---BREAKAWAY CIVILIZATION ---ALTERNATIVE HISTORY---NEW BUSINESS MODELS--- ROCK & ROLL 'S STRANGE BEGINNINGS---SERIAL KILLERS---YEA AND THAT BAD WORD "CONSPIRACY"--- AMERICANS DON'T EXPLORE ANYTHING ANYMORE.WE JUST CONSUME AND DIE.---
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Fortunate Son
Willy And The Poor Boys
Lyrics:
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me;
I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
"I Put a Spell on You" is a single
and track from the 1968 album, "Creedence Clearwater Revival", by
Creedence Clearwater Revival. The album was released on Fantasy Records
and was produced by Saul Zaentz. The album peaked at #52 on the
Billboard 200 and is platinum certified in U.S. sales. "I Put a Spell
on You" was written by Screamin' Jay Hawkins and originally released as
a single from his 1956 album, "At Home with Screamin' Jay Hawkins". CCR's
1968 version was released as a single on Fantasy Records and was
produced by Saul Zaertz. The single peaked at #58 on the Billboard Hot
100.
folks where do ALL you's dummycrooks & republithugs find THESE ass pipes LMFAO ...fucking EVERY TIME "something" "happens" ..gotta ban this ,fucking reg that ...how about the 50 MILLION + ...abortions ....ah oh yea THAT'S a "right" ... um what about the ice berg ..we hit ? ..um that's the independent's fault ? them mother fuckers hehe LMAO ( I have this on good authority? that the demons in hell ,look at these fucks & say WTF ) :o ..."they" aren't ours ? ...folks ! & we ALL wonder Y we have 2 wear fucking helmets & mittens :0 while "our" elected "ass pipes" play wit "their" own poop ? & go we weeee ,we ,we were going good huh LOL ( wonder what fucking "LIST" this puts me on ) .. how about --eat shit & die rat bastard .."LIST" :o
While the media was occupied with the Boston
bombings, Senator Frank Lautenberg decided to use the event to push his
new legislation that would regulate the purchase of gunpowder in order
to ‘reduce terrorism’. The Senator from New Jersey made the announcement
on his Senate page, detailing how his bill would initiate full
background checks on anyone seeking to purchase gunpowder (also known as
black powder). A move that would ultimately affect law-abiding citizens
who are purchasing gunpowder for their own use, just as ‘gun free
zones’ have been shown to allow for criminals to
run amok due to the disarmament of the average citizen. Full-fledged
terrorists simply will not submit to background checks to purchase
gunpowder, especially when there are so many easier options.
As J.D. Tuccille points out in writing for the Reason.com blog, the entire concept of event-based banning is inherently flawed. Virtually anything can be used to make a dangerous explosive
if the individual is truly intent on doing so. After all, why not ban
pressure cookers after it was confirmed that the suspect had used
pressure cookers to ignite the explosives in a concealed and virtually
undetectable manner? As Tuccille writes:
“Even simple flour can explode under the right
circumstances (see the photo up above) — those circumstances occurring
all too easily for those who manufacture the stuff or store large
quantities. The bloody Oklahoma City bombing was committed with an explosive made from common fertilizer and fuel oil. “
And he’s right. Even AP is reporting
today, on the 18th anniversary of the event, about how the Oklahoma
City bomber used those exact ingredients with ease to create a powerful
explosive — free of gunpowder. It’s also interesting to note that
gunpowder is not a new invention created for acts of terror, or even
modern use at all. We’re talking about a substance that goes back to 220 BC when the Chinese accidentally created it.
We’re also talking about a substance of which the consumer prime use is
for law-abiding citizens to reload their own ammunition.
It’s Not About The Bombings, It’s About Pushing the Gun Control Agenda
Ultimately, it’s not about the Boston bombings utilizing a powder
from 220 BC that could easily have been substituted for a million other
things. Instead, it’s about pushing the gun control agenda that seeks to remove firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Amid the Boston Marathon press, no one mentions the deaths from Chicago crime — where gun control is extremely strict. There’s even a website dedicated to tracking the deaths.
Instead, Senator Lautenberg is riding off the emotional reaction of
the Boston bombings to slip his legislation as an amendment into the gun
violence prevention bill which currently sits on the Senate floor. If
Senator Lautenberg is truly concerned about explosives, and not just
furthering the gun control agenda, then he should also ban fertilizer, flour, fuel oil, and just about a million other substances that pre-date even gunpowder. Oh, and he should probably consider banning knives, hammers, and human hands as well considering they kill more per year than rifles.
As reported exclusively on Before It’s News, the FBI surveillance video is in fact a digitally manipulated slideshow of still photos and not an actual video.
This is evidenced by the existence of ghost images appearing in between
still photos in the so-called video as a transition effect is applied
during the fade between frames.
As many in the alternative media have already pointed out special-ops
were photographed all over the site of the Boston Marathon bombing
before, during and after the attacks.
While there is speculation those photographed could be Navy Seals the
overwhelming majority of the evidence points to those in the photograph
being part of a for hire black-ops mercenary squad known as Tradecraft.
Upon asking why this may have been done it was suggested the video may
very well have been altered to hide the tell-tale skull that is part of
the Trade Craft insignia the alternative media is buzzing about..
After further investigating the so-called FBI surveillance “video” for
signs of alteration it was immediately obvious that the images of the
alleged suspects had possibly been altered to hide the fact they where
in fact part of the black-ops team on site.
This image comparing the alleged suspect, which police say is still at
large and is the man that physically planted both of the bombs, to the
black-ops personnel photographed at the bombing.
To be clear here is an actual picture of the alleged suspected.
Enlarging the image reveals a clear area that may have been digitally manipulated to hide the skull logo.
As previously noted:
For an explanation of why the video is clearly a slide show that is being faked into appearing to a video see this.
With mercenary firms around the globe now owned by Wall Street banks
and acting as private armies for global elitists who are funded in most
cases exclusively with US taxpayer money such ruthless thugs not loyal
to our Constitution have no business conducting operations inside the
United States.
It raises all kinds of questions about their presence which become even
more intriguing when considering the main stream corporate media and
law enforcement officials refuse to even acknowledge their presence at
the bomb site nonetheless date attempt to explain why they were there
and what they were doing. Mike Adams from Natural News gives a good explanation of why the operatives are believed to be from the private mercenary firm Tradecraft.
Natural News has now confirmed that at least five private military
contractors were operating on scene at the Boston marathon, and that
they all carried black backpacks which look very similar to the backpack
carrying the pressure cooker bomb (see pictures below).
The mainstream media is completely censoring any mention of these
“Craft” operatives, pretending they don’t even exist. Only the
alternative media is conducting real investigative journalism on these
bombings. The mainstream media isn’t interested in the truth; they only
want to spin the attack into a new way to somehow blame conservative
Americans for something they had no part in.
Thanks to the help of researchers posting on 4Chan, plus a bit of
our own analysis, we’ve been able to bring new research to light as
you’ll see in the photos below.
Who is this guy and what is he holding in his hand?
The following photo was snapped mere moments after the first bomb
detonation. Many people are asking, “Who is this guy?” and why is he
dressed in combat boots and military BDUs (pants)? More importantly,
what is he carrying in his hand?
We were able to get a close-up of the object in his hand:
With a bit of research, we were able to confirm this object is an
“Inspector Radiation Alert” device that detects the kind of radiation
which would be produced in a dirty bomb attack or a nuclear attack:
This immediately brings up all sorts of questions, such as: Who
hired this guy? Whose side is he on? Why would he anticipate the need
for a nuclear radiation detector? What kind of private military
operative routinely carries such expensive gadgets?
Four more operatives with the exact same uniforms
As we browsed through the photos, we located four more private military
operatives with the exact same dress: Tan combat boots, tan BDUs, black
jackets, black backpacks and tactical communications gear.
Here’s a picture of three of these men reacting to the explosion.
The one in the middle is the same guy in the radiation detector photo,
above:
There are several things worth noting in this image:
1) All three of the men look surprised, even shocked by the events.
This might argue against their prior knowledge of the bombings.
2) The object in the right hand of the man in the middle may resemble
a small handgun, but I’m sure it isn’t. Why? Because no highly trained
private military operative would carry a handgun with a “pincer” grip as
appears in the photo. A proper grip on a handgun is far deeper into the
palm. This object is most likely the same radiation detector shown
above, just captured from a weird angle with a flapping leather case of
some sort.
3) The man on the left, an older gentleman, appears to be holding an
object in his right hand which seems capable of being actuated with his
thumb.
4) The man on the right reveal “The Craft” skull logo on his shirt
because his jacket just happened to open up for this photo (see below).
Here’s a photo comparison of “The Craft” logo on his shirt:
Here are two more operatives on the scene, wearing the exact same uniform:
If you look at the hat for one of these men, you can clearly see “the Craft” skull logo on his hat:
Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle was also a member of The Craft. He was
murdered by one of his close friends a few months ago. The appearance of
The Craft operatives at the Boston marathon bombing raises new
questions about Chris Kyle’s death:
Here’s Chris Kyle on national TV wearing the “Craft” hat:
Here’s the Craft motto, which says “Violence does solve problems.”
If you still doubt these are “Craft” operatives, check out The Craft website where all these images, logos and uniforms are instantly confirmed.
Bomb bag resembles the black backpacks worn by The Craft operatives
Here’s where all this gets incredibly spooky: The backpack that carried
the pressure cooker bomb looks very similar to the black backpacks worn
by The Craft operatives:
But Chairman, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, believes that “access to water
is not a public right.” Nor is it a human right. So if privatization is
the answer, is this the company in which the public should place its
trust? Here is just one example, among many, of his company’s concern for the public thus far:
GRANT
OF TAXPAYER-FUNDED U.S. ASYLUM FOR CHECHEN TERROR ENVOY GAVE OBAMA
FOREIGN POLICY GURU ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI "ONE OF THE HAPPIEST DAYS OF MY
LIFE"
"I am glad [Brzezinski] is a 'former'
national security adviser. Hatred cannot drive foreign policy." Russian
UN ambassador (now Foreign Minister) Sergei Lavrov, Charlie Rose
program, March 25, 1999
"How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?" -- Pravda.ru
By Webster G. Tarpley
Washington
D.C., Feb. 2. If the American public were generally aware that the
"foreign minister" of one of the most murderous terrorist organizations
in the world, a man whose extradition on terrorism charges is sought by
at least one UN Security Council permanent member, is living openly in
Washington D.C., they might be indignant. If Americans knew that this is
the "foreign minister" of a terrorist group specializing in killing
women and children first in a hospital, then in a school, and later
defenseless civilians in a theater, their indignation might grow into
rage. If they knew that this envoy for terrorists is living in the
comfortable Woodley Park neighborhood of Washington D.C. with a
lifestyle most Americans could not afford, with an office, a secretary, a
travel budget, and a public relations budget all paid for at the
expense of the U.S. taxpayers, with State Department checks signed by
Condoleeza Rice, they might be furious. If they knew that this
ambassador for terrorists had been set up in his current
all-expenses-paid, taxpayer-funded lifestyle by a man who is the main
image adviser and the main foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, their
view of the Illinois senator and his qualifications for the presidency
might well undergo a radical change.
And yet, all this is
reality. The terrorist organization in question is the Chechen rebel
group associated with the names of two of the greatest butchers of our
time, Aslan Maskhadov and Shamil Basayev, both deceased even though the
organization they built fights on. The foreign minister and ambassador
for this terrorist group is Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov (born December
19, 1960), who was granted political asylum in the United States in
2003. Akhmadov's patron is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the
former head of the National Security Council during the Jimmy Carter
administration and, before that, co-founder with David Rockefeller of
the Trilateral Commission in 1973. Zbigniew Brezezinski in turn is not
only the main foreign policy adviser to the Barack Obama presidential
campaign; Zbigniew is in many ways the creator of the public relations
image profile now being used by Obama in his quest for the White House,
an image that is developed in Zbig's latest book, Second Chance.
Zbigniew's son Mark Brzezinski, a veteran of the NSC under Clinton, is
another key foreign policy adviser for Obama. Mika Brzezinski, daughter
to Zbigniew and sister to Mark, churns out a propaganda line slanted in
favor of Obama every morning on the MSNBC Morning Joe program. Ian
Brzezinski, another son of Zbigniew, is busy poisoning U.S. relations
with Russia from his post as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Europe and Russia in the Bush Pentagon. Yet another member of the clan,
Zbigniew's nephew Matthew Brzezinski, serves as a defacto public
relations representative for Akhmadov, whitewashing this envoy for
Chechen terrorists in the pages of the Washington Post.
The
entire crew is made up of petty Polish aristocrats notable mainly for
their fanatical, consuming hatred of Russia and Russians. The family
project is to hitch the remaining military power of the United States to
their monomania of hatred. If they are allowed to succeed, the bloody
excesses of the neocons in the Middle East will seem like schoolyard
games by comparison, since the Brzezinski gang wants to court all-out
confrontation with a first-class thermonuclear power that is moving well
ahead of the U.S. in certain crucial types of strategic weaponry. The
now-infamous neocons have been careful to pick on powers with little or
no strategic retaliatory potential. Brzezinski lacks this faculty of
discrimination. This is the reality behind the messianic edification and
utopian platitudes dished up by Obama. Under an Obama administration,
Americans will risk getting a reminder of what real war looks like, and
they may discover that it is a two-way street.
Voters
who may be wondering what the foreign policy of a future Obama
administration might look like need to learn from recent painful
experience with George W. Bush and look closely at the foreign policy
advisers around the candidate, since it is these figures who will
prepare the policy options and, by so doing, will determine the course
of a new administration. For Bush, these advisers were the self-styled
"Vulcans," figures like Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Colin Powell,
and Cheney, most of them neocons and most of them chosen by George
Shultz, who created the disaster of the Afghan and Iraq wars. Even
though Bush might have been a blank slate in foreign policy, it was
evident from the presence of these neocon warmongers which direction the
new regime would choose. Who then are the corresponding figures around
Obama? A cursory look reveals that in foreign affairs and not just
foreign affairs, Obama is the creature of the Brzezinski machine.
"HE'S A TERRORIST, THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT"
The
country that wants Akhmadov extradited into their custody to stand
trial for multiple murder charges is the Russian Federation, which has
repeatedly requested that Akhmadov not be allowed to stay in Washington.
Russia has been demanding Akhmadov's extradition since 2003. "He's a
terrorist, there is no doubt about it," commented Aleksander
Lukashevich, senior political counselor at the Russian Embassy in
Washington. "We have proof ... Our foreign minister has made Russia's
position on extradition quite clear." "Harboring terrorists, their
henchmen and sponsors undermines the unity and mutual trust of parties
to the antiterrorist front," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
stated in an address to the U.N. General Assembly in 2004. Russian
President Vladimir Putin commented during a visit to India in December
2004: "We cannot have double standards while fighting terrorism, and it
cannot be used as a geopolitical game." Akhmadov's presence in
Washington is thus already a major irritant in U.S.-Russia relations.
Seen in this context, Akhmadov emerges as a pawn in the Brzezinski clan
strategy to set the United States and Russia on a confrontation course, a
strategy they plan to impose on Obama, who is their clueless puppet in
international affairs.
Voters may remember the Chechen
terrorists for their greatest atrocity, the September 2004 attack on a
school in Beslan, North Ossetia, located in the ethnically diverse
trans-Caucasus region of southern Russia. At that time, Chechen
terrorists took hundreds of hostages in an elementary school. Before the
terror attack was finished, more than 300 persons, mainly school
children and women, had been massacred. The responsibility for this
atrocity was claimed in a formal statement by the terrorist leader
Shamil Basayev, a reputed CIA agent later killed by Russian troops. This
infamous Basayev, one of the fiercest terrorists of our own or any
other time, is generally acknowledged to have been the direct superior
officer, mentor, and friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, the protege of Zbigniew
Brzezinski now living at U.S. taxpayer expense. Akhmadov himself admits
his close relationship to Basayev, whom he first met in 1992. In 1994,
when the Chechen secessionist rebellion began, Akhmadov was quick to
join an infantry unit commanded by Basayev operating near the Chechen
capital of Grozny. Akhmadov's other great terrorist sponsor was the
Chechen rebel "president" Maskhadov, who named Akhmadov to the job of
foreign minister which he still claims to hold, despite his claims to
disagree with the terrorist policies of the government he continues to
represent. Maskhadov was killed by Russian forces. Akhmadov, who demands
Sam Adams on draft, not in bottles when he is thirsty, told Zbigniew's
nephew Matthew that he no longer approves of what Basayev and Maskhadov
did, but his complicity is beyond doubt. (See Matthew Brzezinski, "How a
Chechen terror suspect wound up living on taxpayers' dollars near the
National Zoo," Washington Post, March 20, 2005.)
1995 BUDYONNOVSK HOSPITAL MASSACRE BY AKHMADOV'S FRIENDS
In
1995, a group of 150 Chechen terrorist fighters commanded by Basayev
attacked a Russian hospital in Budyonnovsk, about 100 miles north of the
Chechen border. Basayev and his terrorist commandos took more than
1,000 hostages at the hospital, leading to a siege by Russian forces
which lasted a week. Basayev's Chechen terrorist fighters used the
defenseless Russian patients and staff as human shields. In the ensuing
fighting, more than 100 Russian hostages, including many women and
children, perished. These are the forces which Akhmadov has represented
and continues to represent, with the American taxpayer footing the bill.
Akhmadov's track record is so horrendous that even some
important Republican Congressmen resisted granting him asylum in the
U.S. The 2003 House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner
(R-Wisconsin), and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security
subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that then
Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov
political asylum. "If the United States had evidence that Mr. Akhmadov
was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not
barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our
nation," they told Ashcroft in September 2004.
ZBIGNIEW: "ONE OF THE HAPPIEST DAYS OF MY LIFE"
"In
July 2004 ... after running up legal fees that (if he had had to pay
them) would have set him back $250,000, Akhmadov received the final
decision. He could stay in America," writes Matthew Brzezinski. He does
not make clear who footed the bill for Akhmadov's quarter million
dollars of lawyers' expenses. Was it the American taxpayer? In any case,
there is no doubt that the pro-Akhmadov lobbying was spearheaded by
Zbigniew Brzezinski and his faction of Russia haters. When Akhmadov was
granted permanent asylum, it was apparently Zbigniew Brzezinski who
called to give him the news: "I'm not exaggerating when I say that one
of the happiest days of my life was when I called Ilyas to tell him that
he would be able to stay in America," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, as
quoted by his own nephew, Matthew. (Washington Post, March 20, 2005)
Akhmadov
was later given a Reagan-Fascell grant by the State Department. This
provides him with a generous stipend for living expenses, an office at
the National Endowment for Democracy complete with private secretary,
plus extra money for travel and public relations purposes -- all
courtesy of the American taxpayer. Would an Obama administration, with
an anti-Russian foreign policy dictated by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
clan, bring Chechen terrorists in large numbers to this country,
provided that they were anti-Moscow? Would these terrorists get
Reagan-Fascell grants from the State Department, so that they could live
and operate at U.S. taxpayer expense? What impact might that have on
U.S.-Russian relations? If these terrorists were to orchestrate a huge
atrocity in Russia that had their fingerprints all over it, what might
the Russian response be? Do we really want to go down this road in
deference to the psychotic obsessions of an aging revanchist and
Russophobe like Zbigniew Brzezinski?
Especially after the
publication of Matthew Brzezinski's whitewash of Akhmadov, the presence
of an ambassador for such a terror organization being maintained by the
U.S. taxpayers in Washington DC became a public scandal. The scandal
came out in the pages of Johnson's Russia List, the scholarly clearing
house for information about Russia. Professor Robert Bruce Ware of
Southern Illinois University offered the following facts to challenge
the Matthew Brzezinski article, which had claimed that Akhmadov was now
penitent for the actions of the Chechen terrorist regime:
On
August 2 and September 5, 1999, the Russian Republic of Dagestan was
invaded by about 2,000 terrorists from al-Qaeda-connected bases in
Chechnya. Dozens of innocent Dagestani men, women, and children were
murdered. According to figures furnished by the ONHCR, 32,000 people
were driven from their homes. The invasions were potentially genocidal
in that they exposed to direct attack the entire ethnic territories, and
all villages, inhabited by some of Dagestan's smaller ethno-linguistic
groups, such as the Andis.
During these months Ilyas
Akhmadov was serving as Chechnya's foreign minister. He did not resign
from that position. I have been able to find no evidence that Akhmadov
issued any public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan during
the six weeks that they were in progress. During interviews with
Dagestanis since that time, I have been able to find no one in Dagestan
who is aware of any public statement issued either by Ilyas Akhmadov or
Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov repudiating the invasions while they
were in progress, let alone offering to assist the people of Dagestan in
resisting them. (Robert Bruce Ware, "Response to Brzezinski," Johnson's
Russia List, March 20, 2005)
Professor Ware challenged
the Brzezinski cabal to justify their support for Akhmadov and the
Chechen terrorists, especially in the light of Bush's posturing that
those who harbor terrorists are themselves to be classified as
terrorists:
We Americans can easily imagine how we would
feel if we were to discover that Mullah Omar, or any other important
Taliban official, had been granted political asylum in Russia ... Now
here are my first questions for Ilyas Akhmadov, the Brzezinski clan, ...
and everyone else cited in the Brzezinski article: If the United States
was correct to declare the entire Taliban government a terrorist
organization, then why isn't the Russian government correct to declare
the Chechen government, including Aslan Maskhadov and Ilyas Akhmadov, to
be a terrorist organization? If we would think it wrong of Russia to
grant political asylum to Mullah Omar, then why do we not think that it
is wrong for the United States to grant political asylum to Ilyas
Akhmadov? Why didn't Ilyas Akhmadov resign from the Chechen government
when Dagestan was invaded? Why didn't Ilyas Akhmadov resign from the
Chechen government when Asian Maskhadov refused to extradite the leaders
of the invasion of Dagestan? During the months of August and September
1999, Ilyas Akhmadov was shuttling between Moscow and Grozny in order to
negotiate these points with Russian officials. During those months did
Ilyas Akhmadov personally refuse, or convey refusals, of requests such
as these? Exactly what record is there that Ilyas Akhmadov ever issued a
public statement repudiating the invasions of Dagestan while those
invasions were in progress, or supporting the extradition of the
invasions' leaders? (Robert Bruce Ware, "Response to Brzezinski,"
Johnson's Russia List, March 20, 2005)
"ACHMADOV SHOULD BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE UNITED STATES"
Professor
Ware's conclusion was that Akhmadov needed to be deprived of his State
Department funding and kicked out of the United States: "If 9/11 made
Bin Laden a terrorist, and if the Oklahoma City blast made McVeigh a
terrorist, then why didn't his public acceptance of responsibility for
the Ingushetia raids make Aslan Maskhadov a terrorist? And if his public
acceptance of responsibility for those raids made Maskhadov a
terrorist, then why doesn't it implicate those who represented him, such
as Ilyas Akhmadov, in charges of terrorism? And if it does make Ilyas
Akhmadov a terrorist then why is he enjoying political asylum and a
prestigious professional position at the expense of the American
taxpayer? ... Akhmadov should be asked to leave the United States as
soon as possible." (Robert Bruce Ware, "Response to Brzezinski,"
Johnson's Russia List, March 20, 2005) Better yet, Akhmadov should be
handed over to Russia, which would get him off the back of the U.S.
taxpayer. At the very least, Akhmadov should be indicted for terrorism
and put on trial in Washington.
BRZEZINSKI SUPPORTED POL POT
Zbigniew
Brzezinski's support for Chechen terrorism, no matter how dangerous
this policy may be for the United States, is exemplary for his entire
approach to world affairs, which he calls "geostrategy." In practice,
this means Russophobia, the hatred of Russia. So fanatical is Zbigniew's
hatred for Russia that he is willing to embrace any lunatic adventure,
no matter what the potential for blowback and damage to the United
States, as long as he thinks that Moscow may be harmed in the process. A
good example is his support of the genocidal Pol Pot regime in Cambodia
during the time he ran foreign policy in the Carter Administration. Pol
Pot was supported by the Chinese, and the Chinese at that time were the
key to Brzezinski's version of the China card policy, which was to play
Beijing against Moscow in the hopes of weakening both. This is another
very dangerous idea that he hopes to duplicate under a future Obama
regime. Here is Brzezinski's confession that he backed Pol Pot, which
makes him an accessory to one of the greatest crimes against humanity in
the twentieth century. The Pol Pot regime slaughtered between two and
three million of its own people, a greater proportion of the target
population than that attained by any other genocide in our time. But
this was no impediment to Zbigniew:
In 1981, President
Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said, 'I
encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.' The U.S., he added, 'winked
publicly' as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge through Thailand." Even
after the Pol Pot regime had been defeated on the battlefield by the
forces of Hanoi, it continued to occupy the Cambodian seat at the United
Nations, thanks largely to the support of the Carter administration
which was ordered by Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Cold War measure, and as a
part of his China card anti-Russian rapprochement with Beijing. By this
time, it was clear that the Pol Pot regime had indeed committed
genocide. (John Pilger, "The Long Secret Alliance: Uncle Sam and Pol
Pot," Fall 1997, online at:
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/pilgerpolpotnus.pdf., citing
Elizabeth Becker, When the War was Over, New York: Simon and Shuster,
1986, p. 440.)
Brzezinski also set the United States on
the course that has led to the First Gulf War and the current Iraq and
Afghanistan debacles. In 1980, Brzezinski was the author of the Carter
Doctrine, which stated that the United States was determined to dominate
the Persian Gulf against all comers. Two subsequent wars have done
nothing more than play out the logic of that commitment, which Zbigniew
intended to favor a collision between Washington and Moscow.
BRZEZINSKI BOASTS OF STARTING THE AFGHAN WAR
Brzezinski
was also the great promoter of Islamic fundamentalism, which he
celebrated as the greatest bulwark against Soviet Russian communism.
Using the Islamic fundamentalists, Brzezinski hoped to make the entire
region between the southern border of the U.S.S.R. and the Indian Ocean
into an "arc of crisis," from which fundamentalist subversion would
radiate into Soviet territory, first and foremost into the five Soviet
republics of central Asia, Azerbaijan, etc. It was in the service of
this Islamic fundamentalist card that Brzezinski first helped overthrow
the Shah of Iran, and then insisted that the replacement could be no one
else than Ayatollah Khomeini. To magnify the impact of Khomeini,
Brzezinski sent subversion teams into Afghanistan during the summer of
1979 to undermine the pro-Soviet forces there and induce Moscow to
intervene. When the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan at Christmas 1979,
Moscow claimed that they were responding to earlier aggressive moves
into that country by the U.S. In an interview about ten years ago,
Brzezinski conceded that this had been true: Zbig had indeed sent
subversion and terror teams into Afghanistan at least six months before
the Soviet invasion, as is clear from this excerpt from that interview:
Brzezinski:
... According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the
Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a
note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q:
Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q:
When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they
intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in
Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of
truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what?
That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?
The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the U.S.S.R.
its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a
war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B:
What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation
of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense!
(Nouvel Observateur, January 15-21, 1998)
From
today's perspective, a greater irresponsibility and adventurism could
hardly be imagined. The First Gulf War, the disastrous Iraq War, and the
looming Iran War are the direct fruits of Zbigniew's adventurous
precedents. If Zbig now argues that he did not mean to go so far in this
theater, that changes nothing in this picture.
THE BRZEZINSKI PLAN FOR RUSSIA
The
leaders in Moscow have Zbigniew's number -- he has been ranting against
them for fifty years and more. They are well aware of the existence of a
Brzezinski Plan, a confidential design to break up the Russian
Federation and partition European Russia along the lines of what
occurred during the Russian Civil War, in the wake of World War I and
the Bolshevik Revolution. In those days the White Annies were led by
figures like Wrangel, Deinkin, Kolchak and the rest, with U.S. forces
landing at Munnansk. Today, the reactionary armies are led by the
megalomaniac Zbigniew, who deludes himself that he can go as a victor to
Moscow, where Napoleon and Hitler failed.
Brzezinski's
aggressive plans are notorious among Russian leaders. As the Russian
government minister Ivanov remarked: "Russia has to remain strong
culturally, economically and politically," he was quoted as saying by
ITAR Tass. "Otherwise, the 'Brzezinski plan' may prove a reality." The
wire explained that the "'Brzezinski plan' is a term used by Russian
political figures since at least the mid-1980s to describe alleged
Western plots to destabilize the Soviet Union and later Russia."
(Douglas Birch, "Kremlin Powers May Be Split After Putin," AP, June 26,
2007)
Another news article related that by 2002
pro-Russian forces in Ukraine "have increasingly given credence to a
'Brzezinski plan' conspiracy that was first aired by Russian sources
close to President Vladimir Putin. The 'Brzezinski plan' is supposedly
an elaborate plan concocted by a group of U.S. policymakers to overthrow
President Kuchma [then the president of Ukraine] and replace him with
[NATO puppet] Yushchenko in a 'bloodless revolution.' An analogy is
drawn with the overthrow of Slobodan Milosovic in Serbia in October
2000. Yushchenko's alleged allies in this plot are the two wings of the
radical anti-Kuchma opposition, [kleptocrat] Yuliya Tymoshenko, his
former deputy prime minister, and Socialist leader Oleksandr Moroz.
(Taras Kuzio, "Russia Gives Ukraine a Helping Hand in Its Elections,"
RFE/RL, January 22, 2002) This is of course the scenario that played out
under Brzezinski's command, with great and continuing danger to the
peace of Europe and the world, at the end of 2004. The Yushchenko
pro-NATO regime in Kiev was installed by the November-December 2004 CIA
people power coup or color revolution cynically orchestrated by Zbigniew
and Mark Brzezinski, with the help of Mark Penn.
OBAMA: A FACE LIFT FOR IMPERIALISM
The
terms of Zbig's endorsement of his own protege are very revealing.
Obama "recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of
direction, a new definition of America's role in the world," Brzezinski
remarked during an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political
Capital with Al Hunt." "Obama is clearly more effective and has the
upper hand," Brzezinski said. "He has a sense of what is historically
relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to
the world." Brzezinski dismissed Hillary Clinton as totally inadequate:
"Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president.
President Truman didn't have much experience before he came to office.
Neither did John Kennedy," Brzezinski said. Clinton's foreign-policy
approach is "very conventional," Brzezinski added. "I don't think the
country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago." "There is a
need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs," he
continued. "And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the
intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America's
relationship with the world." (Bloomberg, "Zbigniew Brzezinski Endorses
Barack Obama," Friday, August 24, 2007)
In other words,
U.S. imperialism needs a face lift and a dose of steroids to be able to
address the question of finally eliminating any challenger powers and
attaining a permanent U.S.-U.K. Universal Monarchy, the real content of
the shopworn phrase, "New World Order." Brzezinski's latest book, Second
Chance, is widely viewed as the user manual for an Obama puppet regime.
Here Zbig argues that there is a worldwide political awakening going
on. This is true, and in the real world the content of this awakening is
the demand for national independence, economic progress, modern
science, modern industry, modern technology, rising standards of living,
and no more IMP conditionalities. This awakening is clearly expressed
in the world-wide demand for peaceful nuclear power reactors which is
currently sweeping the planet, and which the Bush administration has
been powerless to block, despite their efforts at confrontation with
Iran over precisely this issue. Here is Zbigniew's prescription in a
nutshell:
The price of failing to implement ... [my]
strategy is twofold. First, the U.S. will spur Russia and China among
others to form a rival axis of power that could tip the world toward
larger imperial wars. Second, it will antagonize the emerging populist
rebellion against global inequality. This widening inequality is
producing "revolutionaries-in-waiting ... the equivalent of the militant
proletariat of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ... [The]
political awakening is now global in geographic scope, comprehensive in
social scale ..., strikingly youthful in demographic profile and thus
receptive to rapid political mobilization, and transnational in sources
of inspiration because of the cumulative impact of literacy and mass
communications. As a result, modern populist passions can be aroused
even against a distant target, despite the absence of a unifying
doctrine such as Marxism. ... Only by identifying itself with the idea
of universal human dignity -- with its basic requirement of respect for
culturally diverse political, social, and religious emanations -- can
America overcome the risk that the global political awakening will turn
against it.
As a perceptive reviewer summed it up,
"Brzezinski's book is a liberal manifesto for rehabilitating
imperialism. But it relies on a fundamental, faulty assumption that the
world's nations, both great powers and war- torn nations, can be led by
the U.S. as a global commonweal." (Ashley Smith, "Rehabilitating U.S.
Imperialism: Review of Zbigniew Brzezinski's Second Chance: Three
Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower," www.Dissident
voice.org.) Zbig's book is thus a thinly veiled call for more and better
color revolutions and CIA people power coups on the model of those of
Belgrade, Kiev, and Tiflis, all stressing the rights of subject
nationalities to secede from larger entities -- a perfect recipe for
chaos and war in the ethnic labyrinth of the Caucasus and
Trans-Caucasus, which the madman Brzezinski regards as one of the keys
to world domination, because of the potential he sees there to
destabilize and dismember the Russian Federation.
Brzezinski's
ancestors worked with the British to incite the subject nationalities
of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and German Empires to rebel against
St. Petersburg, Vienna, and Berlin, not in their own interests, but
rather for the greater glory of London. Now Zbigniew wants to pose as
the modern Mazzini, who wanted to make Italy turbulent -- which was bad
for Vienna -- without making her united and strong, which would have
posed problems for the imperial lifeline to India through the central
Mediterranean. Brzezinski's method would lead quickly to an economically
depressed, impoverished and desolate world of squabbling, impotent
petty states, presided over by Anglo-American finance oligarchs and
their all-important eastern European emigre advisers.
Naturally,
Zbigniew is a fanatical opponent of Third World economic development;
he once said that the U.S. would never tolerate any more Japans in Asia
-- in other words, no more successful transitions from backwardness to a
modern full-set economy. A basic tenet of counter-insurgency is that
when you are confronted with broadly supported economic and political
demands, play the card of divide and conquer in the form of local
control, tribal, racial, ethnic, and religious divisions, etc. Zbig
claims that the real goal of the world-wide awakening is "dignity." By
dignity he means respect for every minute parochial or particularist
trait of every real or imagined ethnic group and sub-group. It is the
kind of dignity that reduces those who enjoy it from the status of
independent nations to mere ethnographic material. Such dignity as Zbig
imagines can only be attained by the smallest possible political units
-- by the thorough balkanization, partition, and subdivision of the
existing national states. It is the kind of dignity the British Empire
had in mind when it played the Mazzini card of national
self-determination against the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman
Empires. Woodrow Wilson played the same card at Versailles. This kind of
dignity is congenial and compatible with the Bernard Lewis Plan for
carving and balkanizing every nation in the Middle East -- three Iraqs,
six or seven Irans, four or five Pakistans, two Sudans, multiple
Lebanons, with Turkey, Syria, and others mutilated and chopped up as
well. Think of the current tragic status of Iraqi Kurds, Sunnis, and
Shiites, and you will see the kind of dignity that Zbig is selling. Zbig
obviously intends to apply this recipe in the ethnic labyrinth of the
Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus with a view to starting the ethnic
disintegration of all of Russia -- a lunatic ploy if there ever was one.
Another obvious flashpoint is Kosovo, where attempts to declare
unilateral independence by the terrorist gun-runner and narcotics
dealers of the KLA could come as soon as February 2008 this month.
Russia has already announced unspecified countermeasures to deal with
such a unilateral declaration of independence, which is illegal under
international law because of the Helsinki CSCE treaty of 1975, which
finally put an end to World War II by fixing all European borders as of
that date as permanent, except for changes mutually agreed to by the
concerned parties. Zbig, one of the cheerleaders for the bombing of
Serbia in the spring of 1975, cares as little about international law as
any neocon.
OBAMA WANTS TO ATTACK PAKISTAN
Writing
in the Atlantic Monthly, pro-Obama swooner Andrew Sullivan pointed to
the massive soft power -- understood as the ability to dupe and deceive
the masses of the developing sector that would accrue to the United
States by making the Illinois senator with his lofty utopian and
messianic platitudes the new face of U.S. imperialism. He illustrates
this by imagining a young Pakistani Moslem who sees Obama's inauguration
on his television screen, and presumably rushes off to join in the
pro-Obama swoon of the corrupt and decadent U.S. media whores. This is
an ironical choice, since Pakistan is the one country that Obama has
talked of attacking and bombing. Will Obama's magical charisma still be
able to dupe the Pakistanis when the bombs begin to fall?
Another
issue that worries the imperial apologist Sullivan is the deep partisan
divide in U.S. public life which is the heritage of Bush and his gaggle
of neocon fascist madmen. Sullivan is concerned that the raging
resentment against Bush & Co. may undermine the ability of the U.S.
ruling elite to manipulate and control public opinion by means of false
flag terror operations. Here Sullivan sees the potential for a
Spanish-style anti-terrorism backlash, on the model of Madrid in March
of 2004, which punished and ousted the neofascist prime minister Aznar,
who had tried to ride the terror attacks into a permanent personal
dictatorship by suspending the national elections. Obama is seen by
Sullivan as the key to restoring the unity of a nation of sheep and
dupes that will have a uniform Pavlovian reaction to the next false flag
terror provocation:
"Perhaps the underlying risk is
best illustrated by our asking what the popular response would be to
another 9/11-style attack. It is hard to imagine a reprise of the sudden
unity and solidarity in the days after 9/11, or an outpouring of
support from allies and neighbors. It is far easier to imagine an even
more bitter fight over who was responsible (apart from the perpetrators)
and a profound suspicion of a government forced to impose more
restrictions on travel, communications, and civil liberties. The current
president would be unable to command the trust, let alone the support,
of half the country in such a time. He could even be blamed for
provoking any attack that came." Andrew Sullivan, "Good-Bye to All
That," Atlantic Monthly, December 2007, p. 46)
With Obama
in the White House and the partisan divide papered over, the way would
be clear to unleash new false flag provocations as needed, and the
entire Anglo-American oligarchy could breathe easier.
In
addition to his call for an attack on Pakistan, Obama has also demanded
the addition of 93,000 more combat troops to the permanent U.S. regular
army. This demand puts him in the company of some of the most extreme
hawks. Obama stated: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a
twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnership as
strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on
the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." (Fred Hiatt
"Stay-the-Course Plus: Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on
Steroids," Washington Post, June 4, 2007.
MAX HASTINGS: "WILL WE HAVE TO FIGHT RUSSIA IN THIS CENTURY?"
The
idea of inevitable war with Russia is now looming large in the
pathological imagination of the corrupt and incompetent Anglo-American
ruling elite; it has assumed the proportions of a new twilight of the
gods. The British ruling class has been leading the charge, with their
absurd charges about the Politkovskaya and Litvinenko assassinations,
and their ham-handed provocations during the dispute about the status of
the subversive British Council in Russia. The influential British
oligarchical spokesman Max Hastings summed up this mood in the London
Guardian last summer in an article entitled, "Will we have to fight
Russia in this century?"
"We should hope that George
Bush's successor as U.S. President is less appallingly clumsy, in
provoking Moscow with promised missile deployments a few miles from her
border. But the notion of Western friendship with Russia is a dead
letter. The best we can look for is grudging accommodation. The bear has
shown its claws once more, as so often in its bloody history, and its
people enjoy the sensation. We may hope that in the 21st century we
shall not be obliged to fight Russia. But it would be foolish to suppose
that we shall be able to lie beside this dangerous, emotional beast in
safety or tranquility. (Max Hastings, ("Will we have to fight Russia in
this century," Guardian, June 5, 2007)
ZBIG'S GRAND STRATEGY FOR 2009-2013: PLAY CHINA AGAINST RUSSIA
Given
the ongoing breakdown crisis and disintegration of the U.S.-U.K.
currency and banking systems, these powers are impelled to try to
consolidate their world domination while there is still a chance of
doing so. Single superpowers do not last very long, as history shows.
The Spanish Empire of Phillip II seemed close to universal monarchy
after the Turkish naval defeat at Lepanto in 1571 and the outbreak of
the religious civil wars in France, but by the treaty of Vervins in
1598, it was clear that the resurgent France of Henry IV was once again
capable of checkmating and balancing the Spanish. The France of Louis
XIV appeared close to universal domination at the time of the Peace of
the Pyrenees with Spain in 1659, at the end of the Thirty Years War. But
by 1689 William of Orange had assembled his grand alliance against the
French Sun King, and by Rijswijk in 1697 it was clear that the French
domination was weakening. Today's grand alliance against U.S.-U.K.
pretensions to universal empire is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), composed of China, Russia, and most of the central Asian
republics, with new members knocking at the door. It is this SCO which
Brzezinski is determined to smash, with Obama as his chief operative.
In
June, 2007, Bush the elder and Bush the younger co-hosted Vladimir
Putin at their compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in the so-called
lobster summit. The goal here was to detach Russia from the SCO and play
it against China as an Anglo-American kamikaze. This was of course
wrapped up in platitudes about preserving U.S.-Russian friendship, but
the reality was the attempt to use Russia as a dagger against Beijing.
Putin was of course far too intelligent to accept such a degrading and
suicidal role, despite the many false friends who were urging him to
accept. In reality, the Russian nyet had already been delivered six
months earlier by Foreign Minister Lavrov in his essay on the
catastrophic Russian experience as a member of the British-dominated
Triple Entente during World War I. Lavrov's retrospective led to the
conclusion that Russia would never again be duped into the role of pawn
for anybody's imperialism. Since Putin declined to go to work for the
U.S.-U.K. against China, Washington-Moscow relations have steadily
deteriorated, with Bush threatening world war three in both October and
November 2007.
Since the Bushies had failed to play
Russia against China, Zbig now proposes to play China against Russia. In
a recent op-ed, he argued in veiled language that China's energy needs
could be manipulated in such a way as to direct Chinese expansionism and
dynamism on eastern Siberia, thereby setting up China for a direct
military conflict with Russia -- an old cold war dream that has
circulated in Zbig's revanchist circles since the 1950s. Zbig delicately
summed up China's energy vulnerability as follows in a late November
2007 Washington Post op-ed: "I recently visited China, where I had the
opportunity to engage Chinese leaders in wide-ranging private
conversations. I returned with two strong impressions regarding China's
attitude toward the Iranian problem. The first is that the magnitude of
China's internal transformation makes it vulnerable to global political
and economic instability." Secondly, "Iran supplies much-needed oil to
China," and China does not want the U.S. to disrupt its trade by
attacking Iran.
In Samuel Huntington's work on the clash
of civilizations in the mid-1990s, the assumption was that China and the
Arab/Islamic world were the main challengers to the U.S.-U.K. world
system. Now Zbig wants to revise that, putting China among the
supporters of the status quo and Russia at the top of the list of the
rebels against the Anglo-American yoke: "Thus China, despite its
meteoric rise toward global preeminence, currently is geopolitically a
status quo power." By contrast, "... Russia is an increasingly
revisionist state, more and more openly positioning itself to attempt at
least a partial reversal of the geopolitical losses it suffered in the
early 1990s. Cutting off direct U.S. access to Caspian and Central Asian
oil is high on the Kremlin's list." A U.S. attack on Iran is to be
rejected, because it would alienate China while making Moscow stronger,
Zbig argues: "Moreover, longer-term geopolitical threats are seen by
Moscow's elite as involving potential Chinese encroachments on Russia's
empty but mineral-rich eastern areas and American political
encroachments on the populated western areas of Russia's recently lost
imperial domain. In that context, the outbreak of a political conflict
in the Persian Gulf may not be viewed by all Moscow strategists as a
one-sided evil. The dramatic spike in oil prices would harm China and
America while unleashing a further wave of anti-American hostility. In
that context, Europe might distance itself from America while both
Europe and China would become more dependent on Russia's energy
supplies. Russia would clearly be the financial and geopolitical
beneficiary." (Washington Post, November 30, 2007) In other words, an
attack on Iran is useless and self-destructive, since it would help
Russia and open the eyes of the slumbering Europeans. Better to address
the Russian challenge directly, Zbig hints.
What this
doubletalk points to in the real world is the need to turn away from
confrontation with Iran in the short run, allowing the Chinese to
increase their dependence on Middle East oil that must come across
waters controlled by the U.S.-U.K. fleets. An unspoken but obvious
corollary is that the U.S. must do everything possible to prevent the
Chinese from developing access to oil sources in Africa or in central
Asia. The African side of this effort is easily visible in the U.S.-U.K.
agitation around Darfur: the attempt to orchestrate an attack on Sudan
has nothing to do with humanitarianism (by the butchers of Baghdad!),
and everything to do with the fact that Sudan is one of the key oil
suppliers to China, and will become an even bigger supplier as time goes
on. The new U.S.-AFRICOM, now in Stuttgart but soon to move to
Ethiopia, is a key aspect of the U.S. mobilization in many African
countries to deprive China of future oil sources in that continent.
About a year ago, the U.S.-U.K. successfully played off Ethiopia against
Somalia, severely weakening both.
The new U.S. deal with
Libya is another aspect of the same effort. In recent months, terrorist
actions by al Qaeda in Algeria and the other countries of the north
African Maghreb have indicated that Algeria, a large oil producer, will
be subject to U.S.-U.K. destabilization as part of the same anti-Chinese
campaign. The destabilization of Kenya has everything to do with this
same thrust. If the Chinese can be kept out of Africa, their dependence
on the Middle East will increase. As this is written, there is word of
large-scale destabilization in Chad. At some future time, London and
Washington could close the Middle East oil spigot, and China might
conclude that the only alternative would be to seize the oil wells of
sparsely populated eastern Siberia, as Brzezinski's article suggests.
That way one could get rid of both China and Russia, Zbig suggests.
Hare-brained "geostrategic" scheming of this sort was an important cause
of World War II. The advantages offered by Obama for a campaign of
large-scale subversion in Africa are obvious. The detailed work would be
done by Susan Rice, Clinton's assistant Secretary of State for African
affairs, and manifestly a proponent of an early U.S. attack on Sudan,
among other targets.
The mere thought that Trilateral
Commission founder Brzezinski clan may be getting close to the nuclear
button thanks to an Obama puppet presidency has already elicited
rumblings from Moscow. General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian chief of
staff, announced in January 2008 that Russia was now shifting its
nuclear doctrine to include first use of nuclear weapons in certain
situations. An AP report quoted Baluyevsky as stating: "We have no plans
to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in
the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military
forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of
nuclear weapons,' Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky said Baluyevsky identified no
specific nations or forces that threaten Russia. According to the ITAR
Tass news agency, however, he said threats to global security include
'the striving by a number of countries for hegemony on a regional and
global level' -- a clear reference to the United States -- and
terrorism." (AP, January 19, 2008)
Around the same time, a
group of retired NATO generals led by John Shalikashvili of the United
States and Klaus Naumann of Germany proposed that NATO also shift its
doctrine to frank reliance on the first use of nuclear weapons -- a
shift that the United States has already made for its own forces.
General Ivashov, the former chief of staff of the Russian forces,
replied from Moscow that the collapse of the U.S. dollar was spurring
the U.S. and NATO to court "nuclear Armageddon."
Every
vote for Obama is a vote to make these matters worse by bringing
Zbigniew Brzezinski's fingers closer to the nuclear button.
Tracking homicides in Chicago is an ongoing
project of the RedEye. This site is updated regularly with information
from the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office, the Chicago
Police Department and the Chicago Breaking News Center. Information is
subject to change.
Data points appear Thursdays in RedEye’s print edition.
EveryBlock was a source for 2008 homicide data.
Steal the data that drives this application
This application is based on Homicide Report, created for the Los Angeles Times by Ken Schwencke.
It was adapted for use in Chicago by Ryan Mark, Chris Groskopf, Joe Germuska and Brian Boyer.
By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor (not accepted by Press TV 36 hours ago)
Editor’s
Note: The video below crediting InfoWars contains significant
information. Lt. Col. Potter has less than half the story, washed clean
of Israeli involvement and a clear background. However, I recommend
the video just the same. What is sad is that Sandy Hook was so obvious
and he never saw it coming.
If we
allow this outrage, the Boston false flag to stand, patsies blamed for
an FBI/Mossad operation, we can only expect, not just more of the same,
but Lt. Col. Potter has some of it right.
—
This week’s terror attack in Boston is not the first incredible
failure of intelligence and law enforcement America has suffered. By
“incredible,” I mean exactly that, “not to be believed.”
Before the smoke had cleared, the Israel Lobby and DEBKA had
identified “domestic terrorists with Mid-East connections” as the guilty
parties. This, alone, was taken as a confirmation that a very real
conspiracy was involved, this time the most obvious false flag terror
attack yet.
HIGHEST SOURCES “WEIGH IN” ON BOSTON BOMBING
During 9/11, NORAD and the entire United States Air Force “vaporized”
just like the FBI, DHS and Boston PD security did. We’re getting used
to it, being lied to and, frankly, being murdered as well.
Within minutes of the Boston attack, America’s intelligence and
Special Operations community put their back-channel “round-robin” into
motion. This is how America’s top intelligence operatives informally
share sensitive information on threats
Those with the highest access to both human and signals intelligence,
those tasked with tracking and killing terrorists came to a very
startling conclusion.
“An American agency was involved, out first guess is that it is the FBI.”
CONTRACTOR WITH TIES TO ISRAELI EXTREMIST GROUPS TASKED WITH “BOMB EXERCISE” DURING TERROR ATTACK…CONCIDENCE OF THE CENTURY
Had I asked this question three years ago and I did, I would have
been called a “conspiracy theorist,” and, in fact, I was. Now I am
told, “Duff, you were right all along, we feel like such idiots.”
America’s Special Operations community has, of late, been under
attack. The group, long closely allied with their Israeli counterparts
and still maintaining strong friendships with Israeli counterparts, is
now skeptical of the souring relationship and Netanyahu’s poor
leadership.
Moreover, many of America’s elite warriors have been shocked to find
groups they belonged to listed as “terrorist.” Their conservative
politics and patriotism is now being characterized as a threat to
national security.
The new policy that has brought suspicion upon many of America’s
military and intelligence leaders originates from Tel Aviv. None saw
this coming, this betrayal.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, President Bush (43) appointed Michael Chertoff, an Israeli
citizen, as director of the Department of Homeland Security. It was
Chertoff’s job, while Secretary of DHS, to place all law enforcement,
counter-terrorism and domestic surveillance operations under Israeli
control.
This was done by directing all contracts to Israeli companies, all
equipment, all training and full access to all intelligence databases.
American companies, even “disabled veteran owned,” were excluded until
they took on Israeli partners.
All Americans involved in legislative and policy areas, defense,
intelligence, law enforcement and counter-terrorism efforts were taken
to Israel for indoctrination. Tens of thousands made the trip.
Israel was seen as “all knowing,” based on their daily fight for
survival against marauding armies of Palestinian suicide bombers intent
on throwing every Jew in the world into an oven.
Years later when more Americans learned that hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians had been murdered, others spending decades in
concentration camps while Israel conspired directly with the nations it
claimed were its “blood enemies,” Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE.
INDOCTRINATED TO “LOOK THE OTHER WAY”
Rather than improve skills and learn from very able Israeli experts,
those trained in and by Israeli’s became, albeit through a form of
“brainwashing,” complicit in helping undermine the United States.
Thus, when we learned from the University of Mobile cross-country
coach, Ali Stevenson, a participant in the marathon, that police told
him they were running a terrorism “drill,” things became clear.
Such drills are overseen by the Department of Homeland Security who
subcontracts to Israeli companies. They hire actors to wear backpacks
with “simulated” explosives in order to test security.
Several “actors” with backpacks containing “simulated” pressure-cooker bombs were spotted and their photographs published.
The same thing happened in London when, on July 7, 2005, actors hired
by an Israeli company to “play” roles as terrorists with “simulated”
bombs in backpacks were credited with killing or injuring over 700
commuters.
These are only two of many such “coincidences,” now clearly seen as
the result of “infiltration” of America’s security infrastructure by
terrorist elements somehow related to Israel.
The results of this are now being seen, bogus “lone gunman”
shootings, each more “incredible” than the last and now the Boston
Bombing.
IGNORING ESPIONAGE
When George W. Bush “assumed the presidency,” the FBI had been
investigating AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, as
an espionage organization. Stephen Rosen and Keith Weissman, both
Israeli citizens working at AIPAC had been arrested for espionage along
with Lawrence Franklin, an American official.
Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff and Attorney General John
Ashcroft ordered prosecution of Rosen and Weissman to be dropped.
Franklin, their co-conspirator went to prison.
AIPAC, along with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) under Abraham
Foxman and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) under Morris Dees,
were then contracted to “educate” America’s military and law enforcement
about terrorist threats.
However, as these organizations are Israeli financed and controlled
and, as Netanyahu has stated often, “when America suffers, Israel
profits,” any help from this direction is more “disease” than “cure.”
The first Bush nominee had to be withdrawn, NYC Police Commissioner
Bernie Kerik, bagman for self-ordained “9/11 hero” Rudy Giuliani, former
mayor. Kerik, who, on 9/11, took personal custody of those arrested
with weapons and explosives during attempts to destroy the Holland and
Lincoln Tunnels, was unable to serve.
Kerik is in prison. Those arrested on 9/11, with weapons and
explosives disappeared, all except five very famous videographers known
as “the dancing Israelis.” That’s OK, they were released too.
An illiterate Muslim cab driver, after being tortured for 5 years admitted to all of it, who would have guessed?
THE BOSTON “NO-BRAINER”
Three days after the Boston bombing, the FBI has released one blurry photograph of a possible “suspect.”
The same photograph in crystal clear high definition was released on
Facebook and published in Veterans Today days ago. Additionally, the
photographs of other suspects, all very clear and identifiable, were
published and have been seen by million yet the FBI is choosing to
release only altered and blurry reproductions of only one suspect.
Why would they do this?
When Israel’s DEBKA Files said one of the suspects were “Middle
Eastern”, they were correct it seems. One clearly identifiable
photograph of a suspect in a blue tracksuit does resemble someone who
may be from the Middle East.
That suspect appears to be an Israeli.
Maybe he isn’t, perhaps the FBI should publish his photograph and
seek to question why he set off a bomb and who he is and where he is
from.
Thus far, they have not seen this as a priority.
Of course, the FBI is trained and advised by Israeli companies. The
FBI has a long history of recruiting and training terrorists to attack
the United States and then arresting them “just in time.”
How many times has the FBI hired and trained terrorists and failed to arrest them “just in time?” We may never know.
Is this, perhaps, why the military and intelligence agencies suspect
the FBI may have actually been involved in the planning and execution of
a terror attack against the United States?
Posts
The Senator from New Jersey made 
Steal the data that drives this application
