samedi 18 juin 2011

Clinton on Syria: Astounding Lies, Zero Legitimacy

Tony Catalucci
Infowars
June 18, 2011

Bangkok, Thailand June 18, 2011 – Out of either desperation or immeasurable hubris, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just attempted to rewrite the last 3 months of history, contradicting her own department’s statements made during the onset of the Syrian unrest.

Obama

Within the pages of the London-based, Saudi-funded Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, Hillary Clinton joined Barack Obama, Nicholas Sarkozy, and David Cameron in the bizarre trend of Western leaders writing newspaper editorials in an attempt to reinforce the ever changing, ever contradicting official narrative. Clinton’s article titled, “There is no going back in Syria,” oafishly parrots month old corporate-funded think-tank talking points with the addition of hamfisted reversals on the US State Department’s own narratives.

Lie #1: Syrian protests are not the work of foreign instigators.

One paragraph in particular is so astoundingly dishonest and contradictory it almost defies explanation. Clinton states, “If President Assad believes that the protests are the work of foreign instigators — as his government has claimed — he is wrong. It is true that some Syrian soldiers have been killed, and we regret the loss of those lives too. But the vast majority of casualties have been unarmed civilians.”

However, it was Hilary Clinton’s own State Department according to an April 2011 AFP report, that said the “US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments.” The report went on to explain that the US “organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there. They went back and there’s a ripple effect.” Quite obviously the “ripple effect” the State Department is referring to is the destabilization occurring throughout the region, including across Syria.

Additionally, after the Washington Post released cables indicating the US had been funding Syrian opposition groups since at least 2005 and continued until today, US State Department spokesman Mark Toner defended the funding which started under the Bush regime when Syria was added to the “Axis of Evil.” Toner stated, “we’re not working to undermine that [Syrian] government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we’re trying to do in countries around the globe. What’s different, I think, in this situation is that the Syrian government perceives this kind of assistance as a threat to its control over the Syrian people.”

Unfortunately for Toner, funding foreign opposition groups and inciting political upheaval is far from a benign act, and more akin to an act of war. It would be unimaginable for another nation to engineer a certain variety of government within the United States because it felt it was more “proper.” Such meddling is a direct violation of a nation’s sovereignty and those within the target nation assisting such meddling are universally known as “traitors.”

Lie #2: The protesters are peaceful.
Extraordinarily, Clinton manages to both confirm and deny the violent nature of the protests by stating that while Syrian troops have died, the vast majority of the deaths (according to unverified reports by the protesters themselves) were “unarmed civilians.”


With the number of dead security forces now in the hundreds, the corporate-owned media is no longer able to credibly call Syria’s protesters “unarmed civilians.”
….

Clinton’s own admission that Syrian soldiers have died indicates that indeed there are armed groups amongst the protesters. Just as in Bangkok in 2010, during another foreign-funded color revolution, militant gunmen are attempting to escalate the violence intentionally, targeting both protesters and security forces. This is in hopes of reaching a critical mass of violence sufficient for justifying a wider use of overt violence or possibly foreign intervention.

The inability of the US State Department to verify any of the claims coming out of the mostly London-based Syrian opposition is coupled with the impossibility of knowing which Kalashnikov on which side killed who. It is more likely that the Syrian government, knowing full well the consequences of wanton violence, is being as careful as possible when engaging the armed elements even Secretary Clinton concedes are operating amongst the protesters. The Syrian government has been reporting mysterious gunmen since as early as late April, opening fire on protesters and security forces from rooftops. While the corporate-owned media attempted to play this off as Syrian propaganda, the rising death toll of government troops certainly cannot be attributed to “unarmed civilians.” Articles like Christian Science Monitor’s “Has Syria’s peaceful uprising turned into an insurrection?” are attempting to now create the illusion that some sort of justified transition is occurring despite the fact that arsonists and gunmen had been ravaging Syria since the unrest started several months ago.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

Similar claims were made in Libya; both that seasoned rebels, driving tanks and manning warplanes with 30 years of foreign-backing for their militant activities were “peaceful protesters,” and that Qaddafi was purposefully targeting civilians. The latter claims were made despite even the corporate-funded think-tanks engineering the conflict stating that Qaddafi was most likely making a point of avoiding civilian casualties.

Further compromising the fantastical paradigm Secretary Clinton is attempting to foist upon the public is the corporate-funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report which amounts to a brazen conspiracy to aid and abet terrorist organizations to violently overthrow sovereign nations in tandem with the very same foreign-funded popular revolutions we see now across the Arab world, all with “forms” of US military support on standby if necessary.

The report explicitly states in regards to neighboring Iran, “Consequently, if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. This requirement means that a popular revolution in Iran does not seem to fit the model of the “velvet revolutions” that occurred elsewhere. The point is that the Iranian regime may not be willing to go gently into that good night; instead, and unlike so many Eastern European regimes, it may choose to fight to the death. In those circumstances, if there is not external military assistance to the revolutionaries, they might not just fail but be massacred.”


Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” report: a signed confession that indeed the US does conspire to fund, arm, and abet terrorists, sedition, popular revolutions, and even provoke unnecessary wars all for their “regional interests.”
….

 

“Consequently,” the report continues, “if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it.” After identical methods have been employed in Libya, Syria is currently suffering under a similarly prescribed, admittedly foreign-funded, plot backed by armed militants and possibly “some form of military support” from the United States, Israel, or Saudi Arabia. Certainly after several attempts to pass UN Security Council resolutions against Syria, the prospect of wider intervention is also “on the table.”

The Brookings Institution report also boastfully celebrates past exploits and regional manipulations including the arming and backing of the Kurds against Iraq. The report nostalgically recalls, ” When the Shah of Iran, the United States, and Israel began to back Iraqi Kurds against Baghdad, it took only a few years for the Ba’thist regime to move against it—and only a matter of months of unsuccessful military campaigning to convince Saddam Husayn to cut a deal with the Shah to persuade him to cut his ties with the Kurds.” With this admission in hand, we have a historical precedent backing the assertions of the Syrian government that indeed foreign meddlers are at work, both behind the protesters and the armed militants battling the government.

Throughout Hillary Clinton’s lengthy diatribe, she failed to even once condemn the violence she hinted at amongst the opposition. Just as in Libya, these shadowy militants will be denied until the very first NATO bombs strike Syrian soil, where they will then transform into citizen-soldiers nobly fighting for their freedom. In reality they are nothing more than the same ethnic minority groups manipulated and backed for decades against the global elite’s long list of targets throughout the region.

Lie #3: There is no going back in Syria.

The global-elite themselves admit they have neither the logistical means nor the political capital to conduct even a single war in the region, let alone campaigns against multiple nations at once. That is, barring a false-flag attack magnitudes larger than 9/11 and the mobilization of America for total war. Resistance in both Libya and Syria, as well as assistance from Iran, and any other nation disinterested in subjugation under the reincarnated Anglo-American empire could bleed these global elitists to death.

Capitulation under the perception of superiority would be unfortunate indeed. Clinton’s need to pen an op-ed in a London-based Arab newspaper claiming “there is no going back in Syria” only reaffirms the fact that it is far from a foregone conclusion. Such a desperate act of propagandizing is indicative of weakness, not strength. When foisting massive fraud upon the planet, it will always be more people over time realizing it is a hoax than continuing to fall for it. Time is working against the global-elite.

Conclusion

Once again, on the pages of the corporate-funded Brookings Institution report we see months, even years in advance the ploys and gambits that are to play out. Brookings’ “Which Path to Persia?” was the virtual playbook from which objectives and strategies regarding Libya and Syria were and are being drawn from. Understanding that these corporations and the think-tanks they fund are the true architects of Western foreign policy is the first step in ending these heinous crimes being committed in our name and ultimately at our expense.

Hillary Clinton’s brazen lies, unmitigated deception, and her crass insolence is irrefutable evidence that she and the government she works within have abdicated all of their legitimacy. Their open contempt for America’s Constitution while they promote “universal rights” and the will of the “international community” means that we no longer bound to obey them as they are no longer bound to the laws that truly govern our land. The next step of course is undermining these corporations and the puppet institutions that serve them through full-spectrum boycotts and replacing them entirely on a local level.


tf1

Prepare to Have Your Email Read by the NSA

Adam Clark Estes
Atlantic Wire
June 18, 2011

With a new major hacking incident seemingly daily, the Department of Defense is scrambling to find the right shield against future for attacks. But why hide behind a shield when you can charge onto the battlefield underneath the invisible but ironclad cloak of the National Security Agency? That’s exactly how the DoD is mounting it’s first strike back at the hackers–a preemptive strike that will increase online surveillance at defense contractors by partnering with internet service providers for privileged access to the rivers of data flowing through their cables. AT&T, Verizon and CenturyLink are all on board.

Giving the NSA more access to the same internet tubes that power your Gmail account sounds a little invasive. At least that’s what James X. Dempsey, vice president for public policy at the civil liberties watchdog group the Center for Democracy and Technology. “We wouldn’t want this to become a backdoor form of surveillance,” Dempsey told The Washington Post, referring to the pilot program that DoD insists will remain limited to the contractors working closely with the government.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

“The U.S. government will not be monitoring, intercepting or storing any private-sector communications,” Deputy Secretary William J. Lynn III said Thursday at a global security conference in Paris. However, he added, “We hope the … cyber pilot can be the beginning of something bigger. It could serve as a model that can be transported to other critical infrastructure sectors, under the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security.”

Read entire article

Texas State Officials Groped By TSA As “Punishment”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
June 17, 2011

As the resurrected TSA anti-groping bill cleared the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, and gathered enough support to pass both chambers, Texas state officials have recounted disturbing stories that highlight how the TSA is using forceful pat-downs as a form of “punishment” to those who opt out of the full body scanners.

“Let me put this delicately. I was still feeling the effects of the pat-down as I sat in my seat from New Orleans to Houston, and then Houston to Austin.” Chairman of the Texas Public Utilities Commission Barry Smitherman told Fox 7 News.

Watch video:

Smitherman described the groping as “aggressive” and recounted an admission by a TSA supervisor that he was being “punished” for opting out.

Texas State Rep. Barbara Nash also told Fox 7 that a TSA agent “moved my legs apart and went up my legs, all the way up, and then she made me stand a different way where she could go all the way up the front., and then all the way up the back of my dress.”

State Rep. David Simpson, who sponsored the original anti-groping bill, House bill 1937, noted “This is a sexual assault in any other activity. If that happened right now, it would be sexual assault.”

Watch the video:

HB 1937, the regular session bill banning TSA groping, cleared the House floor but was not taken up in the Senate following threats to effectively implement a no fly zone over the entirety of Texas by TSA officials and a federal judge.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

However, the bill was was refiled in the special session: Senate Bill 29, authored by Senator Dan Patrick, and House Bill 41 authored by Rep. David Simpson, as well as 112 co-sponsors (out of 150 Reps.) .

HB 41 was cleared Unanimously by the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and the dignity of Texas travelers, including women and children, is now in the hands of Governor Rick Perry, who must call for the bill to be addressed on the House floor.

Senator Patrick declared this week that he has gathered enough support, 18 out of 31 Senators, to successfully pass HB 41. In a letter to Perry, Patrick urged the Governor to consider the bill.

“I have polled the members of the Senate on Senate Bill 29 [the Senate's companion to HB 41] in an effort to bring the TSA anti-groping bill back to the floor,” Patrick wrote.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

“As of today [Wednesday], I have the votes to pass it. I hope that with the support of Lieutenant Governor [David] Dewhurst and the coauthorship of more than one hundred State Representatives, this legislation will be added to the call of this special session.”

Call Perry’s office TODAY! (512) 463-2000

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.


rachat de credit

LIBYA BOMBSHELL: Obama Overruled Two Top Lawyers, Who Told Him War Must Be Terminated

Joe Weisenthal
Business Insider
June 18, 2011

This week several members of Congress challenged Obama on the legality of the Libya war, given that actions have exceeded the 90 day period during which The White House doesn’t need Congressional authority for military action under the War Powers Act.

Obama

The White House response: We don’t need Congressional approval because this is not technically a hostile action (because we don’t have ground troops in Libya).

Tonight the NYT has a major bombshell: Two top lawyers — Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — told The White House otherwise.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder sided with Krass.

But Rather than heed their advice, he instead went with two lawyers with views more favorable to him: Bob Bauer (who is internal at The White House), and State Department advisor Harold Koh.

This is striking:

Presidents have the legal authority to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice, but it is extraordinarily rare for that to happen. Under normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding on the executive branch.

No doubt this will only embolden the bi-partisan group of Congressmen who think the war at this point is illegal.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

And of course one can only imagine how news like this would have gone down under the Bush administration.

All that being said, Obama does have the support of serious lawyers, and he himself was a constitutional lawyer, so the idea that just because Johnson and Krass opposed this decision doesn’t in itself end it.

But this is still tough.

For some context, see this American Conservative story (from last June) on the war philosophy of Harold Koh, a renowned liberal legal scholar who also has a history of justifying hostile activity.

At the end of March, Harold Koh, top lawyer at the State Department, used his keynote address at the annual confab of the American Society for International Law to make an announcement: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to kill suspected terrorists is legal. The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan are lawful because, Koh delineated, they are done only in national self-defense, their proportionality is always precisely calibrated, and they carefully discriminate civilians from combatants.

There’s both more and less to it than that, but the legal argument itself is of minor importance. What matters is that Koh said it. Harold Hongju Koh: renowned human rights advocate; leading theorist of international law (which, the ASIL conventioneers would happily have told you, is much more civilized than mere national law); until last year dean of Yale Law School and therefore unofficial pope of the American legal system, and former director of the school’s Orville H. Schell Jr. Center for International Human Rights; Obama appointee accused by Glenn Beck and likeminded screamers of wanting to smuggle Sharia law into U.S. courts. All of which is to say, if a liberal lion like Harold Koh says drone strikes are lawful, what more do you need to know?

Read the whole story at The American Conservative >


devis

War On Syria: EU Imposes Sanctions

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 17, 2011

The EU will target companies in an aggressive effort to impose sanctions on Syria, according to a French official.

The European Union had earlier tried to impose an asset freeze and a visa ban on Syrian President Bashar Assad and nine other members of his regime, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told the media.

Valero said the sanctions will target companies and banks. He did not elaborate on a timetable.

EU foreign ministers will meet next week to figure out how to impose the sanctions. Companies on the hit list will get a chance to argue their case in a private meeting with EU bureaucrats.

Earlier in the week we reported that US Special Forces units based at Fort Hood, Texas, were told to prepare for deployment to Libya no later than July. The information was revealed by a caller on the Alex Jones Show.

In September or October, heavy armored units of the First Cavalry Division, currently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other components of the US III Corps, will be sent in.

Webster Tarpley cites sources that say Special Forces have been in Libya working with NATO airstrike supported rebels since February.

A source at US Central Command (CENTCOM) also told the Alex Jones Show that the Pentagon is preparing for new wars in the region.

“The Obama administration is thus on a collision course with the Congress over the War Powers Act, which requires legislative approval of the Libyan war by June 20. If Obama continues to bomb Libya beyond next Monday, or compounds his air assault with a ground invasion, he will be impeachment bait,” Tarpley wrote on June 15.

“Obama has justified his commitment of American forces under a United Nations mandate, unconcerned by his own admission with the will of Congress,” Aaron Dykes wrote on June 15 for Infowars.com. “Now, with significant overlap in reports, we can confirm an apparent decision by Obama to support wider war and a longer-term involvement in Libya.”

“US warships are being moved towards the Mediterranean coast of Syria, precisely in line with forecasts that the Bilderberg Group intended to launch a massive new war in the Middle East, with Syria being its prime target,” Paul Joseph Watson warned on Thursday.

In the video below, Alex Jones explains how the international banking cartel is using Obama and the military to start World War III. “We are right now in the beginning stages of world war three. If this situation escalates, it can result in the worst world war that mankind has ever suffered,” Infowars.com reported.


Solaire Photovoltaïque

Alain Soral se Raconte!

vendredi 17 juin 2011

US Naval and Troop Movements Toward North Africa, Middle East As Syrian Destabilization Escalates

Webster Tarpley
Infowars.com
June 17, 2011

US Special Forces units based at Fort Hood, Texas, have been told to prepare for deployment to Libya no later than July, according to a US military source. The Special Forces would then be followed in September or October by heavy armored units of the First Cavalry Division, currently located in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with other components of the US III Corps. This report was broadcast today on the Alex Jones radio program, and comes against the backdrop of escalating US destabilization operations against Syria and sharpening US condemnation of Damascus and its ally, Tehran.

Observers point out that US Special Forces have been in Libya since February. They also note that, while the Libyan destination is highly plausible, some of these units may also find themselves on the way to Yemen, Syria, or beyond.

Another anonymous military source speaking on the Alex Jones broadcast reported that US stocks of depleted uranium (DU) munitions are currently very low. This may be the reality behind outgoing Defense Secretary Gates’ complaint last week that NATO is “running out of bombs” in Libya, and similar remarks by French NATO General Stephane Abrial in Belgrade.

A source at US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed that US forces are being lined up for new foreign missions, and added that his unit had recently processed two deceased US Army soldiers and three deceased US civilians, possibly mercenaries. The source attributed these cases to Libya, although US operations in Libya are widely thought to be controlled by the new US African Command (AFRICOM).

These reports should be taken together with the energetic protests from the Russian Foreign Ministry over the presence of the US Aegis cruiser Monterrey (a vessel with anti-ballistic missile capabilities) in the Black Sea, along with the arrival of the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan off the coast of Syria.

According to the Israeli site DebkaFile, which often reflects the views of the Mossad, “Western sources additonally report a build-up of ship-borne anti-missile missile strength in the Mediterranean basin. This huge concentration of naval missile interceptor units looks like preparations by Washington for the contingency of Iran, Syria and Hizballah letting loose with surface missiles against US and Israeli targets in the event of US military intervention to stop the anti-opposition slaughter underway in Syria. Moscow, Tehran and Damascus, in particular, are taking this exceptional spate of American military movements in and around the Mediterranean as realistically portending American intervention in Syria.” Debka also says that Hezbollah is in the process of moving some of its formidable missile assets from northern Lebanon to the central regions of that country, closer to Israel.”

The Obama administration is thus on a collision course with the Congress over the War Powers Act, which requires legislative approval of the Libyan war by June 20. If Obama continues to bomb Libya beyond next Monday, or compounds his air assault with a ground invasion, he will be impeachment bait.

Originally posted on Webster Tarpley’s blog.

 

 

Solaire

Obama Launching World War III

Infowars.com
June 17, 2011

In this critically important update, Alex warns that the international banking cartel is using Obama and the US military to start World War III. The controllers of the New World Order believe they can achieve their one world government by destabilizing every country in the the Middle East and northern Africa and draw Russia and China into crisis to create a world-wide catastrophe. Once this event occurs, and the world is brought to the brink of total obliteration, the global banking cartel plans to move in with their final phase: a one world government and eugenics agenda.

Alex urges his listeners to get the word out about this point in history. We are right now in the beginning stages of world war three. If this situation escalates, it can result in the worst world war that mankind has ever suffered.

 

Forum

U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October

Aaron Dykes
Infowars.com
June 15, 2011

U.S. Invasion of Libya Set for October

Infowars.com has received alarming reports from within the ranks of military stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas confirming plans to initiate a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion in Libya and deploy troops by October.

The source stated that additional Special Forces are headed to Libya in July, with the 1st Calvary Division (heavy armor) and III Corps deploying in late October and early November. Initial numbers are estimated at 12,000 active forces and another 15,000 in support, totaling nearly 30,000 troops.

This information was confirmed by numerous calls and e-mails from other military personnel, some indicating large troop deployment as early as September. Among these supporting sources is a British S.A.S. officer confirming that U.S. Army Rangers are already in Libya. The chatter differs in the details, but the overall convergence is clear– that a full-on war is emerging this fall as Gaddafi continues to evade attempts to remove him from power.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

A caller identified as “Specialist H” working for mortuary affairs under USCENTCOM revealed that there have already been American casualties inside Libya. He confirmed that at least 2 soldiers and 3 civilians have died from combat bullet wounds, something the media has yet to report, and needs to investigate and address.

Geo-political expert Dr. Webster Tarpley also told the Alex Jones Show today that wider war is being planned for Libya, while the count of simultaneous U.S. wars has reached five conflicts– including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Yemen. The potential for an even greater spread of regional conflict could well provoke a World War III scenario, drawing in tenuous nations like Syria, Lebanon, Iran or even Saudi Arabia, according to Tarpley.

For his part, President Obama has brushed off demands to answer to Congress for continuing military action beyond the 60 day limit set under the war powers act. The engagement he first claimed would be over in mere days, Obama then dubbed a “kinetic action” rather than a war. Further, Obama has justified his commitment of American forces under a United Nations mandate, unconcerned by his own admission with the will of Congress. Now, with significant overlap in reports, we can confirm an apparent decision by Obama to support wider war and a longer-term involvement in Libya.

Insider Leaks Reveal Full Bilderberg Agenda On War and Alternative Media

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 16, 2011

The corporate media reported on Wednesday that the CIA is building a secret air base in the Middle East to use for armed drone attacks on al-Qaeda in Yemen, a full-tilt expansion of the manufactured war from the Middle East into the Arab Maghreb of Africa. This follows news reports that al-Qaeda has moved into a provincial capital in Yemen’s southeast and has warned government officials to leave or face retaliation, according to the New York Times.

The move by al-Qaeda in Yemen and news of the CIA plan to escalate the drone war into Africa follows by several days word that the elite plan to expand the fabricated war on terror. Last week in St. Moritz, Switzerland, inside sources at the Bilderberg meeting revealed that the globalists are working to spread the war throughout the region.

The elite want a “big bloody war in the Middle East, which will involve every country except Israel, which is being protected,” veteran Bilderberg hunter Jim Tucker told Alex Jones on June 9. A large war, he noted, will work toward the effort by the elite to drive up oil prices and put further economic pressure on a dwindling middle class in America.

In another development pointing toward expanded war, on Thursday the Pentagon moved warships on the Mediterrenean coast of Syria.

Oil prices are currently falling. Brent crude and U.S. oil prices dropped sharply from a five-week high on Wednesday but are projected to go up significantly in the long term. Instability in the Middle East will ultimately drive prices much higher. Chief Financial Officer of Rio de Janeiro-based Petrobras Brasileiro, Almir Barbassa, reflected industry predictions when he said in March that the conflict in Libya and the so-called “Arab Spring” will push prices higher.

According to Bilderberg insiders, escalating gas and oil prices will ultimately move the American people into a position of supporting wars in the Middle East where much of the world’s oil is produced.

Despite this prediction, on Wednesday a bipartisan group of House members announced they are filing a lawsuit against Obama for his illegal and unconstitutional end-run around Congress when he approved U.S military action against Libya. “With regard to the war in Libya, we believe that the law was violated. We have asked the courts to move to protect the American people from the results of these illegal policies,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.

House Speaker John A. Boehner warned President Obama on Tuesday that unless he gets authorization from Congress for his military deployment in Libya, he will be in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

Bilderberg insiders revealed last week that the global elite are concerned about mounting congressional opposition to endless wars and they fear steps may be taken to roll back military action in the region. The CIA plan to expand the war into Yemen and ultimately into Somalia and Africa reveal a brazen attempt to buck the growing trend against unconstitutional military acts by Congress. The elite are determined to act before they are hamstrung by lawmakers and the American people.

Ignoring the mounting chorus of opposition, the Pentagon and the Obama administration are stepping up military activity against Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, “considered the most immediate terror threat to America,” according to the Associated Press. “There have been consistent reports of connections between AQAP in Yemen and al-Shabab across the Gulf of Aden in Somalia. And those could deepen if the Yemeni government loses more control of its coastal regions,” the AP reported on Wednesday.

In addition to the expansion of the war on terror – and the debilitating effect it continues to have on the U.S. and global economy – Tucker’s mole revealed last week that the elite are worried about the alternative media and its growing impact on the corporate media’s script-read pro-war propaganda.

The global elite realize they must muzzle the alternative media and force the American people back into the corporate media propaganda circuit if they are going to dampen resistance to their plan to gain order of chaos through war and also take down the economy and move to impose a globalist economic scheme with a global currency and high-tech authoritarian police state.

The current corporate media obsession with hacking is part of a propaganda effort to convince Americans that an unregulated or internet not controlled and supervised by government is a threat to modern civilization with its power grids and infrastructure networks. The shadowy and mysterious groups LulzSec and Anonymous are at the forefront of this effort to frighten the American people, most who do not understand that such “hacker collectives” do not really pose a serious threat to corporate and government networks, at least not those with adequate security measures in place.

The emerging trend is to restrict internet access under the aegis of copyright law. Last month the new EU Intellectual Property Rights Strategy endorsed a policy of holding ISPs liable for piracy, thus forcing them to punish users without the involvement of a judge or jury. Spain, Ireland and the UK have recently decided to tackle piracy with access restrictions.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

In the United States, the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” would empower the Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” The DOJ has already done this numerous times. In late May, the DOJ moved from shuttering copyright infringing piracy sites to shutting down gambling sites. This precedent leaves the door open for the government to close down other sites not associated with criminal or perceived criminal activity.

In February, the government closed down several websites for linking to copyrighted material, thus establishing a dangerous precedent. The company, Rojadirecta, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in New York, claiming that the government was violating the First Amendment, citing a number of previous cases where material was seized without justification.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

The PROTECT IP Act introduced in Congress will codify domain seizures, ISP blockades, search engine censorship, and other heavy-handed government acts under the excuse of preventing copyright infringement. How long before the government claims linking to news articles and other information is behavior “dedicated to infringing activities”and begins the process of shuttering alternative media websites? The ambiguity of the bill may frighten off ISPs and hosting services from providing services to any business that may be determined by a government bureaucrat to break copyright law.

The bill would also deny search engine access and online credit card and payment services to websites the government claims are “rogue” and criminal.

PROTECT IP is currently aimed at foreign websites, but the emerging trend is one that will eventually adversely impact all internet activity.

A raft of cybersecurity legislation is designed to treat offending websites as terrorist enterprises. In late May, the Pentagon announced that computer intrusions from abroad are from now on to be considered acts of war against the United States and will be answered with conventional military force.

The Pentagon established a new command last year, headed by Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the NSA, to consolidate military network security and attack efforts. Alexander told the Washington Post last November that the new outfit wants maneuvering room to mount what he called “the full spectrum” of operations in cyberspace.

Not incidentally, activist websites such as Anonymous are considered at the forefront of the cyber terrorist threat against the United States. The mysterious hackers at LulzSec have claimed responsibly for attacking various sites, including the U.S. Senate, game maker Bethesda Software (producer of such titles as Brink, Doom, and Quake), Sony BMG, security firm Unveillance, Nintendo, and the Atlanta chapter of FBI affiliate InfraGard.

“LulzSec, or people just like them, are the future of Net hacking. And it’s going to get really nasty out there before it gets any better — if it gets better,” claims InfoWorld.

Nobody really knows who LulzSec is. It is, however, rather suspicious that the group has increased its hacking activities during a period when a number of cybersecurity bills are marching through Congress.

Last week Attorney General Eric Holder said cybersecurity is one the top priorities for the Justice Department. “I’m proud to report that this work is — and it will remain — a top priority not only for me personally, but for our nation’s Department of Justice, and for this administration at the Cabinet level,” said the nation’s top cop.

Slowly but surely, the government, at the behest of the ruling elite who met last week in Switzerland, are tightening the noose around the internet and will soon make the medium untenable for alternative media.

High on their list is the ability to wage destructive and endless war for profit and to gain order out of chaos – currently among recalcitrant Muslims in the Middle East – and further the economic deterioration now well underway, all of it without the pesky interference of alternative media that will ultimately be characterized as LulzSec terrorists and moved to the Pentagon’s ever growing target list.

Our Bilderberg 2011 coverage is sponsored by Midas Resources, the trusted name in precious metals. Visit them at http://www.midasresources.com/

 

aToute.org

US Warships Moved To Syrian Coast

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
June 16, 2011

photoImage: Wikipedia Commons

Even as the Obama administration prepares to launch a full ground war in Libya while expanding its drone attacks inside Yemen and Pakistan, US warships are being moved towards the Mediterrenean coast of Syria, precisely in line with forecasts that the Bilderberg Group intended to launch a massive new war in the Middle East, with Syria being its prime target.

In addition to information received by Infowars from military sources at Ft. Hood who tell us that troops are being readied for a full-scale U.S.-led ground invasion of Libya by October, the Obama administration is simultaneously considering opening up yet another front, by moving the USS Bataan amphibian air carrier strike vessel, along with 2,000 marines, 6 war planes, and 15 attack helicopters to a location just off the Syrian coast.

“This huge concentration of naval missile interceptor units looks like preparations by Washington for the contingency of Iran, Syria and Hizballah letting loose with surface missiles against US and Israeli targets in the event of US military intervention to stop the anti-opposition slaughter underway in Syria,” reports DebkaFile.

Another indication that the US is planning an intervention in Syria is the fact that Hizballah has moved its rockets from northern Lebanon to areas in the center of the country, acting on a warning from Iranian intelligence to move the weaponry “out of range of a possible American operation in Syria”.

Veteran reporter Jim Tucker’s warning, provided to him by his routinely accurate inside sources, that the powerful Bilderberg Group was planning a gargantuan new war in the Middle East to outstrip anything taking place in Libya, is now moving forward.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

On Monday, journalist Adrian Salbuchi also told Russia Today that Bilderberg’s “hidden agenda” towards Syria would make itself visible after the conclusion of the elitist confab in St. Moritz, Switzerland, a forecast already coming to fruition.

Syrian rights organizations say that around 1,300 civilians have been killed since the start of the uprising in March against President Bashar Assad. Around 300 soldiers and police have also been killed. Thousands of Syrians fled the town of Maarat al-Numaan yesterday as government troops and tanks moved north.

The US military-industrial complex has been very choosy about who it targets for regime change under the umbrella of “humanitarian intervention”. Despite the fact that protesters in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia have been the victims of similarly brutal government crackdowns, the US has turned a blind eye.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Quite how the Obama administration believes the United States can afford to prosecute yet another war while it is still engaged in two major occupations and a number of other regional conflicts, and as top ratings agencies warn the country is about to lose its triple A credit status due to insurmountable debt problems, is a mystery.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

 

CommentCaMarche.net

A common ingredient in commercial breads is derived from human hair harvested in China

Mike Adams
Natural News
June 16, 2011

If you read the ingredients label on a loaf of bread, you will usually find an ingredient listed there as L-cysteine. This is a non-essential amino acid added to many baked goods as a dough conditioner in order to speed industrial processing. It’s usually not added directly to flour intended for home use, but you’ll find it throughout commercial breads such as pizza dough, bread rolls and pastries.

While some L-cysteine is directly synthesized in laboratories, most of it is extracted from a cheap and abundant natural protein source: human hair. The hair is dissolved in acid and L-cysteine is isolated through a chemical process, then packaged and shipped off to commercial bread producers. Besides human hair, other sources of L-cysteine include chicken feathers, duck feathers, cow horns and petroleum byproducts.

Most of the hair used to make L-cysteine is gathered from the floors of barbershops and hair salons in China, by the way.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

While the thought of eating dissolved hair might make some people uneasy, most Western consumers ultimately have no principled objections doing so. For Jews and Muslims, however, hair-derived L-cysteine poses significant problems. Muslims are forbidden from eating anything derived from a human body, and many rabbis forbid hair consumption for similar reasons. Even rabbis who permit the consumption of hair would forbid it if it came from corpses — and since much L-cysteine comes from China, where sourcing and manufacturing practices are notoriously questionable, this is a real concern. In one case, a rabbi forbade the consumption of L-cysteine because the hair had been harvested during a ritual at a temple in India.

 

Fr2

2030, le Krach Ecologique - Geneviève Ferone

2030, le krach écologique est un livre de vulgarisation rédigé par une dame Geneviève Ferone, présidente d’une agence de notation écologique des entreprises cotées. Il s’agit donc d’un livre écrit par quelqu’un qui fait partie du « système », et qui doit être lu comme tel. Pour autant, il peut être intéressant de savoir ce que disent ces « écolos du système ». A condition de décrypter, on peut en déduire pas mal de choses

 

La thèse générale est clairement apocalyptique : géographie et civilisation vont entrer en collision frontale. Notre modèle, fondé sur le développement indéfini des forces productives, va se heurter à la réalité d’un monde fini. Cette collision n’est pas pour 2100, mais pour 2030 : c’est la date où les divers « fronts » écologiques vont converger pour entraîner un krach global. Au-delà, à l’horizon 2100, on peut « ergoter sur ce que le changement technologique rendra possible ». Mais à l’horizon 2030, le krach est assuré, et à cette échéance, il n’y a pas « miracle technologique » à espérer. C’est, du moins, ce que nous dit Geneviève Ferone.

Le front principal est de loin le réchauffement planétaire. On connaît la thèse : l’élévation des doses de CO2 dans l’atmosphère fait que les rayons solaires passent, mais que la chaleur qui en résulte ne peut plus s’évader, car elle est véhiculée par le rayonnement infrarouge, qui ne peut traverser le CO2. Or, la concentration de gaz carbonique dans l’atmosphère est passée de 280 particules million au début de l’ère industrielle à 385 en 2007. Elle devrait passer, dans le courant du XXI° siècle, de 540 à 970 ppm. Les spécialistes estiment que le seuil critique à partir duquel l’effet de serre accélérera brutalement se trouve vers 450 ppm, et qu’il sera atteint vers 2030.

Pour l’instant, concède Ferone, la légère augmentation de la température terrestre ne peut pas être imputée à coup sûr à l’effet de serre. Elle est trop faible pour qu’on puisse être certain de ses causes, étant donné l’imprécision des mesures sur les périodes anciennes. Des facteurs naturels peuvent également jouer. On ne peut savoir si, à ce stade, l’effet de serre est la cause du réchauffement observé, à l’échelle globale. La température moyenne en Europe a augmenté sur un siècle d’environ un degré centigrade : tout ce qu’on peut dire, c’est que c’est un phénomène climatique majeur d’une rapidité exceptionnelle.

Ce qui est certain, nous dit Ferone, c’est qu’en revanche on n’a aucune donnée climatique préexistante sur les conséquences d’une concentration de CO2 supérieure au seuil critique. C'est-à-dire que nous entrons dans une ère d’incertitude à peu près complète. Si aucune mesure n’est prise, les spécialistes estiment que l’augmentation de la température moyenne sur terre oscillera entre 1,1 et 6,4°C d’ici à 2100. Dans l’hypothèse basse, les changements sont réels mais pas ingérables. Dans l’hypothèse haute, c’est un désastre ingérable. En somme, on ne sait pas si la catastrophe climatique aura lieu, mais ce qu’on sait, c’est qu’elle est possible, et même relativement probable.

En conséquence, un cahier des charges théorique est suggéré :

- diviser par quatre les émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans les pays développés, pour passer progressivement de 27 milliards de tonnes de CO2 à 12 milliards (ce que la nature peut épurer), tout en poursuivant l’industrialisation des pays émergents,

- pour cela sortir de la dépendance à l’égard des énergies fossiles (85 % de notre consommation d’énergie actuelle), et donc investir dans les énergies de substitution,

- et tout cela en gérant les besoins d’une population en croissance dont plus de la moitié vit désormais dans des mégapoles (souvent du tiers-monde).

Pour l’instant, et en dépit des engagements du « protocole de Kyoto », nous ne sommes pas du tout sur cette pente – surtout parce que les USA ont fait savoir que leur mode de consommation et leur niveau de vie n’étaient pas négociables. Les émissions de gaz à effet de serre continuent à croître. Cependant, toujours si l’on en croit Geneviève Ferone, on va forcément devoir s’y mettre, car la production pétrolière va entrer en déclin dans les décennies qui viennent. L’utilisation des réserves additionnelles (sables bitumineux, pétrole en eaux profondes) sera limitée, parce que l’énergie nécessaire à leur extraction annulera en grande partie l’intérêt de cette extraction. Le « pic du pétrole » est prévu pour 2030, dernier délai, celui du gaz naturel pour 2040. Reste la possibilité d’un retour au charbon, dont le pic d’extraction n’est pas attendu avant 2150 ou même 2200, et qui, grâce à de futures usines de liquéfaction, pourrait remplacer le pétrole comme énergie des transports. Le problème, c’est que de toutes les énergies fossiles, le charbon est la plus polluante, avec + 30 % de gaz à effet de serre par rapport au pétrole, à production énergétique équivalente (remarque importante : l’économie chinoise contemporaine est fondée sur le charbon).

Y a-t-il des alternatives ? Pas vraiment. Les biocarburants sont une catastrophe : ils détruisent les capacités agricoles et accélèrent la déforestation. L’éolien ne peut pas fournir d’énergie en quantité suffisante, et en outre, il ne fournit pas en continu. Ces énergies alternatives ne fournissent qu’un complément. Elles ne constituent pas une alternative.

Quid du nucléaire ? Il y a, au rythme actuel de consommation, cent ans de réserves prouvées en uranium. Les EPR devraient permettre d’améliorer encore ce bilan, et en outre ils permettent de réduire un peu le principal problème écologique, à savoir les déchets (15 % en moins, à production énergétique égale). Mais le nucléaire n’est pas la panacée : il ne peut être utilisé que pour une production centralisée, et le risque d’accident existe.

La solution de la question énergétique à long terme sera peut-être le projet ITER : la fusion nucléaire, source d’énergie pratiquement infinie. Mais ce projet à très long terme ne débouchera pas, nous dit Geneviève Ferone, avant 2050, après que les problèmes écologiques et du pic énergétique nous auront percutés. On remarquera à ce propos que le discours de Geneviève Ferone est donc organisé pour affirmer que la sortie par le haut de la crise énergétique ne peut pas résoudre la question posée dans l’urgence.

Conclusion : nous sommes confrontés à un « défi majeur ». Nous devons continuer à croître (pour améliorer les conditions de vie d’une population toujours plus nombreuse, toujours plus urbaines, toujours plus âgée) et simultanément, nous devons traiter la question écologique. Alors que faire ?

Les réponses ne sont pas claires. Geneviève Ferone tourne autour du pot. Elle évoque les discussions complexes entre Europe et USA sur la question de Kyoto, et le fait que les USA ont choisi pour l’instant de refuser la solution européenne, tout en développant des « clean techs » qu’ils entendent proposer aux pays émergents pour les aider à réduire leurs émissions. Mais finalement, elle pose la question : « comment pourrions-nous continuer à ne pas freiner la croissance de la Chine et de l’Inde au nom de notre propre dette écologique ? » (et là, le lecteur avisé pense : nous y voilà !)

Ces immenses pays, s’ils adoptent les modes de consommation occidentaux, génèreront une pollution monstrueuse, étant donné leurs populations cumulées, à l’horizon 2040, de trois milliards d’êtres humains. Semblablement, nous dit Ferone, comment ne pas poser la question des risques de compétition sur les matières premières, africaines en particulier, qui sont convoitées par les Chinois ? D’où la conclusion : nous avons besoin d’une « gouvernance mondiale » pour organiser la répartition des ressources (et là, le lecteur avisé repense que décidément, nous y voilà…)

Le bouquin s’achève par une sorte de panégyrique du dirigeant américain Al Gore, qui a, d’après madame Ferone, construit un continuum entre les écologistes et les dirigeants du système productiviste. Grâce à lui (et grâce aussi, dixit Ferone, à Nicolas Hulot), nous savons désormais que nous allons droit dans le mur, et que nous devons « changer nos modes de vie ». Nous avons « pris conscience de notre schizophrénie », qui nous fait d’un côté vouloir consommer toujours plus, et d’un autre côté vouloir polluer toujours moins. De là, on glisse vers le développement d’une « consommation engagée » visant à dissuader les « consommateurs » de « trop polluer ». Une solution qui, d’après madame Ferone, est plus conforme à « nos » valeurs que la décroissance, dans laquelle, d’après elle, « beaucoup » voient une forme de rigorisme écologique « clérical, moralisateur et archaïque » - une solution qui, toujours d’après madame Ferone, ne résoudrait le problème « qu’à la hauteur d’un trait de crayon ».


*


Que dire au sujet du bouquin de « l’écolo du système » ?

On ne s’aventurera pas dans la discussion technique. Plusieurs points avancés par Ferone font débat. On remarquera par exemple qu’il existe, sur Internet, des données qui viennent contredire la thèse du réchauffement climatique. Ainsi, certains font remarquer que si le pôle nord fond, le pôle sud givre, ce qui vient contredire l’affirmation selon laquelle « la fonte des calottes glaciaires a commencé ». Les océans montent, de 0,3 cm par an, depuis 15 ans, nous dit-on. Est-ce vrai ? Comment savoir. Allez donc mesurer le niveau de la mer…

Mais sans entrer dans la question technique, ce qu’on peut observer en tout cas, c’est que le discours de la dame Ferone entre très bien en résonance avec les préoccupations extra-écologiques de nos dirigeants :

- Presque aucune prise en compte de la problématique de classes. On nous dit que « nous » devons réduire nos modes de consommation trop polluants. Mais qui est ce « nous » ? Qui pollue le plus, du smicard vélo/tramway et du membre de l’hyperclasse grosse bagnole/avion ? Qui devrait payer pour la pollution ? La réponse de Ferone, c’est le « développement d’une conscience écologique chez les consommateurs ». On aurait préféré quelque chose comme : une taxe écologique sur les hauts revenus (ou sur les modes de consommation propres aux hauts revenus). De cela, il n’est pas question…

- La question de la légitimité du fait acquis en matière de « droits à la pollution » est totalement passée sous silence (ainsi que la question, encore plus explosive, de la « vente » des droits en question). Après avoir longuement tourné autour du pot, Ferone finit par nous dire, en substance : il faut empêcher l’Inde et la Chine de nous rattraper en termes de développement. Question : s’agit-il d’une urgence écologique, ou d’une urgence géostratégique ? Bien malin qui pourrait le dire.

- Surtout, toute remise en cause du système dans sa globalité est exclue. La façon dont la solution par la décroissance est expulsée, d’un trait de plume, est à cet égard très révélatrice. Il n’y a pas, dans ce bouquin, d’argumentaire probant quant aux questions qu’on s’attendrait à voir aborder : comment réduire les déplacements en revenant à une économie localiste ? La question ne sera pas posée. Pourquoi ne pas supprimer la publicité pour réduire la consommation ? La question ne sera pas posée. Sous cet angle, le bouquin de Ferone apparaît comme un vaste exercice de « damage control », consistant en gros à expliquer que les classes dirigeants ont conscience du problème, et qu’elles y travaillent, afin de faire durer le système malgré ses contradictions internes – dormez bonnes gens.

- Enfin, il y a le choix de présenter une urgence écologique. Ce choix, on l’a vu, permet de souligner que des problèmes se posent à court terme, que nous ne pouvons pas espérer résoudre par des solutions de long terme. Le moins qu’on puisse dire, c’est que l’argumentaire est ici assez léger, et qu’en revanche, les implications sont lourdes. La seule issue pour le système capitaliste confronté à une crise de surproduction, c’est la guerre – et la crise de surproduction, nous y sommes en plein. Mais attention : il y a plusieurs types de guerre. Une guerre à la pollution, par exemple, pourrait être un bon moyen de justifier les ajustements de classe et la mobilisation totale de la population… Le krach écologique comme antidote au krach systémique ? Pourquoi pas ?…

Conclusion : très honnêtement, on ne vous conseille pas ce bouquin. Vous n’y trouverez pas d’informations nouvelles, et pas non plus de réflexion vraiment révolutionnaire. Mais il est intéressant d’analyser la communication que les « écolos du système » déploient, dans le cadre d’un discours général schizophrène dont ils sont l’aile marchante, peut-être inconsciemment d’ailleurs.

Une insertion dans le discours général qui jette un éclairage surprenant sur les bons sentiments écolo…

La toute fin du bouquin de Ferone rappelle le dernier opus commis par Attali : Une brève histoire de l’avenir. Si nous ne faisons rien, nous dit Geneviève Ferone, nous verrons apparaître, face au choc écologique, une humanité à deux vitesses : d’un côté ceux qui vivront dans des « villes sous cloche », bénéficiant de tous les avantages de la technologie sans en payer les conséquences écologiques. De l’autre ceux qui vivront dans des conditions effroyables, n’ayant aucun des avantages du progrès, tout en en payant le prix écologique. Au bout du compte, on assistera à une différenciation de l’espèce humaine, la supériorité culturelle des uns leur permettant de survivre seuls à la ruine de la planète que leur mode de vie aura entraînée, et qui condamnera le reste de l’espèce.

Et puis, après nous avoir expliqué que c’est ce qui se passera si nous ne faisons rien, Ferone nous explique, en gros, qu’on va essayer de faire quelque chose, mais que ce sera bien difficile, n’est-ce pas ?

 

panneaux solaire

mardi 14 juin 2011

Conférence d'Etienne Chouard sur la Monnaie et la Dette - FONDAMENTAL

CIA Expands Drone Strikes to Yemen

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 14, 2011

The CIA is ready to expand its drone strikes from Pakistan to Yemen. A U.S. official said that a secret plan to bomb Yemen has been in the works for months, Fox News reports today.


Corporate media propaganda on the CIA’s effort to destablize Yemen.

Obama approved the secret plan without consulting Congress last year. It has been under development for several months and is set to be rolled out in July.

In May, the State Department ordered all “non-essential” U.S. diplomats and family members to leave Yemen immediately. It also issued a warning to Americans to abstain from traveling to Yemen.

The Wall Street Journal makes the case that drone attacks are more civilian friendly than the sort of NATO bombing currently underway in another Arab country, Libya. “CIA drones use smaller warheads, which officials hope will lower the risk of civilian deaths and anti-American backlash in Yemen, the newspaper said,” Fox reports.

The specter of Osama bin Laden, who was supposedly killed in Pakistan recently, hangs over the new Pentagon offensive. The United States refused to provide evidence it had killed the Saudi who was a CIA asset during the CIA’s war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The corporate media now accepts the purported killing as fact.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

According to Fox, al-Qaeda has moved into Yemen in a big way. The country is viewed as “the trifecta,” because it includes American cleric and Pentagon dinner guest Anwar al-Awlaki, a former protégé of the dead Osama and a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, according to Fox News.

“They’re looking to take advantage of an opportunity that has arisen,” a U.S. intelligence official told The Wall Street Journal. “Whether they’re going to succeed or not is an open question.”

The color revolution engineered by the globalists and their NGOs in Yemen has left a power vacuum in the country and led to an assassination attempt on president Ali Abdullah Saleh. Yemeni security authorities arrested suspects on Monday and placed the blame on al-Qaeda.

Saleh has stated that the U.S. and Israel are behind the uprising in his country. He addressed his comments directly at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States. “Demonstrations in Yemen [are] not a product of a conspiracy from the outside. The President knew that. Its people deserve a better answer,” responded PJ Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, to Saleh’s accusation.

Brigadier-General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who defected in April, said recently the al-Qaeda crisis in Yemen was manufactured by Saleh to win western support.

Saudi Arabia and the United States have used the civil war in Yemen as a pretext to attack the impoverished country.

Last year the U.S. gave the Saudi Arabian government satellite imagery to help direct its military in airstrikes against Houthi Shiite rebels. Earlier strikes resulted in civilian casualties and the bombing of a medical clinic. Another target wasn’t a rebel site but instead the headquarters of a political opponent of Saleh. Pilots turned back when they learned of the target.


Iran’s Press TV claims the U.S. is attempting to establish a foothold in Yemen and place a military base there.

The Houthis are a separatist group operating in Yemen, a country that shares a border with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis claim the Houthis are in with al-Qaeda and backed by Iranian Shiites. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and a Sunni Muslim.

Iran is a shiite country and al-Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim group, consider them apostates and have vowed to kill them. In January, the leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen declared holy war “against Iranian-backed Houthi Shiite advocates” in an audio message posted on the internet.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

“This kind of feeds the al-Qaeda narrative, that we’re doing it everywhere,” Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the globalist Center for American Progress in Washington and a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, told the Miami Herald.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, 957 Pakistani civilians were killed in American drone attacks on the country in 2010.


IDmaison

Stealth Vaccine Laws Allow Children to Consent to Vaccines

Alan Phillips, J.D.
NaturalNews
June 13, 2011

A current California bill, AB 499, would “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.”[1] That is, children as young as 12 will be able to get a Gardasil or other STD vaccine without their parents’ knowledge or consent if this bill passes. Disturbingly, North Carolina has a much broader child consent law already on the books: “Any minor may give effective consent . . . for medical health services for the prevention . . . of venereal disease and other [reportable] diseases…”[2] I call these laws “Stealth Vaccine Laws” because they provide for the administration of vaccines without the word “vaccine” or “immunization” appearing in the law. Thus, they may slip under the radar of anti-vaccine activists doing electronic searches for vaccine bills and laws using those terms.

There are serious legal and moral problems with stealth vaccine bills and laws. First, they violate parents’ fundamental Constitutional rights. In Troxel v. Granville, 430 U.S. 57 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child.” Troxel requires a “threshold showing of harm” that is lacking in the California bill and North Carolina law. Troxel also tells us that parents are presumed to be fit and to make decisions that are in their children’s best interests. So, giving the children of every parent in the state the ability to consent to medical treatment at any time amounts to the state declaring that all parents are unfit regarding those matters to which the children are given authority to consent.

Under Troxel, parents are presumed to be fit unless there is a showing of unfitness. So, child consent laws violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, unless they include the requisite “threshold showing of harm.” As a practical matter, this means that there must be an emergency, a significant harm or risk of harm before someone may make decisions on behalf of a child without a parent’s consent. Medical and other professionals already have this authority. Neither children nor parents have to consent to a child’s receiving treatment in a medical emergency where immediate intervention is needed to save the child’s life or avert serious harm.

Proponents of child consent laws argue that there are some children who need the ability to consent to medical care, children whose parents can’t or won’t take proper care of them. But there are already measures in place to help children in those situations. State workers in Child Protective Services (CPS) and Social Services may seize custody of children when necessary to protect them from severe physical and/or emotional harm. And where parents are unfit, their fitness can be challenged and their parental authority given to other persons or agencies that are capable of exercising proper care of the children when they are not. If current laws are letting some children slip through the cracks, then by all means let’s take steps to fix the problem, but enacting laws that violate the Constitutional rights of all parents is not a proper solution. It is, however, a rather convenient way for the pharmaceutical industry to bypass parents to administer vaccines and other therapies directly to children (who are not likely to say ‘no’ to a doctor). And while parents may opt out of unnecessary medical treatments for their child that they can’t afford, child consent laws ensure payment for services every time–from the state.

There is a second, narrower Constitutional issue in states that offer a religious exemption to immunizations (every state but MS and WV). For legal purposes, a child’s religious beliefs are deemed to be that of the parents. So, a law that would allow a child to consent to an immunization would violate parents’ First Amendment “free exercise” of religion rights. It doesn’t matter that few parents may actually be affected or that some children may accurately report their parents’ religious objections to vaccines. The fact that the law creates a situation reasonably likely to result in a Constitutional violation is sufficient reason for a court to rule that the law is unconstitutional. (For that matter, in states that offer philosophical or medical exemptions, state exemption rights of the parents could be violated as well.)

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • Buy 3 Get 1 FREE!

Which brings us to an important point: A law is not officially “unconstitutional” merely because someone says so, or even if they present a compelling legal argument, as there is virtually always someone with an opposing view. Only a court may officially decide if a law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the practical consequence of this is that states can and sometimes do enact laws that turn out to be unconstitutional, and they can do that whether legislators know of that possibility in advance or not. Once a law is enacted, it is “good law”–fully enforceable–unless and until it is repealed by the legislature, or deemed unconstitutional or otherwise uneforceable by a court. This means that pro-vaccine lobbyists can support the passage of unconstitutional bills that are profitable to the pharmaceutical industry, and they may succeed–unless we remain vigilant and successfully oppose them. The same is true for any other industry, of course. Big business can roll right over the Constitution, and get away with it to the extent that the citizens and legislatures allow it. This is something that should cause every one of us great concern.

Child consent laws also fail the common sense test. Children, by definition, lack capacity–the judgment and maturity–to make important decisions for themselves. For this reason, they can’t enter into binding legal contracts and don’t even truly own their possessions (technically, their parents do). So, giving children authority for medical decision-making simply doesn’t make sense. Child medical consent laws not only put decision-making authority in the hands of those not able to exercising it responsibly, they do so by taking that authority away from the mature adult parents who are much more capable of exercising it responsibly. These laws are intrusive, an example of overreaching by the state into private family lives, a violation and interference with parents’ fundamental right to raise their children. If present laws leave some children’s medical needs unaddressed, let’s fix those laws. But taking authority away from all mature adult parents and giving it to immature children is irrational–a step that could only make sense only from the narrow perspective of those who stand to profit from it.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Unless each one of us becomes legislatively active, more laws providing for the administration of vaccines and other unnecessary medical treatments will be enacted, because the pharmaceutical industry (among others) supports legislation to further its own bottom line–that’s the business of business. Health rights are not stagnant. We are either acting proactively to expand them, or we are passively allowing them to disappear. There is no safe middle ground! Join the NVIC Advocacy Portal and the Pandemic Response Project to stay informed and be active in vaccine legislative issues. In the meantime, go to your state legislature’s website to see if there are any stealth vaccine bills or laws in your state. If there are, contact your state representatives with your objections, and alert others to do the same. Meanwhile, I’m available to assist with U.S. vaccine rights and legislative issues.

Sources for this story include
[1] California Assembly Bill No. 499,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12…
[2] N.C.Gen.Stat. § 90-21.5. Minor’s consent sufficient for certain medical health services,
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Enacted…
[3] Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/ht…

About the author:
Alan Phillips, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 3473
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-3473
919-960-5172
Vaccine Rights: www.vaccinerights.com
The Pandemic Response Project: www.pandemicresponseproject.com


Xooit