Archive for February, 2012

“… a new Pearl Harbor” … “Over there!” … ?

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Saturday, February 25, 2012

UK Gov’t Ignores Pro-Assad Civilians, but Al Qaeda Confirmed In Opposition

Keelan Balderson, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has announced today at the fluffily named “Friends of Syria” conference, that Britain will only recognise the anti-Assad side of the conflict, as “legitimate representatives” of the country’s people [1]; meaning hundreds of thousands of citizens loyal to the Assad Government will now be ignored and effectively treated as enemy combatants – typical of the biased reporting so far.

Hague fails to address evidence that members of the opposition include Al Qaeda terrorists, that armed rebels are covertly directed by Western forces, and suspicions of CIA death squads deliberately used for destabilization.

Since the beginning of the violence, Western media has been reluctant to report any deaths at the hands of the armed rebels, preferring to call them activists or opposition. Anyone loyal to Assad is cynically labeled part of the “regime” or “Assad’s forces”.

In fact, the West are going directly to the opposition for death statistics and information, which is only going to produce a biased conclusion. Wikpedia for example states:

The number of fatalities in the conflict, according to sources in the Syrian opposition, was 8,976, updated to 22 February 2012. The number includes 887 military defectors, and does not include members of the government security forces [2].
This has two major problems. Firstly, the opposition are obviously going to have a pro-opposition bias. Secondly, it implies that every single civilian is a member of the opposition, and anyone loyal to Assad must be a member of the Government forces and should be glossed over.

This is an extremely disingenuous way to create statistics.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (one of the few groups that do count pro-Assad deaths), is a complete shambles and cannot be trusted. Apart from professing their opposition to Assad, suggesting immediate bias, they’re also based in Britain and meet with the Government [3], who has demanded regime change – further corrupting their coverage. On top of that, it’s not even clear who operates the organization.

Initially the media claimed it was run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one man alone, who would otherwise run a clothes shop; this gentleman’s name was said to be Rami Abdulrahman (or Rami Abdul Rahman, or Rami Abdelrahman)[4]. The website now claims that he is in fact called Osama Ali Suleiman, and he merely used the name Rami Abdulrahman, a pen-name that the website claims to have been initially used by all “SOHR members” [5]. claims that Abdulrahman was able to wrest control of the SOHR website in August 2011 by changing all the passwords and that he proceeded to make himself the chairman of the SOHR, upon which an organisation claiming to be the ‘real’ SOHR created the rival website [6]. This new website then proceeded to launch a smear campaign against Abdulrahman, claiming he only had a “very modest level of education”, condemning his “lack of professionalism” and even alleging that he is a member of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party [7].
Yet the media still go to these people as a reliable source for statistics and intel!

In reading between the headlines it’s clear that there are a substantial number of regular citizens who support Assad and are not being fairly represented in life or death. Those who have picked up arms to defend their country and the Government are invariably labeled by the media as Militiamen, which although is perhaps an accurate term, brings about negative connotations when written alongside opposition, activists, or the manipulatively named Free Syrian Army.

Is the point where they pick up a gun, the point where their opinion and death no longer count?

Nir Rosen a reporter for Al-Jazeera, who spent time with the opposition fighters states [8]:

Every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without any explanation of the cause of the deaths. Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters, but the cause of their death is hidden and they are described in reports as innocent civilians killed by security forces, as if they were all merely protesting or sitting in their homes.

This misinformation has a deep impact on the psyche of the Western public, who are essentially told Assad is using an army against peaceful activists and random civilians.

Rosen makes it clear that deaths are on both sides:

Every day, members of the Syrian army, security agencies and the vague paramilitary and militia phenomenon known as shabiha [‘thugs’] are also killed by anti-regime fighters.

How often do we hear about these deaths on the hourly news cycles?

In today’s briefing Hague vowed to “…intensify our links with the opposition.”

We, in common with other nations, will now treat them and recognise them as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

This implies that the majority of the Syrian people are with the opposition. But with biased death-tolls and a lack of anything tangible, it’s more likely Hague’s wishful thinking, rather than a fact.

While this meeting of Western leaders was taking place, about 200 pro-Assad demonstrators approached the hotel to make their voices heard. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided not to turn up on time because of the commotion [9].

Does that sound like unanimous support for the opposition?

In October 2011, The Telegraph reported on a rally of thousands of pro-Assad civilians, although they chose to use the sly wording of “Syrian state television has shown pictures of thousands of pro-government demonstrators…” , perhaps to imply some trickery was going on.

In November Euro News were a little less cynical when reporting on more mass, pro-Government rallies:

Mirroring these 2011 protests, last month hundreds of thousands of pro-government citizens took to the streets to reject calls from the Arab League and UN for Assad to step down before the planned elections [10].

One protester, Malek Ali said [11]: “We are here to denounce the Arab League decision that came in compliance with the Western schemes against our country.”

What Western schemes might that be?

As documented many times on this site, prior to 9/11 an Israeli linked clique within Right-Wing US politics, known as the Neo-Conservatives, wrote of an ideology known as Full Spectrum Dominance.
The idea was to promote US hegemony over the Middle-East [12]. As outlined by General Wesley Clarke, the Bush Administration which contained Neocons Dick Cheney (Vice President) and Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense), had decided that countries such as Iraq, Iran and Syria were to be invaded, long before there was any evidence to warrant such aggression. Evidence eventually presented against Iraq by the Anglo-American establishment, turned out to be lies, and we see the same lies being perpetuated against Iran today, over their nuclear program.

Although Obama plays the role of a Democrat, his actions speak louder than words. At no point has he changed the path set by the Neocons. Not only did he continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but along with other Western allies he oversaw the campaign against Libya, yet another country on the empire’s list.

In this context it makes sense why the West is happy to use dodgy death stats, and have pledged their sole support for the Syrian opposition, despite hundreds of thousands of Syrian citizens vocally backing Assad. Syria was on the list to invade as well, so impartiality goes out of the window.

There was always an agenda, and now the biased media is being used to spin an excuse for regime change; whether that be a UN peace-keeping mission, a NATO bombing campaign like Libya, or a covert coup.

Who really are the armed rebels?

There’s no doubt that there was and still is a peaceful protest movement within Syria that wants reform. The fact that there is real opposition, makes a coup d’état by those behind the Full Spectrum Dominance agenda less conspicuous, and helps draw wider support from the Western public, who have a very superficial view of the conflict. Now the conflict is in full swing with both sides are gunning it out, promoting reactionary responses that we simply must go in and help. The problem is, Western interventions usually turn in to a cloaked form of Imperialism, where the once-sovereign state, ends up a satellite of the West and beholden to Western corporations. They get to play free, but their destiny is not in their hands.

Although there is anecdotal evidence of a tough state crackdown early on, which has become the crux of the argument against Assad; what the Western media initially ignored were Assad’s claims in his interview with Barbra Walters, of “terrorists” and “extremists” fomenting the violence.

‘Not everybody in the street was fighting for freedom,’ says Assad [13]. ‘You have different components, you have extremists, religious extremists…like-minded people of Al Qaeda…from the very first few weeks we had those terrorists they are getting more and more aggressive, they have been killing. We have 1,000– over 1,100 soldiers and policeman killed, who killed them? peaceful demonstrators? This is not logical.’

While the word of Assad alone should be considered biased, this idea that there are extremists within the opposition stirring up violence is a continual theme that is now acknowledged by leading Western officials, which should add weight to Assad’s claims.

On February 16th, the Washington Post reported:

Members of al-Qaeda have infiltrated Syrian opposition groups, and likely executed recent bombings in the nation’s capital and largest city, the United States’ top intelligence official said Thursday…comments came just days after al-Qaeda leader Aymen al-Zawahiri released a video message urging fighters in Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon to mobilize against Assad.

If Al-Qaeda are present within the opposition, isn’t it careless to give weight only to the opposition’s view on things? When did we start trusting Al Qaeda? Do we replace Assad with a fundamentalist Muslim regime like what is now torturing citizens in Libya [14]?

…The remarks by Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are the most definitive to date from a senior Obama administration official on al-Qaeda’s efforts to insert itself into the Syrian uprising.

Rather than inserting themselves, what if they’ve been there since the beginning like Assad stated? Surely a proper investigation should take place before we make the grave mistake of backing an armed extremist regime over peaceful opposition and pro-Assad citizens?

But then again perhaps this was the Western Imperialist plan all along.

According to former CIA officer, Phil Giraldi [15], the Western leaders have been seeking a coup the whole time, right in line with the Full Spectrum Dominance agenda. It’s the West that are partly responsible for the bloody civil war playing out right now!

NATO is already clandestinely engaged in the Syrian conflict, with Turkey taking the lead as U.S. proxy. Ankara’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davitoglu, has openly admitted that his country is prepared to invade as soon as there is agreement among the Western allies to do so. The intervention would be based on humanitarian principles, to defend the civilian population based on the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine that was invoked to justify Libya….Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA and U.S. Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.

…The frequently cited United Nations report that more than 3,500 civilians have been killed by Assad’s soldiers is based largely on rebel sources and is uncorroborated…Syrian government claims that it is being assaulted by rebels who are armed, trained, and financed by foreign governments are more true than false.

His intelligence is further backed up by DEBKA File, an Israel based independent intel outlet [16]. They claim MI6 and British forces “manage rebel communications lines and relay their requests for arms, ammo, fighters and logistical aid to outside suppliers, mostly in Turkey.”

Israel of course is not off the hook, with reports of Israeli-made arms reaching the opposition [17].

What appears to be taking place is a hijacking of a legitimate protest movement by Western imperialists, who are covertly fomenting a civil war by arming and directing opposition rebels; some of whom are Al Qaeda terrorists. As this escalates the international community are seeking some kind of intervention, or at least a stepping down of Assad, so the goal of regime change can be reached.

If the CIA and MI6 et-al. are supporting Al Qaeda, why would Clapper admit Al Qaeda were infiltrating the Syrian opposition?

It’s part of the propaganda war. The Western mainstream media has never broken from the script that Al Qaeda are the enemy of the West. In admitting their presence in Syria, it actually gives the Imperialists a back-up reason for intervention. To get those darn terrorists!

In truth, the stance on Al Qaeda is much more complex. Clapper and his colleagues have used them as a proxy army as far back as the late ’70s through the ’80s, when the original Mujahideen were armed and trained by the CIA to fight the Russians [18]. Islamic extremists were then backed by Western Intelligence agencies during the ’90s conflict in the Balkans [19]. The recent NATO campaign against Libya was also supported by Al Qaeda linked rebels [20], who Giraldi claims have been flown from Libya to Syria for the latest black-op.

The Snipers are the Key:

From very early on during the Syrian protests there were reports of Sniper attacks picking off civilians. The Western media claims that these are Government forces targeting peaceful opposition activists, but one has to wonder what benefit the state gains from taking out random targets, including children.

Comic book evil does not cut it as an explanation. If anything, it impassions the legitimate opposition and offers the perfect reason for the West to demonize Assad and spark regime change. It does not help the state.

There is no physical proof of who the snipers are, or who they are working for. Naturally they operate from rooftops out of the way of prying eyes.

It’s possible they’re neither Government nor opposition, but outside forces with the aim of destabilization. To get everybody blaming each other and to cause chaos.

Independent journalist Webster Tarpley visited Syria at the tail-end of 2011, unlike a lot of Western commentators who report from the sidelines, based solely on opposition stats. He claims:

Average everyday Syrians of all persuasions are saying they are being shot at by snipers. In Homs in particular people claim there are terrorist snipers, who are shooting at civilians; men, women and children, blind terrorism, random killing, simply for the purpose of destabilizing the country…what we are dealing with are death squads, terror commandos…this is a typical CIA method. Gov Ignore Pro-Assad Civilians%3B But Al Qaeda Confirmed In Opposition – WideShut%3A Alternative News&src=sp

The director of the Canadian-based Center for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky, makes similar claims:

Although Tarpley and Chossudovsky’s claims of death squads may seem wild, and Russia Today may have its own agenda. (However the reader should be reminded that it’s not Russia invading half the world). We know the CIA and MI6 et al. are on the ground, and we know there’s an agenda for regime change. The idea should not be rejected from a deluded stance that the West doesn’t do bad things like that. The West is responsible for well over a million deaths in wars of aggression in the past decade alone.

Evidence of the method can be found if one looks for it.

In 2002, the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, in a military coup. On the 11th of April 2002, a march towards the presidential palace was organized by the US-backed Venezuelan opposition. Snipers hidden in buildings near the palace opened fire on protesters killing 18. The Venezuelan and international media claimed that Chavez forces were behind the killing, thereby justifying the military coup presented as a humanitarian intervention. Chavez fled for his safety, but as renowned journalist John Pilger points out [21]:

Within 48 hours, he was back in office, put there by the mass of the people, who came out of the shanty towns in their tens of thousands. Defying the army, their heroism was in support of a leader whose democratic credentials are extraordinary in the Americas, south and north. Having won two presidential elections, the latest in 2000, by the largest majority in 40 years, as well as a referendum and local elections, Chavez was borne back to power by the impoverished majority…The episode was a journalistic disgrace…the snipers almost certainly included agents provocateurs.

Video evidence now clearly shows that the image of supposed Chavez supporters sniping the opposition, was in fact a carefully cropped piece of propaganda, that when widened showed it was actually Chavez supporters trying to go after the phony snipers!

Pilger further reported on death squads in Iraq, which were also used for destabilization [22]:

The real news, which is not reported in the CNN ‘mainstream’, is that the Salvador Option has been invoked in Iraq. This is the campaign of terror by death squads armed and trained by the US, which attack Sunnis and Shias alike. The goal is the incitement of a real civil war and the break-up of Iraq, the original war aim of Bush’s administration.

In Libya whose NATO-backed rebels contained Al Qaeda linked extremists, the media ran with apparent footage of pro-Gaddafi snipers shooting at innocent opposition protesters. When the full video was leaked to YouTube, it actually showed Gaddafi supporters with their green flags fleeing from the shooting, which implies the rebels were actually targeting peaceful civilians, or they were third-party death squads causing destabilization.

Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Philip Alston, reported on CIA and other Western backed death squads targeting civilians in Afghanistan, who were widely acknowledged, even by well-informed Government officials, to have had no connection to the Taliban [23].


There is clear brutality on both sides, and innocents in-between, but with Hague only recognising the opposition, where does that leave the hundreds of thousands of vocal (and many more non-vocal) pro-Assad citizens who are up against Al Qaeda terrorists, and possible CIA death squads?

If you read between the lines, there are patterns and methods used time and time again. Why would Syria be any different? Why do we fall for the assurances of our leaders that this time it really is about bringing peace, freedom and democracy? Has that ever proven itself to be true?

As the agenda moves forward, the overthrowing of Syria leaves Iran a virtual sitting duck. The Al Qaeda forces in Syria can then be used as a proxy Army in the Iranian destabilization agenda, alleviating the West from carrying out an overt attack, which would give them bad PR. The presence of Al Qaeda can later be used as an excuse for overt Western intervention.

The only thing blocking these chess pieces falling into place are Russia and China. If they don’t stand their ground now it could later spill in to a second cold war.

The investigation continues….

This article first appeared at Wide Shut.

Keelan Balderson is an independent journalist, documentary filmmaker and Internet radio host from the UK. You can listen to his WideShut Webcast every Monday at 8pm GMT on Resistance Radio. Please support his work by visiting his website:

Please help us combat censorship: vote for this story on Reddit —

State Department Uses ‘Nuclear Option’ Propaganda to Justify More Preemptive War

Related Articles:

The Syria Debacle –- part II

Foreign Syrian intervention and the Russian-Chinese …

The Road To Tehran Goes Through Damascus

2011 – Year of the Dupe

Facebook page removed after uploading video exposing …

Do We Americans … understand why We are wrong?

Saturday, February 25th, 2012

What truths do we hold … “to be self-evident” ?

By  W J Anthony

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence brilliantly describes the unalienable Rights that our Creator has given to each of us, to use during our life on planet Earth.  Once we are born, we are involved with other people, starting with our parents, if we are fortunate, and possibly with brothers and sisters.

A process of learning begins, when we take our first breath, hear our first sounds, open our eyes for the first time and begin to wonder what this adventure of life outside the womb is all about.  The gift of a mother is immeasurable and the love of a mother opens the door to encourage us to understand what our role might be in the near hours of our future.  As each today becomes a yesterday, our judgments shape our journey and behavior in life with beliefs that we trust.

Our first crossroad begins with understanding our mother’s language, as she carefully opens for us a roadway to an infinity of information that quietly waits to serve what we choose to learn in our vocation on Earth.

As we discover the rules of life, we discover the puzzles that challenge our importance with consequences that await our decisions, one at a time.

The words of the Declaration are profound and require an effort on our part to discover and understand what their meanings might be.  The unalienable Rights include Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Four of the words used to express the Rights, contain meanings that need to be explained.  ‘Life’; what does that mean?  Likewise, what does ‘Liberty’ mean?   What does the word ’pursuit’ mean, and what is meant by the word ‘Happiness’?

Life takes place during our moment-by-moment existence in a sequence of locations, wherever we might be on Earth.  Liberty involves our willingness to participate in the busy-ness of the hives of activity that hum with efforts of thousands of people who collaborate in a web of processes that produce or distribute the millions of goods and services which humanity is accustomed to expect and use for the survival of its livelihood.

At the end of each week and at the beginning of each holiday, we find the word ‘pursuit’ to be appropriate, as we see thousands of employees of metropolitan cities join the flow of traffic to begin their journeys of temporary escape from the hustle and bustle of their homes and jobs in the urban areas of metropolitan America, to arrive at the locations that enshrine their acquaintances or family origins and remain in their memories of childhood and adolescent satisfaction.  That pursuit testifies to the truth, that we humans depend on each other, whether we know or admit it or not.

In our heart of hearts, this repeated exodus and return shows that we know it to be true, that life is more than just breathing and eating.  Life depends on many processes that take place in the hive of civilization. Life also needs our personal willingness to participate as a contributing member of humanity in one or several levels of participation that we may consider to be – governments.  Such governments are established to secure our unalienable Rights.

To accomplish those Rights, the organization of the hustle and bustle of the powers of production and distribution of goods and services is necessary, and the hive of human industry hums best when the efforts of humanity are consistently pursuing appropriate means to obtain personal happiness for each of its members – according to their abilities.

Happiness of a person depends on a safe environment in which each person can discover the dimensions of one’s self.  The process of self-discovery needs opportunities to compare oneself with the examples of mistakes and successes of other people who found the values that helped to change their personal weaknesses into the strengths that create and fulfill the happiness of appropriate satisfaction.

Our life and happiness depends on our Government that derives its just powers from the consent of we, our people, and uses its powers to organize opportunities for we, the people to use our appropriate powers to produce or distribute some of the goods and services that we, the people need to fulfill our pursuit of happiness.

Challenges come into each of our lives; some as surprises, others as consequences of what we experience.  At some time or other, each of us possibly finds our self, ready to ask, “Why was I born?  What is the purpose for which I was created?”  The answer may be very complex, if we consider the vast dimensions of the world into which we were born.  At some point, our questioning mind may choose to answer with, “God made us.”  Then our belief mind may recall what we heard from a philosopher, scientist, or what one or many preachers might describe as the nature of creation.

A most memorable explanation personally came to my mind many years ago, as a five year old first grade public school student, sitting in on the first day of a Saturday morning religion catechism class, when I was asked by the teacher to read out loud the first question and then continue to also read the answer.

“Who made me?”

“God made me.”

The teacher then asked another youngster to read the next question and then also read the answer.

“Why did God make me?”

“God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him in the next world.”

Those two questions and answers clicked in my mind, as if they would satisfy my every wonder then and thereafter, whether it be in my pursuit of education, or in my search to find my vocation in life, or learning to use my years of retirement before my life on Earth is finished.

Those two questions and answers helped me to understand that my weaknesses and strengths guide me to know how I should construct my identity to serve the purpose for which my Creator endowed me with those “certain unalienable Rights” and to remember that the same Creator also endowed every other person in this world, with those same “certain unalienable Rights”.

Could an updated catechism include the first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Declaration of independence?

God bless Iran … and … US ?

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

All the candidates for the Republican Party nomination – except Ron Paul – promised that they will order an attack on Iran if they are elected as President.

They disregarded the facts that Iran has complied with all international regulations in their research and applications of nuclear energy, and it has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has allowed full inspection of their industry.   Despite this, the media has pushed for war to convince US politicians to attack Iran.

In our search to understand the truth and consequences of an American attack on Iran, we found this awesome report on the website:   “alakhbar”.
It is the best analysis we have found, and it may be the best that you will find.
“How Iran Changed The World

By Sharmine Narwani – Fri, 2012-02-17 22:12- The Sandbox

Imagine this scenario: A developing nation decides to selectively share its precious natural resource, selling only to “friendly” countries and not “hostile” ones. Now imagine this is oil we’re talking about and the nation in question is the Islamic Republic of Iran…

Early news reports on Wednesday claimed that Iran pre-empted European Union sanctions by turning off the oil spigot to six member-states: the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece and Portugal.

The reports were premature. According to a highly-placed source in the country, Iran will only stop its oil supply to these nations if they fail to adopt new trading conditions: 1) signing 3 to 5-year contracts to import Iranian oil, with all agreements concluded prior to March 21, and 2) payment for the oil will no longer be accepted within 60-day cycles, as in the past, and must instead be honored immediately.

Negotiations are currently underway with all six nations. Iran, says the source, expects to cut oil supplies to at least two nations based on their current positions. These are likely to be Holland and France.

Meanwhile, the other four EU member-states are in dire financial straits. They are knee-deep in the kind of fiscal crisis that has no hope of resolution unless they exit the union and go back to banana republic basics. Yet, they found the time to sanction Iran over some convoluted American-Israeli theory that the Islamic Republic may one day decide to build a nuclear weapon. I am sure arm-twisting was involved – the kind that involves dollars for votes.

But I digress. This blog is really about ideas. And not just ideas, but really ridiculous ideas.
New World Order Jump-Started by Iran?

Alternative sources of oil will be found in a jiffy for these beleaguered EU economies. But this isn’t so much about a few barrels of the stuff that fuels the world’s engines.
This is about the idea that a singular action taken amidst the political and economic re-set about to take place globally, can propel us in a whole new direction overnight.

The past few years have shown that there is no global financial leadership capable of pulling us back from the abyss. The US national debt hovers around the US$15.3 trillion mark. Its GDP in 2011 was just under US$15 trillion. You do the math – there is no fixing that one. The only next-big-thing coming out of that dead end will be the complete transformation of the current global economic order.

But how will that take place without leadership and clear direction? I’m betting hard that It will not come from the top, nor will it be directed. The new global economic order will be organic, regional and quite sudden.

What do I mean? Imagine: Iran stops selling oil to the EU; China tells the US to take a hike on currency values; India starts trading in large quantities of rupees; Russia’s central bank becomes a depot for holding dollars that don’t need to pass through New York; the creation of a global payment messaging system competing with SWIFT. Now imagine that a combination of actions – triggered only by an attempt to circumvent some really very silly sanctions – can suddenly unleash some unexpected possibilities that were beyond the realm of imagination a mere few years ago.

Imagine the emergence, say, of regional economic hubs, powered by the currencies of the local hegemonic powers, where bartering natural resources, goods and services becomes as commonplace as transactions involving currency transfers. Because of the frailty inherent in dealing with these new local currencies and a bartering system, nations tend to trade most with those closest to them in geography and culture. Shocking? Maybe not. Sometimes it just takes a need for change…and a handy tipping point.

“This is not the time to fan the flames,” someone should have told the United States. “You and your pals are sitting in a jalopy tottering on the cliff’s edge – why risk making moves now?” they should have warned. “Be a little less arrogant,” would have been sage advice.

But Washington is absolutely, irrevocably, dangerously fixated on showing Iran who’s boss, and spends a good part of every day trying to tighten the screws around the Islamic Republic. For the most part, the US’s pursuit of this dubious objective has instead stripped it of the vital political tools it once wielded. No more UN Security Council resolutions, no more unscrutinized military adventures. The only thing left is the nefarious tentacles of the United States Department of Treasury and its financial weapons. “The new tools of imperialism,” as once US-friendly central banker in the Mideast bluntly put it to me.

I only hear shrill desperation when politicos now parrot the “sanctions are biting” line. Here’s a juicy tidbit for those rolling their eyes right now: Goldman Sachs – America’s premier investment bank and Wall-Street God – has identified the Islamic Republic as one of the “Next 11” growth drivers of the global economy after the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations. BRIC was a term coined by Goldman Sachs, if you recall, and boy, were they right about that one.

Thirty years of “biting” sanctions and sanctions “with teeth” have achieved the following: “Strong or improving growth conditions,” said Goldman Sachs just last year, “combined with favorable demographics, form the foundation of the N-11 growth story.” The investment bank, furthermore, estimates “a measurable increase in the N-11’s share of global GDP, from roughly 12 percent in the current decade to 17 percent in 2040-2049.”

It’s a bad global economy we are facing right now, but Goldman Sachs’ charts illustrate that Iran is still one of five nations in the N-11 pot whose “productivity and sustainability of growth” is above average.

Shrugging off Dollar Dominance

A British investment research firm wrote in January: “Sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran effectively restricts Iranian oil sales to barter contracts or to state-to-state agreements utilizing non-G8 currencies…It represents a major irritation to the Iranians, rather than a chokehold.”

The authors specify the Chinese Yuan as the non-G8 currency, but in the past few days that scenario has busted open with the addition of the Indian Rupee into the mix.

The new trade deal inked between Iran and India ensures Rupee payment for 45 percent of Iranian oil imports, with the balance remaining in Indian banks to pay for exports to the Islamic Republic. This achieves two important things that are an unintended consequence of US sanctions: firstly, it eliminates the Dollar as the trading currency (note that oil prices have traditionally been priced in US Dollars); secondly, it significantly accelerates economic integration between Iran and one of the four largest emerging economies in the world.

D.S. Rawat, head of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry in India, says of the agreement: “The potential of trade and economic relations between the two countries can touch the level of US$30 billion by 2015 from the current level of $13.7 billion dollars in 2010-11.”

There’s more. During the course of the past two weeks, Iran has purchased around 1.1 million tons of cereals and wheat from international markets – including products originating in Germany, Canada, Brazil and Australia – which it has paid for entirely in currencies other than the Dollar.

The US Dollar, which has been the international reserve currency for close to a century, is on its way out anyway. America’s huge balance of payments deficit has weakened US fundamentals and made investors wary. The downside of the Dollar’s changing status is that the Federal Reserve loses a lot of flexibility in managing its currency and the US economy. That does not bode well for keeping the US competitive against the BRIC nations and other emerging economies.

Iran Sanctions Biting the US Right Back?
It takes one solid idea, in a world desperately seeking them, to start the creaky shift to a new global order. Emerging economies have been nipping at the heels of the world’s governing bodies for decades, demanding entry into the hallowed halls of the UN Security Council’s permanent members; insisting on a seat at the main table at the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization.

When European leaders went begging for scraps at the last G-20 meeting, the BRICs found their feet and yawned a collective “no.” It signaled a reversal of fortunes, that meeting, and the idea that they can forge their own path was born. The BRICs then announced their first joint foreign policy statement last November – on Syria, of all places. The idea matured.

But US/EU sanctions against Iran are giving the idea steam. One has to act when faced with a dilemma, after all – and that dilemma has been literally foisted in the faces of nonaligned countries the world around: “sanction Iran or else.”

Now they are just shrugging and finding ways around the maze of traps set up by the Department of Treasury. Why should they care much? What is the United States today but an unwieldy bully with few arrows left in its quiver?

This week the US is putting the screws on Belgian-based SWIFT. If you’ve ever wired money to another country, you have used SWIFT – it is essentially the messaging system between banks that alerts them to money transfers. The US wants to cut Iranian banks out of the SWIFT system, in effect making it practically impossible for anyone inside or outside Iran to send or receive funds.

Who knows what Iran will do if this comes to pass? It will probably just join non-aligned countries to create an alternative SWIFT, further undermining the western grip on global finance. Iran, after all, decided last year not to put up with the prospect of perpetual cyberwar with the west, and is forging ahead with plans to create a closed internet system for itself.

Each step the US and EU take to hinder Iran’s flexibility is countered with an innovative solution – one that includes more and more non-western players who are keen to craft a new global order. They used to worry about that kind of confrontation with the west, but the collapse of the current order has left few obstacles in their paths – and even offers incentives.

Like the proverbial finger in the dyke to block a leak…the water will always find another way out and possibly even bust open the dam. A warning to Washington: the burden of anxiety will always fall on the one who needs the dam most.”

Sharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political analyst covering the Middle East. You can follow her on twitter @snarwani.

Survival … is up to each and all of … US !

Friday, February 17th, 2012

“We the people” need the truth to survive.  Read this article and then the links! – WJ Anthony

Jim Stone is “The Fugitive”

Ex-NSA analyst Jim Stone is on the run from authorities for posting incriminating information on his website. Here he answers Benjamin Fulford’s suggestion that he seek asylum at a Washington DC embassy.

by Jim Stone

I have discovered it is not easy to walk into an embassy and ask for
asylum.  The first thing they think is I am a spy.  Many hand you a stack
of papers and say go through the immigration division.  And Russia?  Do
you think I would survive there?  Are you silly?  Sure, they would LOVE
me, at first, because I could tell them all about America’s ultrawideband
program and encryption/decryption methods but what would be the point?
They are evil also, another U.S.A.

Benjamin, there is evil in just about all nations.  It is not easy to
select one where I could just go there and shut up.  I am an intelligent
man with a virtually instant learning curve.  I would quickly uncover
corruption in whatever nation I went to if it existed and would be right
back to the same old problems.  There are a few true nations out there and
all of them fear America badly.  How do you think THAT plays out with them
in regard to me, considering my background?  They are afraid of me.
Rightly so.

Don’t let suspicion get in the way of your opinion about my work.  It is
accurate.  I am not a psy op.

You fail to realize the absolute secrecy these people operate under.  They
do not want ANY leaks AT ALL, and will sit patiently, patiently, analyzing
in the background the exact right time to nail someone – during a lull in
reporting, when another event is providing a distraction, or when anything
has occurred which will obscure what really happened to someone –
plausible deniability, and THEN make a hit if it can be done with

The latest storm trooper one was pretty brazen.  But where it happened –
there would have been ZERO witnesses.  I don’t know how the hell they got into position without being noticed – There were so many of them. They
were in the full riot gear, and there was not a single vehicle ANYWHERE on
a mile long stretch of road.  It was just an empty road.  So you can’t
walk down it in riot gear without SOMEONE driving by and noticing (cars go
through about once every four or five minutes) and yet there was
absolutely nothing parked on the road anywhere.  That was a high level
operation, NOT the local police.

The road parallels an abandoned double wide stretch of railroad tracks.

So there was a bank of grass and thorn bushes, then the rocks, then two railroad tracks, the open area on the other side, and then the woods.
They were laying in the tall grass just before the woods, and smashed it all down, they were close together.  The way they were arranged made it look like the railroad company came by and placed evenly spaced supplies to fix the track with, but it’s abandoned and at first glance I wondered why they wanted to fix the tracks.

I paused and stared, and then realized it was not inventory, it was a row of storm trooper helmets – the full face ones, looking right at me.  One of them moved, slowly, carefully.  I got a good clear look at them, from far enough away to get a good head start.  Lucky lucky lucky.  They were positioned EXACTLY where I entered the woods to get back to where I was hiding.

And to be honest, I know this will sound silly, but I knew the troopers
would not follow me out onto a road where there could be a witness.  And
when I walked away (I did not run) I actually felt proud of myself,
because if they spent THAT MUCH on me, I mean something.  I REALLY got their attention.

And I won’t stop.  My wife is pissed off.  She told me yesterday that if I
published ANYTHING MORE she would leave me.  She is very upset about how my writing wrecked our lives. I had a successful business and she is a
Doctorate of Pharmacology. We should be living well, but because of the
writing I am in a tent, running for my life and she is stuck in Saudi
Arabia, unable to travel.  The article Tainted Nightmare is from when we
were dating – it was the thing that brought us together, so I thought she
would be there through all of this.  NOPE.  She hates the reporting and
wants me to stop.

Anyway, I am real.

Can WWar3 … prevent a president’s defeat …?

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

LIBYA and the NTC: 12,000 U.S. troops to Libya

by Cynthia McKinney

Global Research, January 13, 2012

Email this article to a friend

Print this article

7digg 2387Share

It is with great disappointment that I receive the news from foreign media publications and Libyan sources that our President now has 12,000 U.S. troops stationed in Malta and they are about to make their descent into Libya.

For those of you who have not followed closely the situation in Libya, the resistance to the rule of the National Transitional Council is strong.  The National Transitional Council (NTC) cast of characters has about as much support on the ground as did Mahmoud Abbas before the United Nations request for Palestinian statehood or Afghanistan’s regal-looking but politically impotent Hamid Karzai or for that matter, George W Bush after eight years.

The NTC not only has to contend with a vibrant, well-financed, grassroots-supported resistance, but the various militias of the NTC are now also fighting each other.  I believe this “sociocide” of Libyan society, as we previously witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan before it, is part of a carefully crafted plan of destabilization that ultimately serves U.S. imperial interests and those of a Zionist state and its US agents who are bent on Greater Israel’s suzerainty over huge swaths of Arabic-speaking populations.  Pakistan is also on the list for neutering in Muslim and world affairs, saddled with its own unpopular civilian leadership that finds itself in the hip pocket of the United States for survival, often getting sat upon by its fiscal guarantor.

The “Arab Spring” has sprung and the indelible fingerprints of malignant foreign financed operations must be erased if the people are to have a chance to truly govern themselves.  Unfortunately, these foreign-inspired organizations are present and operating in just about every country in the world.  The threat is ever-present like sleeping cells–all that is needed is that the right word to “activate” be given.  Both Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez can write tomes on the impact of the National Endowment for Democracy in the political life of their countries.

In other words, those who create the chaos have a plan and in the midst of chaos, they usually are the ones who will win.  Those who wrote the plan of this chaos were affiliated with the Project for a New American Century–read A Clean Break if you already haven’t.  General Wesley Clark told us of the plan to invade and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.  “These people took control of the policy in the United States,” Clark continues.  He concludes, “This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup:  Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and . . . collaborators from the Project for a New American Century:  they wanted us to destabilize the Middle East.”  Richard Perle, Bill Kristol publicize these plans and “could hardly wait to finish Iraq so they could go into Syria,” Clark goes on.  “The root of the problem is the strategy of the United States in this region.  Why are Americans dying in this region?  That is the issue,” he finishes.

Now, from Libya, reports are that even while the Misrata rebels (NATO allies responsible for the murder of hundreds of Libyans, including Moatessem Qaddafi) attempted to scale the petroleum platforms in Brega (an important oil town in Libya), they were annihilated by the Apache helicopters of their own NATO allies.  A resistance Libyan doctor-become-journalist reported yesterday that all of the petroleum platforms are occupied by NATO and that warships occupy Libya’s ports.  Photographs show Italian encampments in the desert with an announcement that the French are to follow.

Another news outlet reports that Qataris and Emiratees are the engineers now at the oil plants, turning away desperate Libyan workers.  While long lines exist for Libyan drivers to get their gas, foreign troops ensure the black gold’s export.  Libyans lack enough food and the basics, the country has been turned upside down, and contaminated with uranium while the true number of dead and unaccounted for remains high  and unknown.  Thousands of young Libyans, supporters of the Jahamiriya, languish under torture and assassination in a Misrata prison where a humanitarian disaster is about to unfold because Misrata rebels want to kill them all and have already attacked the prison once to do so.  An urgent appeal to contact the International Red Cross was issued yesterday to help save the lives of the prisoners.  And finally, Black Libyans continue to be targeted for harassment and murder in Libya by US/NATO allies on the ground.  Teaching hate, given the images of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan released yesterday, urinating on Afghani dead bodies, is not a difficult thing to do, it would seem.  Videos are posted of Black Libyans being beaten, whipped, threatened, harassed, and humiliated.  These videos remind me of the antebellum South–reminiscent of the days of slavery and The Confederacy.  So, when I use the word “descend”  to describe U.S. anticipated actions, I mean just that:  U.S. troops are about to descend into the hell on Earth created by their President and the leaders of other countries who approved of, aided, or participated in the death of Libyan-owned society.  A report from last night indicates that one militia, fearing other militias even invited foreigners in to protect them.

I hope the report that I’m reading from 12 January 2012 is not true.  I hope our President has not sent 12,000 troops of occupation to Malta destined for Libya.  Lucy Grider-Bradley (of our DIGNITY Delegation) just yesterday reminded me of the words of a high-ranking Libyan Jahamiriya Foreign Ministry representative who just happened to be at the Tunisia/Libya border office at the same time we were waiting there.  He said, “Let the Americans come.  We want them to taste our sandwiches.  We will give them the same serving they got in Vietnam.”

Please write to our President (at and ask him not to send troops of occupation (or whatever “euphemism de jour” this Administration chooses to use) to Libya.

To save the lives of the young men in prison, please e-mail the International Red Cross at any or all of the e-mail addresses given below:

in Tripoli  218213409262 / Croix rouge
218919418066 / 218925236582
والبريد اللاكتروني :

هذا اراقام المكتب الرئيسي للصليب الاحمرLe président de la croix rouge
في جنيفا 41227346001/ فاكس 41227332057

منظمة حقوق الانسان: Organisation de protection des droits de l’homme
في مقره لندن :  à London
David Mepham
UK Director

Eleanor Blatchley
Tel: +44 (0) 20-7713-2788

او مقره في سويسرا : En Suisse
Tel: +41-22-738-0481
fax: +41-22-738-1791

الهلال الاحمر الليبي:

And then, please view the most recent addition to the extremely valuable work of a young documentarian, Julien Teil, who caught Amnesty International red-handed in proselytizing the lies in the lead-up to this Libya debacle that they tried to take back.  In short, Amnesty admits that the “African mercenaries” was just a rumor from the start.  How many Black Libyans are suffering and have died because this woman and others like her safely ensconced in their seats of authority used them to proffer lies instead of protect the truth?  The video is in both French and English and can be viewed here:

Lastly, there is one thing you can do:  refuse to vote for war.  Your vote is your most precious political asset.  When you vote for Congressional representatives who, in turn, vote for war, you allow the people who made the coup–the people that General Wesley Clark talked about–you allow them to win.  Overturn the coup by voting for peace.  Cast your vote for peace.  Ignore the pundits on the Sunday morning talk shows and vote for peace.  Turn off the crap TV and vote for peace.  Don’t even listen to your friends who think you’ve gone crazy, just vote for peace.

Cindy Piester, a documentarian who hosted the last event that I attended with my aunt in Ventura, California, just finished a film, “On the Dark Side in Al Doura – A Soldier in the Shadows” in which Dick Cheney says that the United States has to “work toward the dark side, spend time in the shadows, in the intelligence world.”  He goes on to say, “A lot of what needs to be done will have to be done quietly without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies.”  View her extremely well-done and sad film here: and please, don’t let this gang of coup plotters take you and this country into the shadows where we don’t need or want to be.

Vote peace.

“When in the Course of human events … “

Friday, February 10th, 2012

What we do … will judge our conscience!

By W J Anthony

Less than five months from now the 4th of July will try to remind some of US why that holiday exists.  Some call it Independence Day.  Many see it as the time to see a sky rocket shoot into the dark of the night to explode with a spectacular blast of bright colors twisting in centrifugal patterns.  Do the fireworks remind us that we live in the land where the promise of the Declaration of Independence appeared?

The word ‘appeared’ is appropriate because the vision of the second paragraph of the Declaration truly appeared in words that described the truths of government.  It was written as a guide for the people thereafter to understand the purpose of our lives and the claims and duties that we should place on ourselves to live and pursue happiness.

The words of the second paragraph explain that our Creator endowed us like everyone else with certain unalienable rights to live as neighbors while we pursue our talents and labor to enjoy our gift of life with happiness.  The second paragraph tells people and US in all countries that a form of government is necessary to secure our unalienable rights and government derives its just powers from the consent of those people that it governs.  The word ‘unalienable’ means no person, no government or church can claim an authority to deprive US of the right to establish a form of government “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

‘Unalienable’ means nobody can claim an authority to stop us from using our Rights.

What are those unalienable rights?  The second paragraph of the Declaration tells us that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among those rights.  Are there other rights?

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

The authors named one absolute right that all people have: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

New Governments should be established by the consent of the people that it will serve, and the people should give that Government the powers that it needs to secure the unalienable rights of the people that it will serve.

This is a very important election year; it is our right to alter or abolish our government if it destructively abuses the powers that we the People have given it.

Most potential voters probably recognize some of the abuses of Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Obama and those of Congress and Supreme Court Judges.  President Obama used presidential powers destructively in Libya when he ignored the Constitutional obligation of a President to only engage the nation in war if Congress issues a Declaration of War. Congress did not issue a Declaration of War against Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya.

During the past 13 presidents, only once did Congress issue a Declaration of War.

Every war during the past thirteen presidencies was promoted by the intrigues of the military, financial, industrial complex that stirred the pot of potential conflicts with hidden collaborative agreements that could justify American military intervention.

The Constitutional powers of the President has enabled presidents to dominate and compel the military powers of Government to act in behalf of the profit and power interests of integrated banking and industrial corporations.  Powerful private and corporate institutions seek to create the policies and strategies of Government and shape it to serve the survival and prosperity of those institutions, rather than American People.

Congress has been subjugated to serve the interests of corporate lobbies who financed the elections of the members of Congress, who later pass the legislation that is requested by the lobbies.  Congressional campaigns are reminiscent of the auction blocks during the era of slavery, when, individual slaves would be purchased by the highest of competing bidders.  Nowadays, the purchase of members of Congress is arranged and renewed by the highest or most powerful lobbies during the campaigns of almost every election.  If a member of Congress ignores the lobbyists who supported the member by campaign contributions, that member won’t be reelected.  However, if the compliant vote of a member of Congress would be important but the member is not for sale, an airplane crash in Minnesota or Alaska or Missouri may retire the member from Congress permanently and a political compensation would not be required.  True, too, it may be expected that a member who fails to vote as promised, may eventually encounter an unidentified sad terminal consequence of surgery or illness of some sort.

“Enough, you say already!  We know this.  We have supported efforts to restore honest, appropriate government.  What can I do to change this?”

The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by Congress now supports more possibilities for Despotism and tyranny.  Under the NDAA law, federal judges cannot stop the President’s violation of the unalienable Rights of a person.  Only the autocratic President can release a NDAA captive from indeterminate detainment.

Who controls the behavior of Government?  The second paragraph tells us that “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” any Form of Government that becomes destructive of the unalienable Rights of the People.  If the powers of government are not just, then it is evident that the government is not legitimate.   And “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

What are the “Guards” for our future security?  That is what we now need to identify.  We may not be able to decide on all of the Guards that we need, but Congressman Ron Paul has identified and explained several key things that a president and members of Congress need to do, such as stop all our wars and bring our boys home alive now.

Will Ron Paul be elected?  President Eisenhower warned us 52 years ago about the military/industrial complex just before he left office.  He warned exactly what Ron Paul has been warning.  The corporate interests are doing everything they can do to ignore Ron’s ability to be elected.  Will the election be rigged with voting machine manipulations of the vote tallies, as was criminally done in the 2000 election in Florida?  It may happen.  Is there any hope?  The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence tells us what our duty is.  If we do what we can with the help of God almighty, truth and justice might win.  It’s worth doing.  It needs all of us – you and me.

This election in November is our time to throw out the members of Congress who refused to impeach Obama for waging the undeclared war on Libya and who financed Obama in launching the invasion and deadly military attack on Libya without a Declaration of War.

Sworn to … the Whole truth … for US !

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

America’s Sheriffs Fight Barack Obama And Federal Government


By Dr. Eowyn

February 2, 2012

Something extraordinary and historic took place mere days ago in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For three days, from January 29 and 31, 2012, in the Tuscany Hotel & Casino, more than 120 county sheriffs, from across the United States of America, met in a first annual, “Constitutional Sheriffs Convention”.

This is what Wikipedia says about U.S. sheriffs: “In the United States, a sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county. Distinctive to law enforcement in the United States, sheriffs are usually elected. The political election of a person to serve as a police leader is an almost uniquely American tradition.”

The first Constitutional Sheriffs Convention is the brainchild of the and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association at .

For a video describing the CSPOA, go to and type in: Special report: County Sheriffs Push Back Against Feds

The convention’s objective is two-fold:

1. To increase the understanding and awareness for all sheriffs and peace officers regarding the true power of our constitutional authority and duty to serve and protect the people for whom we work.

2. To unite in a concerted effort to uphold and defend the United States Constitution.

Given the importance of the convention, it is curious to say the least that the media have chosen to totally ignore it. Curious, too, is the fact that I scoured the Internet yesterday but could find scant news on the convention, much less a report – not even on the website of the County Sheriff Project.

But I did find an audio of a 1.5 hr Revolution Radio broadcast on the convention, an hour of which consists of phoned-in interviews with several sheriffs who attended the conference, as well as other attendees, mainly Stewart Rhodes, founder of To listen to the audio, Go to google and type in: Revolution Radio: Constitutional Sheriffs Conference

Stewart Rhodes said the sheriffs “are working on a series of resolutions” at the convention, among which is a “Resolution of the Sheriff Against NDAA 2012”, drafted by Rhodes and constitutional attorney Richard Fry, for the sheriffs to sign.

NDAA is the notorious National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 which effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights by making it lawful for the U.S. President and the military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens without charge or trial. From the Oath Keepers’ website, it appears the sheriffs at the convention did not sign the Resolution as a collective body. Rhodes is asking the sheriffs to sign the Resolution as individual sheriffs.

Rhodes opined that political party labels don’t mean much anymore, referring in particular to how the NDAA is “a bipartisan assault on our civil liberties,” which was spearheaded by Republican John McCain and Democrat Carl Levin.

Rhodes emphasized that a second American Revolution has already taken place under our noses and our Constitution’s been overthrown. “We have had people who are determined to destroy our Constitutional Republic to create a tyranny.” But this revolution is not fully recognized by the American people, who must be informed and educated. He calls for Americans, especially the military and the police, to emulate the “peaceful revolution of 1800″ when Thomas Jefferson and James Madison rose up against the Anti-Sedition Act to sweep federal oath-breakers out of office.

Rhodes was followed by several sheriffs, who spoke one by one. They included: Sheriff Dean Wilson of Del Norte County in Northern California, Sheriff John Cooke of Weld County, Colorado, Sheriff John Lopey from Northern California’s Siskiyou County and Sheriff Greg Hagwood of Plumas County in Northern California. An excellent video of these men explaining there problems with Federal agents and how they defeated them can be seen by going to and typing in: Constitutional sheriffs. And for a very good explanation of a Sheriff successfully opposing the Federal Government and protecting the citizens in his county, type in: Sheriff Tony DeMeo.

120 to 140 sheriffs from all across America. Many (“a great showing”) from California and the western states, but also from Texas, Florida and the eastern seaboard. Some sheriffs also brought their second-in-charge to the convention. A list of the names of the sheriffs who were at the convention will be published.

There was a Sheriffs Panel in which 8 sheriffs spoke.

There were presentations by various speakers who “spoke powerfully” on Agenda 21 and the Bill of Rights. Even though some of the sheriffs didn’t know about some of the issues, “they are listening” and “have a humility about them.” “They really want to know and are sticking their necks out by coming here.

What the sheriffs got out of the conference:

1. A renewed knowledge and understanding of the U.S. Constitution and “how it’s related to county sheriffs who are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution.

2. “A good idea and understanding of what’s been going on” in the sheriff’s own county and in other counties.

Sheriff Wilson’s county, as an example, is on the border between Northern California and Oregon. 74% of the county is federal and state land. The county’s agriculture and timber industry are under “attack” by the federal government’s Interior Department and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). Sheriff Cooke described how the federal government wanted to burn some grassland in his county which was adjacent to farmers’ and ranchers’ property. So he issued a warning to the feds not to burn, which was ignored. But the county stood firm – and the federal government backed down and decided not to burn. Sheriff Cooke also said that the federal government tells the sheriffs how to run their jails, although Washington D.C. has no authority over this.

3. The realization that many of the problems experienced by separate counties are common to all sheriffs across the nation, “all part of a larger picture.” Sheriff Cooke calls the conference “awesome”: “We sheriffs tend to live on an island, but the conference makes us realize we have common problems.” Those common problems are the federal government’s over-regulation; “overreach” of its authority on matters such as forest land in Northern California; and “infringement against the Constitutional rights of our citizens.” The sheriffs “heard absolute horror stories on what’s going on from one coast to the other – especially in Connecticut and Delaware.”

4. Not only are these problems common to the counties of all the states, these issues also “affect all the citizens of America.” “The problems we’re facing are universal.”

5. One of those issues that affect all the citizens is the NDAA. The sheriffs at the convention learned how the NDAA “blatantly strips authority from sheriffs into the hands of the military and the President” as well as stripping “the rights from citizens.”

6. Learning about the limits of the sheriffs’ own authority, even in “little things.” Sheriff Cooke gave an example of a Sheriff Akita who said he “did away with DUI checkpoints because they are unconstitutional” and sheriffs “shouldn’t tolerate it.” Why? Because “it is not right to stop people when they haven’t done anything wrong.”

What is needed: The sheriffs said an organization “like this” (i.e., the convention) is needed “on a national level” to help county sheriffs across America. “The time has come for a nationally recognized organization” of America’s county sheriffs.

In the meantime, there are already plans for Northern California’s sheriffs to meet again, scheduled for 2 p.m., Saturday, February 25, 2012. There are also plans for other events in Northern California to discuss land management, land use, water issues, the declining timber industry (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued yet another spotted owl protection), and threats against mining, agriculture, and recreational use. California’s State Sheriffs Association has formed a policy committee to deal with common problems, especially those in Northern California.

What most impressed the sheriffs:

1. Sheriff Hagwood: It’s an “eye opener” that the same issues are being dealt with across the country. That’s “disturbing”. At the same time, it’s “good to know that distinguished sheriffs are taking steps to safeguard our Constitution.” They are willing “to stand up, stand tall, to serve the People and stand for the Constitution.

2. They now feel emboldened: Sheriff Wilson: “Just having an organization like this and meeting sheriffs from across America who are like-minded, emboldens you to take steps that are necessary to stand up for the rights promised in the Constitution, because now you know other sheriffs have his back” and will “stand beside me.”

3. Sheriff Cooke: “There’s strength in numbers, not fighting it alone.”

What the sheriffs promise: “The U.S. Constitution was founded by devout Christian men and they got it right. Now it’s up to us – sheriffs and peace officers – to keep it.” “The problems we’re facing are universal. But sheriffs bound together have real strength to push back.” “Sheriffs all over are going to fight back.”

The number of sheriffs who will attend next year’s convention will probably be double the number as this year. Sheriffs are learning “how to fight back with an organization like this.” “The only thing I’ve ever sworn to is my oath of office and my marriage vows. When sheriffs take a leadership role, the people will also be inspired. We realize that our freedoms are being threatened” on “county, state, and national” levels. We must energize and educate citizens and officials.” “Sheriffs are beginning to recognize the responsibility they have to citizens is much larger than upholding the law. We now appreciate the gravity of the situation. We recognize our larger responsibility is to protect the liberties [that are] absolutely essential to our way of life. The 2012 election is make or break. We must realize that the enemy is within, not without. We must demand that the federal government behave.”

“It won’t be easy but we’ll do it!”

That’s when my vision got blurred by the tears streaming down my face….God bless the county sheriffs who attended this convention. May their numbers multiply. Pray for our sheriffs! Pray for America!

If you would like to follow Dr. Eowyn’s indepth reporting on critical affairs, you can visit her website at or write to her at

Why should anybody … trust … US ?

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

The Anti-Empire Report

February 3rd, 2012
by William Blum

The Lord High Almighty Pooh-Bah of threats. The Grand Ayatollah of nuclear menace.

As we all know only too well, the United States and Israel would hate to see Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Being “the only nuclear power in the Middle East” is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. But — in the real, non-propaganda world — is USrael actually fearful of an attack from a nuclear-armed Iran? In case you’ve forgotten …

In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that in her opinion “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel.” She “also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.” 1

2009: “A senior Israeli official in Washington” asserted that “Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation.” 2

In 2010 the Sunday Times of London (January 10) reported that Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, war hero, pillar of the Israeli defense establishment, and former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, “believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons.”

Early last month, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a television audience: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.” 3

A week later we could read in the New York Times (January 15) that “three leading Israeli security experts — the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former military chief of staff, Dan Halutz — all recently declared that a nuclear Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel.”

Then, a few days afterward, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Israeli Army Radio (January 18), had this exchange:

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: People ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case.

Lastly, we have the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in a report to Congress: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. … There are “certain things [the Iranians] have not done” that would be necessary to build a warhead. 4

Admissions like the above — and there are others — are never put into headlines by the American mass media; indeed, only very lightly reported at all; and sometimes distorted — On the Public Broadcasting System (PBS News Hour, January 9), the non-commercial network much beloved by American liberals, the Panetta quote above was reported as: “But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us.” Flagrantly omitted were the preceding words: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No …” 5

One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, was interviewed by Playboy magazine in June 2007:

Playboy: Can the World live with a nuclear Iran?

Van Creveld: The U.S. has lived with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China, so why not a nuclear Iran? I’ve researched how the U.S. opposed nuclear proliferation in the past, and each time a country was about to proliferate, the U.S. expressed its opposition in terms of why this other country was very dangerous and didn’t deserve to have nuclear weapons. Americans believe they’re the only people who deserve to have nuclear weapons, because they are good and democratic and they like Mother and apple pie and the flag. But Americans are the only ones who have used them. … We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons … thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.”

And throughout these years, regularly, Israeli and American officials have been assuring us that Iran is World Nuclear Threat Number One, that we can’t relax our guard against them, that there should be no limit to the ultra-tough sanctions we impose upon the Iranian people and their government. Repeated murder and attempted murder of Iranian nuclear scientists, sabotage of Iranian nuclear equipment with computer viruses, the sale of faulty parts and raw materials, unexplained plane crashes, explosions at Iranian facilities … Who can be behind this but USrael? How do we know? It’s called “plain common sense”. Or do you think it was Costa Rica? Or perhaps South Africa? Or maybe Thailand?

Defense Secretary Panetta recently commented on one of the assassinations of an Iranian scientist. He put it succinctly: “That’s not what the United States does.” 6

Does anyone know Leon Panetta’s email address? I’d like to send him my list of United States assassination plots. More than 50 foreign leaders were targeted over the years, many successfully. 7

Not long ago, Iraq and Iran were regarded by USrael as the most significant threats to Israeli Middle-East hegemony. Thus was born the myth of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the United States proceeded to turn Iraq into a basket case. That left Iran, and thus was born the myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat. As it began to sink in that Iran was not really that much of a nuclear threat, or that this “threat” was becoming too difficult to sell to the rest of the world, USrael decided that, at a minimum, it wanted regime change. The next step may be to block Iran’s lifeline — oil sales using the Strait of Hormuz. Ergo, the recent US and EU naval buildup near the Persian Gulf, an act of war trying to goad Iran into firing the first shot. If Iran tries to counter this blockade it could be the signal for another US Basket Case, the fourth in a decade, with the devastated people of Libya and Afghanistan, along with Iraq, currently enjoying America’s unique gift of freedom and democracy.

On January 11, the Washington Post reported: “In addition to influencing Iranian leaders directly, [a US intelligence official] says another option here is that [sanctions] will create hate and discontent at the street level so that the Iranian leaders realize that they need to change their ways.”

How utterly charming, these tactics and goals for the 21st century by the leader of “The Free World”. (Is that expression still used?)

The neo-conservative thinking (and Barack Obama can be regarded as often being a fellow traveler of such) is even more charming than that. Listen to Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at America’s most prominent neo-con think tank, American Enterprise Institute:

The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately.” … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem. 8

What are we to make of that and all the other quotations above? I think it gets back to my opening statement: Being “the only nuclear power in the Middle East” is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. Is USrael willing to go to war to hold on to that card?

Please tell me again … What is the war in Afghanistan about?

With the US war in Iraq supposedly having reached a good conclusion (or halfway decent … or better than nothing … or let’s get the hell out of here while some of us are still in one piece and there are some Iraqis we haven’t yet killed), the best and the brightest in our government and media turn their thoughts to what to do about Afghanistan. It appears that no one seems to remember, if they ever knew, that Afghanistan was not really about 9-11 or fighting terrorists (except the many the US has created by its invasion and occupation), but was about pipelines.

President Obama declared in August 2009: “But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.” 9

Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001.

Never mind that the “plotting to attack America” in 2001 was devised in Germany and Spain and the United States more than in Afghanistan. Why hasn’t the United States bombed those countries?

Indeed, what actually was needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? A room with some chairs? What does “an even larger safe haven” mean? A larger room with more chairs? Perhaps a blackboard? Terrorists intent upon attacking the United States can meet almost anywhere, with Afghanistan probably being one of the worst places for them, given the American occupation.

The only “necessity” that drew the United States to Afghanistan was the desire to establish a military presence in this land that is next door to the Caspian Sea region of Central Asia — which reportedly contains the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world — and build oil and gas pipelines from that region running through Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is well situated for oil and gas pipelines to serve much of south Asia, pipelines that can bypass those not-yet Washington clients, Iran and Russia. If only the Taliban would not attack the lines. Here’s Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, in 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south.” 10

Since the 1980s all kinds of pipelines have been planned for the area, only to be delayed or canceled by one military, financial or political problem or another. For example, the so-called TAPI pipeline (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) had strong support from Washington, which was eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran. TAPI goes back to the late 1990s, when the Taliban government held talks with the California-based oil company Unocal Corporation. These talks were conducted with the full knowledge of the Clinton administration, and were undeterred by the extreme repression of Taliban society. Taliban officials even made trips to the United States for discussions. 11 Testifying before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on February 12, 1998, Unocal representative John Maresca discussed the importance of the pipeline project and the increasing difficulties in dealing with the Taliban:

The region’s total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels … From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, leaders, and our company.

When those talks stalled in July, 2001 the Bush administration threatened the Taliban with military reprisals if the government did not go along with American demands. The talks finally broke down for good the following month, a month before 9-11.

The United States has been serious indeed about the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf oil and gas areas. Through one war or another beginning with the Gulf War of 1990-1, the US has managed to establish military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan.

The war against the Taliban can’t be “won” short of killing everyone in Afghanistan. The United States may well try again to negotiate some form of pipeline security with the Taliban, then get out, and declare “victory”. Barack Obama can surely deliver an eloquent victory speech from his teleprompter. It might even include the words “freedom” and “democracy”, but certainly not “pipeline”.

Love me, love me, love me, I’m a Liberal (Thank you, Phil Ochs. We miss you.)

Angela Davis, star of the 1960s, like most members of the Communist Party, was/is no more radical than the average American liberal. Here she is recently addressing Occupy Wall Street: “When I said that we need a third party, a radical party, I was projecting toward the future. We cannot allow a Republican to take office. … Don’t we remember what it was like when Bush was president?” 12

Yes, Angela, we remember that time well. How can we forget it since Bush, by all important standards, is still in the White House? Waging perpetual war, relentless surveillance of the citizenry, kissing the corporate ass, police brutality? … What’s changed? Except for the worse. Where’s our single-payer national health insurance? Nothing even close. Where’s our affordable university education? Still the most backward in the “developed” world. Where’s our legalized marijuana — I mean really legalized? If you think that’s changed, you must be stoned. Where’s our abortion on demand? What does your guy Barack think about that? Are the indispensable labor unions being rescued from oblivion? Ha! The ultra-important minimum wage? Inflation adjusted, equal to the mid-1950s.

Has the American threat to the environment and the world environmental movement ceased? Tell that to a dedicated activist-internationalist. Has the 50-year-old embargo against Cuba finally ended? It has not, and I can still not go there legally. The police-state War on Terror at home? Scarcely a month goes by without the FBI entrapping some young “terrorists”. Are more Banksters and Wall Street Society-Screwers (except for the harmless insider-traders) being imprisoned? Name one. The really tough regulations of the financial area so badly needed? Keep waiting. How about executives of the BP Oil Spill Company being arrested? Or war criminals, mass murderers, and torturers with names like … Oh, I don’t know, let’s see … maybe like Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or someone with a crazy name like Condoleezza? All walking completely free, all celebrated.

“A major decline of progressive America occurred during the Clinton years as many liberals and their organizations accepted the presence of a Democratic president as an adequate substitute for the things liberals once believed in. Liberalism and a social democratic spirit painfully grown over the previous 60 years withered during the Clinton administration.” — Sam Smith13

“A change of Presidents is like a change of advertising campaigns for a soft drink; the product itself still tastes the same, but it now has a new ‘image’.” — Richard K. Moore

Volunteer help needed on e-books

If you have some expertise on the putting together of an e-book, including footnotes, my publisher, Common Courage, would like to communicate with you. Contact Greg Bates at Thanks.


  1. (Israel), October 25, 2007; print edition October 26
  2. Washington Post, March 5, 2009
  3. “Face the Nation”, CBS, January 8, 2012; see video
  4. The Guardian (London), January 31, 2012″
  5. “PBS’s Dishonest Iran Edit”, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), January 10, 2012
  6. Reuters, January 12, 2012
  8. Video of Pletka making these remarks
  9. Talk given by the president at Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009
  10. Talk at the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC, September 20, 2007
  11. See, for example, the December 17, 1997 article in the British newspaper, The Telegraph, “Oil barons court Taliban in Texas“. For further discussion of the TAPI pipeline and related issues, see this article by international petroleum engineer John Foster.
  12. Washington Post, January 15, 2012
  13. Sam Smith was a longtime publisher and journalist in Washington, DC, now living in Maine. Subscribe to his marvelous newsletter, the Progressive Review.

William Blum is the author of:

  • Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
  • Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
  • West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
  • Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] with “add” in the subject line. I’d like your name and city in the message, but that’s optional. I ask for your city only in case I’ll be speaking in your area.

(Or put “remove” in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I’d appreciate it if the website were mentioned.


Now … or then … or when … ?

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Thanks to Land Destroyer Report

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

US Intel Director Prepares Public for False Flag Event

Desperate for war, US prepares to blame Iran for false flag attack.
by Tony Cartalucci

January 31, 2012 – “…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

-US foreign policy makers in the Fortune 500 funded Brookings Institution’s “Which Path to Persia?” report, pages 84-85.

Considering that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a deliberate fabrication to escalate the Vietnam War, one many members in Congress are shown to have acknowledged and debated even at the time, or the more recent Iraqi WMD hoax, there is certainly a historical precedence to create such provocations when targeted nations refuse to provide them.

With this in mind, and noting an overt, ongoing series of bold acts of war carried out by the US and Israel inside of Iran, along with sanctions and planned blockades, also acts of war, the corporate-financier oligarchs have been confounded by what seems to be infinite Iranian patience to endure such provocations. US foreign policy makers have noted for years now that Iran in actuality poses no threat to US or Israeli national security and their acquiring of nuclear weapons serves more of a deterrence against future military incursions against the Islamic Republic by the West, than a means to launch unprovoked attacks against nations that each possess nuclear deterrents of apocalyptic scale.

While Iran endures an increasing torrent of unprovoked attacks, they steadily advance their defensive capabilities to ward off what seems like an inevitable invasion by the West, who has already invaded and occupied for years nations to its east and west on false pretenses, and have for the past year fueled foreign-funded revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa. Time is on the Iranians’ side, as Western attempts to destabilize and destroy Syria drag on, and an increasing number of people around the world begin to understand the true source of instability behind the so-called “Arab Spring.”

While behind closed doors US policy makers admit Iran is driven by self-preservation and protecting the influence it is steadily gaining throughout the Middle Eastern region it borders, the message they desperately seek to relate to the public is one of an irrational apocalyptic theocracy eager to usher in Armageddon.

However, reports out of the RAND corporation note that Iran has had chemical weapons in its inventory for decades, and other reports from RAND describe the strict control elite military units exercise over these weapons, making it unlikely they would end up in the hands of “terrorists.” The fact that Iran’s extensive chemical weapon stockpile has yet to be disseminated into the hands of non-state actors, along with the fact that these same elite units would in turn handle any Iranian nuclear weapons, lends further evidence to the conclusion that Iran is indeed driven by self-preservation.

Brookings notes on pages 24 and 25 of their “Which Path to Persia?” report, that the real threat is not the deployment of these weapons, but rather the deterrence they present, allowing Iran to counter US influence in the region without the fear of an American invasion.

Latest “Warning” of “Impending Iranian Terrorist Attack

Despite this documented evidence, the Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. made a startling statement recently, citing an already discredited alleged “Iranian plot” involving an assassination attempt of a Saudi ambassador on US soil, that Iran is “now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.” What Clapper describes is not in fact an impending Iranian attack, but a false flag event to be blamed on Iran to fit the criteria for a suitable justification for war, clearly defined by the Brookings Institution’s report.

What is more troubling is that the Washington Post, which reported Clapper’s comments, acknowledges that “a covert campaign is already underway to thwart Iran’s alleged ambition to develop a nuclear weapon.” And while the US has officially denied carrying out any act of violence inside of Iran, it is a matter of public record that the US State Department in conjunction with the UN is harboring a US State Dapartment listed “foreign terrorist organization,” the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK) in Iraq, who has for decades carried out such violent attacks within Iran. In fact, the same Brookings Institution report cited above, also proposed the use of MEK as a suitable US proxy in provoking Iran. It would turn out that the alleged “Iranian-Saudi assassination plot” cited by Clapper, was more plausibly the work of MEK, than the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

And as Al Qaeda is re-purposed for overthrowing America’s enemies in Libya and Syria, with LIFG terrorist leader Abdul Belhaj (aka Abdul Hasadi) literally leading NATO-armed legionaries into battle in now two nations, the “terrorists threat” has been shifted onto Iran – the sort of conveniently timed plot twist to be expected for a “War on Terror” that is a verifiable fraud.

The Bottom Line

Iran has nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking the United States. US policy makers have expressed a documented desire to provoke the Iranians into a war the Islamic Republic is clearly trying to avoid. The United States government is on record funding, arming, and training terrorist organizations (LIFG & MEK) on it’s own “foreign terrorist organization” list, a violation of their own anti-terrorism laws. They have failed categorically to provide convincing evidence regarding the alleged “Iranian-Saudi assassination plot,” more over, the evidence suggests it is instead, the latest in a long string of contrived federal entrapment cases. If an attack occurs on US soil or against US allies in the near future under these circumstances, it is most likely Clapper, General Petraeus at the CIA, and Israel’s Mossad that will be to blame.

As was the case in Vietnam, and more recently the fraudulent casus belli against Iraq, the West is being led into another infinitely destructive war, jeopardizing the lives of millions, and further bankrupting already destitute nations reeling from 10 years of unending war. It is essential to raise awareness of US policy makers and their desire to provoke war with an unwilling adversary and the documented history the United States government has in manufacturing provocations when none can be goaded.

It is also important to remember that no matter how detestable our political leaders may be, there is a corporate-financier oligarchy above them pulling the strings. It is important to vote warmongers out of office, but just as important to identify the strength of the corporate-financier oligarchs that drive them and undermine them at all costs.