a more sophisticated, diversified, mobile interceptor system in Europe and its expansion into the Middle East, integrated with all 28 NATO member states and doubtlessly with several key partners, is well on the way to realization. Neither Poland nor the Czech Republic are excluded from the designs; rather the number of nations pulled into Washington’s missile shield network will be increased in number and in geographical range.

The first steps have been taken in the Baltic Sea with U.S. PAC-3 missiles and troops to arrive as early as next month and Aegis class warships with Standard Missile-3 interceptors not far behind. The USS Cole, upgraded to an Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyer, made port calls to the capitals of Estonia and Finland in the Baltic Sea region last November.

Also last year the guided-missile destroyer USS Stout visited the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea “in support of Navy Ballistic Missile Defense,” [16] visiting Israel, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, and Turkey (the last four Black Sea littoral nations) and engaging in maneuvers with the Georgian navy “seen as a show of American support for the former Soviet nation crushed in last year’s war with Russia.” [17]

In the latter half of 2009 the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force-East conducted almost three months of military exercises in Romania and neighboring Bulgaria which included training for U.S. Stryker and airborne units. In October it was reported that the Pentagon will spend $110 million to upgrade two of the seven bases it has acquired in Romania and Bulgaria since 2005; the revamped bases will house over 4,000 U.S. troops.

In October Vice President Joseph Biden was in the Romanian capital on a tour that also took him to Poland and the Czech Republic and met with President Basescu, telling him, “I really appreciate your government’s embrace of the new missile defence architecture we are bringing to Europe. It is a better architecture and has the benefit of protecting you as well as the United States.” [18]

He also reiterated that “Under [NATO's] Article 5, an attack on one is an attack against all,” [19] according to the Pentagon’s website.

At the time of Biden’s Romanian visit a U.S. army official in Romania stated that “an American military base near the Black Sea port of Constanta will become a permanent facility in the spring….” [20]

A Romanian publication ran a column in November of last year that foreshadowed this week’s news concerning U.S. missile shield deployments in the nation. It included a quote that “A strong and modern surveillance system located in Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey could monitor three hot areas at once: the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian and relevant zones in the Middle East.”

By process of elimination it continued, “Turkey is very unlikely to host a land-based SM-3 system, because it would not dare position itself so aggressively against its Iranian neighbour.

“This would make Greece, Bulgaria or Romania contenders – and with Biden making the recent visit to Bucharest as opposed to Sofia or Athens in the context of discussions on security architecture, Romania appears to be a more likely location.”

It continued: “By 2011 the Pentagon will roll out its naval anti-ballistic missile system on cruisers and destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. These ships will be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s Aegis system, containing anti-aircraft and anti-missile radar and weaponry. The ships contain mid to long range SM-3 missiles.”

An extension of the ship-based interceptor missiles into the Black Sea may follow because “The [Romanian] Constanta port and naval facilities, plus Bulgaria with its Burgas port, could be good platforms for a military naval base….” [21]

As an indication of how the bases can be used, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 Agence France-Presse reported that “An air of secrecy surrounds the arrival of thousands of US military personnel at the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta in preparation for a war on Iraq.

“Ten giant Hercules C-130 transport aircraft and four H-53 helicopters can be seen parked at a military airbase adjacent to the local civilian airport.”

A Romanian source was quoted at the time as saying, “We are NATO’s advance post in the east.” [22]

The base in question is the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base north of Constanta, the main headquarters of the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force-East.

Russian Response

When it first became evident that the U.S. was moving into and taking over four military bases in Romania (and three in Bulgaria) for training and deployment for wars in the east, in 2007 then Russian President Vladimir Putin said, “[A] new base in Bulgaria, another in Romania….What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this.” [23]

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed the concern, stating “Russia finds it hard to understand some decisions of NATO like, for example, the deployment of US military facilities in Bulgaria and Romania.” [24]

When Romania’s President Basescu revealed U.S. missile shield plans for his nation on February 4, Lavrov again spoke out and said “We expect the United States to provide an exhaustive explanation, taking into account the fact that the Black Sea regime is regulated by the Montreux Convention,” [25] which prohibits warships of non-Black Sea nations from staying in the Black Sea longer than 21 days and bans the deployment of outside nations’ aircraft carriers.

Dmitry Rogozin, Russian envoy to NATO, was more detailed and more direct in his assessment. “Maybe it’s against Iran, but that same system can be targeted against any other country, including Russia’s strategic nuclear potential. The U.S. is using Iran’s actions to globalize its system of missile defense….Our military shouldn’t believe some promises or intentions. We need to go on the assumption that a foreign military potential is approaching our borders.” [26]

On February 5 the Russian Information Agency Novosti website quoted the editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine, Retired Colonel Igor Korotchenko, who said “Russia must warn Romania that if the elements of the U.S. missile shield are placed in the country they will become a target of Russia’s preventive missile strikes.”

He also warned “that with ship-based SM-3s in the North, Black and Mediterranean seas, and mobile land-based SM-3s in Central Europe the western borders of Russia would be surrounded by U.S. missile interceptors by 2015.” [27]

At the same time Pentagon chief Robert Gates arrived in Turkey for two days of meetings with fellow NATO defense chiefs and it was reported that he would “urge European allies…to inject more funding into NATO with a focus on Afghanistan and priorities such as missile defense….” [28]

On February 5 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev approved his nation’s new military doctrine, which according to Reuters identifies “NATO expansion as a national threat….”

“The doctrine identifies the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe and U.S. plans to create an anti-missile shield in Europe as concerns for national security….” [29]

The two are inextricably connected and unless both are halted U.S. military provocations in the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the South Caucasus may lead to a new European conflagration.

1) Reuters, February 4, 2010
2) U.S. Expands Global Missile Shield Into Middle East, Balkans
Stop NATO, September 11, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/u-s-expands-global-missile-shield-into-middle-east-balkans
Balkans Revisited: U.S., NATO Expand Military Role In Southeastern Europe
Stop NATO, September 14, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/266
U.S. Missile Shield Plans: Retreat Or Advance?
Stop NATO, September 17, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/u-s-missile-shield-plans-retreat-or-advance
Black Sea, Caucasus: U.S. Moves Missile Shield South And East
Stop NATO, September 19, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/283
U.S. Missile Shield System Deployments: Larger, Sooner, Broader
Stop NATO, September 27, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/u-s-missile-shield-system-deployments-larger-sooner-broader
Dangerous Missile Battle In Space Over Europe: Fifth Act In U.S. Missile
Shield Drama
Stop NATO, September 29, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/dangerous-missile-battle-in-space-over-europe-fifth-act-in-u-s-missile-shield-drama
Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bases-for-war-in-the-east
3) New York Times, February 4, 2010
4) New York Times, September 19, 2009
5) Ibid
6) Pentagon Intensifies Plans For Global Military Supremacy: U.S., NATO Could
Deploy Mobile Missiles Launchers To Europe
Stop NATO, August 22, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/pentagon-intensifies-plans-for-global-military-supremacy-u-s-nato-could-deploy-mobile-missiles-launchers-to-europe/
7) Washington Post, October 8, 2009
Turkish Daily News, March 12, 2008
9) Defense News, March 28, 2007
10) Bruce Gagnon, U.S. Space First-Strike Program Is Well Underway
Baltimore Chronicle, May 13, 2007
11) PanArmenian.net, May 28, 2007
12) Czech News Agency, September 14, 2007
13) Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, November 9, 2007
14) Agence France-Presse, March 22, 2009
15) Czech News Agency, November 4, 2009
16) United States Navy, September 25, 2009
17) Associated Press, July 14, 2009
18) Romanian Times, October 22, 2009
19) U.S. Department of Defense, October 22, 2009
20) Associated Press, October 23, 2009
21) The Diplomat, November, 2009
22) Agence France-Presse, March 9, 2003
23) New Europe, Week of June 2, 2007
24) Standart News, December 7, 2007
25) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 5, 2010
26) Bloomberg News, February 5, 2010
27) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 5, 2010
28) Bloomberg News, February 4, 2010
29) Reuters, February 5, 2010

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

By Porter Stansberry

Global Research, February 7, 2010
S&A Digest - 2009-11-24

It’s one of those numbers that’s so unbelievable you have to actually think about it for a while… Within the next 12 months, the U.S. Treasury will have to refinance $2 trillion in short-term debt. And that’s not counting any additional deficit spending, which is estimated to be around $1.5 trillion. Put the two numbers together. Then ask yourself, how in the world can the Treasury borrow $3.5 trillion in only one year? That’s an amount equal to nearly 30% of our entire GDP. And we’re the world’s biggest economy. Where will the money come from?

How did we end up with so much short-term debt? Like most entities that have far too much debt - whether subprime borrowers, GM, Fannie, or GE - the U.S. Treasury has tried to minimize its interest burden by borrowing for short durations and then “rolling over” the loans when they come due. As they say on Wall Street, “a rolling debt collects no moss.” What they mean is, as long as you can extend the debt, you have no problem. Unfortunately, that leads folks to take on ever greater amounts of debt… at ever shorter durations… at ever lower interest rates. Sooner or later, the creditors wake up and ask themselves: What are the chances I will ever actually be repaid? And that’s when the trouble starts. Interest rates go up dramatically. Funding costs soar. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next.

When governments go bankrupt it’s called “a default.” Currency speculators figured out how to accurately predict when a country would default. Two well-known economists - Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti - published the secret formula in a 1999 academic paper. That’s why the formula is called the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. The rule states: To avoid a default, countries should maintain hard currency reserves equal to at least 100% of their short-term foreign debt maturities. The world’s largest money management firm, PIMCO, explains the rule this way: “The minimum benchmark of reserves equal to at least 100% of short-term external debt is known as the Greenspan-Guidotti rule. Greenspan-Guidotti is perhaps the single concept of reserve adequacy that has the most adherents and empirical support.”

The principle behind the rule is simple. If you can’t pay off all of your foreign debts in the next 12 months, you’re a terrible credit risk. Speculators are going to target your bonds and your currency, making it impossible to refinance your debts. A default is assured.

So how does America rank on the Greenspan-Guidotti scale? It’s a guaranteed default. The U.S. holds gold, oil, and foreign currency in reserve. The U.S. has 8,133.5 metric tonnes of gold (it is the world’s largest holder). That’s 16,267,000 pounds. At current dollar values, it’s worth around $300 billion. The U.S. strategic petroleum reserve shows a current total position of 725 million barrels. At current dollar prices, that’s roughly $58 billion worth of oil. And according to the IMF, the U.S. has $136 billion in foreign currency reserves. So altogether… that’s around $500 billion of reserves. Our short-term foreign debts are far bigger.

According to the U.S. Treasury, $2 trillion worth of debt will mature in the next 12 months. So looking only at short-term debt, we know the Treasury will have to finance at least $2 trillion worth of maturing debt in the next 12 months. That might not cause a crisis if we were still funding our national debt internally. But since 1985, we’ve been a net debtor to the world. Today, foreigners own 44% of all our debts, which means we owe foreign creditors at least $880 billion in the next 12 months - an amount far larger than our reserves.

Keep in mind, this only covers our existing debts. The Office of Management and Budget is predicting a $1.5 trillion budget deficit over the next year. That puts our total funding requirements on the order of $3.5 trillion over the next 12 months.

So… where will the money come from? Total domestic savings in the U.S. are only around $600 billion annually. Even if we all put every penny of our savings into U.S. Treasury debt, we’re still going to come up nearly $3 trillion short. That’s an annual funding requirement equal to roughly 40% of GDP. Where is the money going to come from? From our foreign creditors? Not according to Greenspan-Guidotti. And not according to the Indian or the Russian central bank, which have stopped buying Treasury bills and begun to buy enormous amounts of gold. The Indians bought 200 metric tonnes this month. Sources in Russia say the central bank there will double its gold reserves.

So where will the money come from? The printing press. The Federal Reserve has already monetized nearly $2 trillion worth of Treasury debt and mortgage debt. This weakens the value of the dollar and devalues our existing Treasury bonds. Sooner or later, our creditors will face a stark choice: Hold our bonds and continue to see the value diminish slowly, or try to escape to gold and see the value of their U.S. bonds plummet.

One thing they’re not going to do is buy more of our debt. Which central banks will abandon the dollar next? Brazil, Korea, and Chile. These are the three largest central banks that own the least amount of gold. None own even 1% of their total reserves in gold.

I examined these issues in much greater detail in the most recent issue of my newsletter, Porter Stansberry’s Investment Advisory, which we published last Friday. Coincidentally, the New York Times repeated our warnings - nearly word for word - in its paper today. (They didn’t mention Greenspan-Guidotti, however… It’s a real secret of international speculators.)

© Copyright Porter Stansberry, S&A Digest, 2009

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

(NaturalNews) When it comes to vaccines, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey get it. They see how the pharma industry is engineering a campaign to silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield in order to suppress the publication of startling new evidence linking vaccines to severe neurological damage.

At great risk to their professional careers, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have found the courage to dare to tell the truth about vaccines and autism. Despite the vicious attacks by the pro-vaccine zealots who will stop at nothing to destroy anyone who challenges conventional vaccine mythology, McCarthy and Carrey have issued a powerful, inspired statement that reveals the truth behind the Big Pharma smear campaign that is intent on destroying the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield before he can publish the final results of this important new study.

NaturalNews reprints that statement here, unedited:

A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England’s General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield’s original paper (http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf…) regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet’s retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.

Dr. Wakefield is one of the world’s most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers (http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publ…) since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.

For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.

Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/prim…), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.

There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it’s no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.

Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.

The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield’s mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.

What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?

We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?

The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.

Original source for this statement:
http://www.generationrescue.org/wak…

READ ENTIRE STORY HERE

Mysteries in Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s ‘armed assault’ case

Source www.youtube.com

John Perkins Confessions Of An Economic Hitman
Source www.youtube.com

Global Research, February 2, 2010

Michael Hudson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michael Hudson

© Copyright Michael Hudson, Global Research, 2010

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Global Research, January 20, 2010

After Downing Street - 2010-01-19

INTERNATIONAL ARREST WARRANTS REQUESTED

Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, U.S.A. has filed a Complaint with the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) in The Hague against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, and Alberto Gonzales (the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” perpetrated upon about 100 human beings. This term is really their euphemism for the enforced disappearance of persons and their consequent torture. This criminal policy and practice by the Accused constitute Crimes against Humanity in violation of the Rome Statute establishing the I.C.C.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless the Accused have ordered and been responsible for the commission of I.C.C. statutory crimes within the respective territories of many I.C.C. member states, including several in Europe. Consequently, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction to prosecute the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes under Rome Statute article 12(2)(a) that affords the I.C.C. jurisdiction to prosecute for I.C.C. statutory crimes committed in I.C.C. member states.

The Complaint requests (1) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor open an investigation of the Accused on his own accord under Rome Statute article 15(1); and (2) that the I.C.C. Prosecutor also formally “submit to the [I.C.C.] Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3).

For similar reasons, the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration risk the filing of a follow-up Complaint with the I.C.C. if they do not immediately terminate the Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition,” which the Obama administration has continued to implement.

The Complaint concludes with a request that the I.C.C. Prosecutor obtain International Arrest Warrants for the Accused from the I.C.C. in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), 58(1)(b)(i), 58(1)(b)(ii), and 58(1)(b)(iii).

In order to demonstrate your support for this Complaint you can contact the I.C.C. Prosecutor by letter, fax, or email as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
Law Building
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Phone: 217-333-7954
Fax: 217-244-1478

January 19, 2010

Dear Sir:

Please accept my personal compliments. I have the honor hereby to file with you and the International Criminal Court this Complaint against U.S. citizens George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice , and Alberto Gonzales (hereinafter referred to as the “Accused”) for their criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition.” This term is really a euphemism for the enforced disappearancesof persons, their torture, severe deprivation of their liberty, their violent sexual abuse, and other inhumane acts perpetrated upon these Victims. The Accused have inflicted this criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” upon about one hundred (100) human beings, almost all of whom are Muslims/Arabs/Asians and People of Color. I doubt very seriously that the Accused would have inflicted these criminal practices upon 100 White Judeo-Christian men.

The Accused’s criminal policy and practice of “extraordinary rendition” are both “widespread” and “systematic” within the meaning of Rome Statute article 7(1). Therefore the Accused have committed numerous “Crimes against Humanity” in flagrant and repeated and longstanding violation of Rome Statute articles 5(1)(b), 7(1)(a), 7(1)(e), 7(1)(f), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i), and 7(1)(k). Furthermore, the Accused’s Rome Statute Crimes Against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues even as of today.

The United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute. Nevertheless, the Accused ordered and were responsible for the commission of these I.C.C. statutory crimes on, in, and over the respective territories of several I.C.C. member states, including many located in Europe. Therefore, the I.C.C. has jurisdiction over the Accused for their I.C.C. statutory crimes in accordance with Rome Statute article 12(2)(a), which provides as follows:

Article 12

Preconditions to the Exercise of Jurisdiction

…

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:

(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred …

So the fact that United States is not a contracting party to the Rome Statute is no bar to the I.C.C.’s prosecution of the Accused because they have ordered and been responsible for the commission of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity on, in, and over the respective
territories of several I.C.C. member states.

Consequently, I hereby respectfully request that the Court exercise its jurisdiction over the Accused for these Crimes against Humanity in accordance with Rome Statute article 13(c), which provides as follows:

Article 13

Exercise of Jurisdiction

The Court may exercise its jurisdiction with respect to a crime referred to in article 5 in accordance with the provisions of this Statute if:

…

(c) The Prosecutor has initiated an investigation in respect of such a crime in accordance with article 15.

Pursuant to Rome Statute article 13(c), I hereby respectfully request that you initiate an investigation proprio motu against the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute article 15(1): “The Prosecutor may initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.” My detailed Complaint against the Accused constitutes the sufficient “information” required by article 15(1).

Furthermore, I respectfully submit that this Complaint by itself constitutes “a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation” under Rome Statute article 15(3). Hence, I also respectfully request that you formally “submit to the Pre-Trial Chamber a request for authorization of an investigation” of the Accused under Rome Statute article 15(3) at this time. Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the status and disposition of my two requests set forth immediately above.

Based upon your extensive human rights work in Argentina, you know full well from direct personal experience the terrors and the horrors of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture. According to reputable news media sources here in the United States, about 100 human beings have been subjected to enforced disappearances and subsequent torture by the Accused. We still have no accounting for these Victims. In other words, many of these Victims of enforced disappearances and torture by the Accused could still be alive today. Their very lives are at stake right now as we communicate. You could very well save some of their lives by publicly stating that you are opening an investigation of my Complaint.

As for those Victims of enforced disappearances by the Accused who have died, your opening an investigation of my Complaint is the only means by which we might be able to obtain some explanation and accounting for their whereabouts and the location of their remains in order to communicate this critical information to their next-of-kin and loved-ones. Based upon your extensive experience combating enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture in Argentina, you know full well how important that objective is. The next-of-kin, loved-ones, and friends of “disappeared” human beings can never benefit
from psychological “closure” unless and until there is an accounting for the fates, if not the remains, of the Victims. In part that is precisely why the Accused’s enforced disappearances of about 100 human beings constitutes ongoing criminal activity that continues as of today and will continue until the fates of all their Victims have been officially determined by you opening an investigation into my Complaint.

Let us mutually suppose that during the so-called “dirty war” in Argentina the International Criminal Court had been in existence. I submit that as an Argentinean human rights lawyer you would have moved heaven and earth and done everything in your power to get the I.C.C. and its Prosecutor to assume jurisdiction over the Argentine Junta in order to terminate and prosecute their enforced disappearances and torture of your fellow Argentinean citizens. I would have done the same. Unfortunately, the I.C.C. did not exist during those darkest of days for the Argentine Republic when we could have so acted. But today as the I.C.C. Prosecutor, you have both the opportunity and the legal power to do something to rectify this mass and total human rights annihilation, and to resolve and to terminate and to prosecute the “widespread” and “systematic” policy and practice of enforced disappearances and consequent torture of about 100 human beings by the Accused.

Unfortunately, the new Obama administration in the United States has made it perfectly clear by means of public statements by President Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder that they are not going to open any criminal investigation of any of the Accused for these aforementioned Crimes against Humanity. Hence an I.C.C. “case” against the Accused is “admissible” under Rome Statute article 1(complementarity) and article 17. As of right now you and the I.C.C. Judges are the only people in the entire world who can bring some degree of Justice, Closure, and Healing into this dire, tragic, and deplorable situation for the lives and well-being of about one hundred “disappeared” and tortured human beings as well as for their loved-ones and next-of-kin, who are also Victims of the Accused’s Crimes against Humanity. On behalf of them all, as a fellow human rights lawyer I implore you to open an investigation into my Complaint and to issue a public statement to that effect.

Also, most regretfully, the new Obama administration has publicly stated that it will continue the Accused’s policy and practice of ”extraordinary rendition,” which is really their euphemism for enforced disappearances of human beings and consequent torture by other States. Hence the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration fully intend to commit their own Crimes against Humanity under the I.C.C. Rome Statute – unless you stop them! Your opening an investigation of my Complaint will undoubtedly deter the Obama administration from engaging in any more “extraordinary renditions” — enforced disappearances of human beings and having them tortured by other States. Indeed your opening of an investigation into my Complaint might encourage the Obama administration to terminate its criminal “extraordinary rendition” program immediately and thoroughly by means of issuing a public statement to that effect. In other words, your opening an investigation of my Complaint could very well save the lives of a large number of additional human beings who otherwise will be subjected by the Obama administration to the Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity of enforced disappearances of persons and their consequent torture by other States, inter alia.

The lives and well-being of countless human beings are now at risk, hanging in the balance, waiting for you to act promptly, effectively, and immediately to save them from becoming Victims of Rome Statute Crimes against Humanity perpetrated by the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration as successors-in-law to the Accused by opening an investigation of my Complaint. Otherwise, I shall be forced to file with you and the I.C.C. a follow-up Complaint against the Highest Level Officials of the Obama administration. I certainly hope it will not come to that. Please make it so.

Finally, for reasons more fully explained in the Conclusion to my Complaint, I respectfully request that you obtain I.C.C. arrest warrants for the Accused in accordance with Rome Statute articles 58(1)(a), article 58(1)(b)(i), article 58(1)(b)(ii), and article 58(1)(b)(iii). The sooner, the better for all humankind.

I respectfully request that you schedule a meeting with me at our earliest mutual convenience in order to discuss this Complaint. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

This transmission letter is an integral part of my Complaint against the Accused and is hereby incorporated by reference into the attached Complaint dated as of today as well.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.

Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law

Global Research Articles by Francis A. Boyle

© Copyright Francis A. Boyle, After Downing Street, 2010

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

Thu February 4, 2010 at 8:11pm
Facebook.com
For Immediate Release
For More Information Please Contact:
John Judge (citizenswatch@starpower.net)
Jocco Baccus (joccoraps@aol.com)
Richard Forward (archforward@gmx.net)
In Munich, Member MAPC

McKinney To Receive Munich American Peace Committee Peace Prize

“Clearly, the MAPC gave more thought to the significance of those whose struggle for peace is based on principle . . . than did the Nobel Peace Committee that rewarded our President for war.”

Former Congresswoman and 2008 Green Party Presidential Nominee announced today that she has been invited to participate in an International Peace Conference scheduled to take place in Munich, Germany on February 6 - 7, 2010 while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) meets in the same city to plan war. McKinney, a long-time proponent of abolishing NATO, is scheduled to speak on February 6 at a rally to protest the NATO “security” conference. After the rally, McKinney will participate in the International Peace Conference whose schedule and call to demonstrate against NATO war policies are included below.

Included in McKinney’s program is a meeting with the Munich American Peace Committee (MAPC - www.mapc-web.de) which will present to McKinney its third annual award, “Peace through Conscience,” during the ceremonies of the Munich Peace Conference on the evening of February 6, 2010. The MAPC Peace Prize is normally awarded by the previous year’s winner. In McKinney’s case the honors will be done by André Shepherd, a U.S. Army deserter from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and asylum seeker in Germany. Said McKinney of her selection for the award, “I am humbled to be so recognized. Clearly, the MAPC gave more thought to the significance of those whose struggle for peace is based on principle and an unshakeable commitment, despite the personal sacrificies required, than did the Nobel Peace Committee that rewarded our President for war.” McKinney continued, “In this way of thinking, peace is now war, lies are now truth, and ignorance is strength.”

McKinney calls on Americans across Germany to converge on Munich and protest U.S. and NATO war policies. McKinney will meet with American ex-patriots in multiple meetings while in Munich.

International Peace Conference Call for Protests at NATO Munich Conference:

Call for Protests against the NATO ‘Security Conference’ on 5-6 February 2010 in Munich

Take action against NATO war policies!

The members of governments of NATO countries, high-ranking officers, military strategists, and arms lobbyists who meet in Munich every year at the so-called Security Conference have one thing in common: they share the responsibility for the illegal wars waged against Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with many thousands of deaths, for growing terror, torture, and sufferings of refugees.

NATO, and with it Germany, have declared the whole world their area of operation. At the same time, the militarization of the EU is being pushed intensively. The EU is arming so as to be able to wage wars on its own. The new EU treaty specifies that the member states undertake to upgrade their military capabilities, and that a European agency for promoting armament will be created.

Germany is not “being defended at the Hindu Kush”

In violation of our Constitution, and against the will of the majority of the people, the Bundeswehr is taking part in the war in Afghanistan. That war is about geostrategic interests that are supposed to be implemented militarily with the help of NATO: access to markets and raw materials, the hegemony of the rich and powerful NATO states, and their military presence in the region. For the population of Afghanistan, this means terroristic air raids, expulsion, destruction, torture, and death by the thousands.

2010 ‘Security Conference’: New labels on old policies

Now that it is becoming more and more obvious, even to the politicians responsible, that they cannot achieve their goals by military means alone, NATO is trying to change its strategy; and this is also reflected in the Munich Security Conference.

The concept of civilian-military cooperation (CMC) and the instrumentalization of nongovernmental organizations are intended to allow the old NATO goals to be pursued more effectively. The inclusion of commercial firms and energy specialists, as well as topics such as disarmament, resource security, piracy, terrorism, and “human security” in future ‘Security Conferences’ are part of this.

According to the head of the Security Conference, there is a debate about whether “we should continue to use basically NATO to implement national-security interests, or rather the EU, or both structures with their respective military capabilities”. The people of Afghanistan are currently experiencing the results of these “military capabilities”.

This is why the 2010 ‘Security Conference’ is another war conference, which we will oppose with our varied and creative protest.

End the NATO war against Afghanistan! Get the Bundeswehr out now!

It is not an immediate withdrawal of all the foreign troops that would make Afghanistan collapse in chaos; on the contrary, it is NATO’s terrorist war and the continuing occupation which are causing the lethal chaos in that country.

An immediate withdrawal of the Bundeswehr and all the other foreign troops and mercenaries will not solve Afghanistan’s problems; but this withdrawal is an essential precondition for self-determined and peaceful development and the reconstruction of the country.

No to German participation in any war!

The NATO warmaking alliance and the impending military great power EU are a threat to all mankind. The warmaking alliance NATO should be abolished. - Therefore, we also demand:

Get out of NATO - Get out of all EU military structures - Abolish the Bundeswehr!

The billions spent on armaments and war must be redirected to social needs!

At present, more than two-thirds of the worldwide military expenditures of about 1.4 trillion dollars a year are spent by the NATO countries. At the same time, world poverty continues to increase. The number of people going hungry grew to more than a billion last year. The policies of the rich and powerful nations - the USA and the EU countries in particular - are also largely responsible for the plundering of natural resources, the increasing destruction of the environment, and the climate catastrophe. These policies serve the profit interests of the big banks and corporations, and the arms manufacturers, above all.

While billions are being spent here in Germany on new weapon systems and the global military interventions of the Bundeswehr, the Federal government is demolishing our social-welfare systems. The burden on the unemployed and the employed, young people, pensioners, and welfare recipients is growing constantly. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

Refugees and immigrants are presented as the scapegoats - not only by the nazis

War, hunger, torture, environmental destruction, and no hope for the future are the causes of the misery of millions of refugees. So we oppose the sealing off of the borders of ‘Fortress Europe’, Frontex military missions against refugees, any kind of exclusion of immigrants, discriminatory laws for foreigners, the virtual abolition of the right of asylum, deportations, and every form of racism.
- Combat the causes of their flight, not the refugees! - No camps - No barbed wire - No deportation!

Munich must not become a police fortress!

With our demonstration against the so-called ‘Security Conference’, we are also standing up for the unrestricted right to the freedoms of assembly, opinion, and demonstration.

Under the pretext of a growing danger of terrorism, fundamental democratic rights and our Constitution are being undermined systematically. The unconstitutional mixing of the responsibilities of the police and state security bodies (Verfassungsschutz), online searches of private computers, the required storage of data on everybody’s telecommunications, biometric registration of all citizens, preventive detention, and the restrictions on the right to demonstrate mark the way to an authoritarian state with constant surveillance of the people. The Bundeswehr is already being used to support the police at home, in violation of the Constitution.

Armament and war, demolition of the welfare state and growing poverty require joint action by all emancipatory movements.

We oppose the capitalist system that will stop at nothing for the sake of profit, and advocate disarmament and a world without exploitation, war, and occupation.

Let us show the self-appointed world rulers and armchair warriors: You are not welcome here in Munich or anywhere else! We will resist your policies of neoliberalism, re-armament, and war.

Let us demonstrate jointly and creatively against the NATO war meeting on
Friday and Saturday, 5-6 February 2010, in Munich.

No to racism and war!
Abolish NATO!
Another world is possible!

Schedule and location for the International Peace Conference:

8. Internationale Münchner
Friedenskonferenz

February 5 to 7, 2010

Creating Peace and Justice – Saying‘No’ to war

Short Concept (Version 2)
International Forum, Saturday, February 6, 2010, 6.00 p. m.,

location: Altes Rathaus, Munich
Content of the presentations (proposal – still to be agreed and co-ordinated with the speakers) – each 20 minutes

Cynthia McKinney, USA
Former congress representative and candidate for the US-presidency in 2008, Green Party

Chances for a civil and nonviolent foreign policy of the US from the point of view of an oppositional politician
Assessment of the US politics in relation to the topics

end of US-wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
Columbia and neighbours
Chances that a nuclear-free world comes true
What should do the governments or the politicians who are present at the Security Conference to promote peace and justice?

Alejandra Londono, Columbia,
Youth Network “Red Juvenil

Work for demilitarization, conscientious objection and against recruitment by force in the civil war of Columbia
History of Red Juvenil,

The most important parts of their operating range: recruitment by force, antimilitarism, nonviolence

How does Red Juvenil contribute to the ending of the war and to peace and justice?

What is the reaction of Red Juvenil to the actual international development in South America – observers esteem that the US upgrade Columbia to be their military base against the neighbour countries with left-wing governments.

What should do the governments or the politicians who are present at the Security Conference to promote peace and justice?

Michael Henderson,
author of “Forgiveness – Breaking the chain of hate.”, Great Britain

Michael Henderson speaks about remarkable people of different nations who are on a journey together. He will draw on the experience of black and white in South Africa, Christians and Muslims in Nigeria and Protestants and Catholics in Ireland and on sixty years experience of the center of reconciliation in Caux, Switzerland. He will focus on the qualities needed by peacemakers.

READ MORE HERE

Discussion Fora, Sunday, February 7, 2010, 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p. m.

Discussion and exchange with all 3 speakers – if possible to schedule in 1 forum.

NWO Blues Deek Jackson
Source www.youtube.com

Apolcaylse 2012 Parts 1-6
Source www.youtube.com

setokaiba22
January 13, 2010

It’s believed that the world is heading for disaster in 2012 and the government is preparing to save and protect the elite - while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Jesse Ventura investigates claims of top secret underground bunkers being built in places ranging from the Nevada desert to the White House, including the largest, now under construction beneath a major metropolitan airport.

Aaron Russo on Alex Jones talking about womens lib, NWO & 911

Source www.youtube.com

IDF intelligence and special forces officers, they also say, have been marking out routes for their air and ground forces to drive into Iran and hit its nuclear installations.
According to these Egyptian sources, Saudi Arabia has demanded clarifications from Washington about reported US-assisted Israeli preparations to strike Iran and asks why they were not brought to the notice of Riyadh and the Gulf Arab governments.
The Saudis added that several Gulf intelligence and naval units had tracked Israeli movements and gathered documentary evidence.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Source www.youtube.com

Don’t Miss our Saturday - Economic Collapse Truth Teach-in Marathon
11am Pacific - 2pm Eastern - 19:00 GMT - Saturday
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Coming up Saturday -
ONE KEY ECONOMIC COLLAPSE TRUTH Revelation
Key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

In Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling, Supreme Court Removes Limits on Corporate Campaign Spending
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court rules corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect and defeat candidates. One lawmaker describes it as the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scott case justifying slavery. We speak with constitutional law professor, Jamin Raskin. [see transcript here--A Democracy Now Production]

Every Saturday - Anti-War - Progressive Truth Teach-in
at 9:00am Pacific — 12 noon Eastern — 17:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein Respond to Obama’s First State of the Union
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union address Wednesday night. A full two-thirds of the President’s seventy-minute address was devoted to the economy, the central theme of which was job creation. We get response from MIT professor Noam Chomsky and journalist and author Naomi Klein. [see transcript here] A Democracy Now Production.

Howard Zinn (1922-2010): A Tribute to the Legendary Historian with Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and Anthony Arnove
We pay tribute to the late historian, writer and activist Howard Zinn, who died suddenly on Wednesday of a heart attack at the age of eighty-seven. Howard Zinn’s classic work A People’s History of the United States changed the way we look at history in America. It has sold over a million copies and was recently made into a television special called The People Speak. We remember Howard Zinn in his own words, and we speak with those who knew him best: Noam Chomsky, Alice Walker, Naomi Klein and Anthony Arnove. [see transcript here] A Democracy Now Production.

Coming up Tuesday at 9:00 am Pacific - 12:00 Noon Eastern - 17:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Tuesday evening.

“FAIR & BALANCED” with Kevin Barrett
Tuesday–Live Interview with Mohammed Ismail of QW Magazine
Email your questions or comments now.

“The magazine is aimed at those who previously trusted everything that was presented on the mainstream media but wish to know the truth.”

Deadline for emailed questions is 6am Pacific Time, Tuesday. Not all emailed questions will be answered on the air.

Fair & Balanced with Kevin Barrett is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer.

Coming up today and every Monday at 7:00 pm Pacific - 10:00 pm Eastern - 03:00 GMT

GUNS AND BUTTER with Bonnie Faulkner
The International Impact of the Chinese Cultural Revolution — Robert Weil and Ann Tomkins
Ann Tomkins talks about her personal experience living and working in Beijing during the first five years of the Cultural Revolution, in which she was first an observer, and then a participant. Robert Weil discusses some of the reasoning that led to the Cultural Revolution, which was a revolution within a revolultion, and some of the enduring ideas about people and society that it spawned.

Every Saturday 7:00 pm Pacific - 10:00 pm Eastern - 02:00 GMT (Sunday)
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.

PSI SATURDAY — explorations in Paranormal research
Coming up Saturday: 1948 Aztec, New Mexico UFO crash
Gene Steinberg and David Biedny of TheParacast.Com Discover the secrets of the rarely-discussed 1948 Aztec, New Mexico UFO crash with researcher Scott Ramsey. Though sometimes confused with Roswell, the Aztec case is a totally separate incident, with its own wealth of compelling evidence.This week’s show was broadcast courtesy of the TheParacast.Com and it is archived there. (See 9-30-07)

And please Listen to the latest show from TheParacast.com broadcast every Sunday at 6:00 PM Pacific, 8:00 PM Central, 9:00 PM Eastern, and Monday at 0100 GMT. Go to TheParacast.com to listen.

Coming up today and every Friday at 7:00pm Pacific - 10:00pm Eastern - 03:00 GMT

EARTHBEAT — Supreme Courting of Corporations
& What Can Brown Do For You?

The Supreme Court opens the floodgates for corporate money to flow directly into elections. We’ll discuss how this stampede of special interests will affect climate change laws.

There are less than 4 thousand wild tigers in the entire world. Now a new study shows how one out of every 10 of these tigers may be underwater within the next 100 years due to climate change. Joining us in our Washington, DC studios is Colby Loucks, the deputy director of the conservation science department at the World Wildlife Fund and the author of the new study in the scientific journal Climatic Change. Image copyright World Wildlife Fund.

Coming up Saturday & Sunday at 3pm Pacific - 6pm Eastern - 22:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcasts.
On BackStage: Teri Perticone of No Lies Radio interviews
musical artist Kate Sobolewski from the band Kate & Paul

Kate & Paul have the hit tunes Broadcast, Child of Hunger, The Pharaoh, Earth Amber, The Perpetrators, Right Time, Precipice, The Rose’s and People Get Ready all now playing on No Lies Radio. Kate talks to Teri about being a singer/songwriter in a band, a social activist, hosting her own internet radio show & about some of the new songs on their upcoming album. Visit their website here.