Globalists Coming Full Circle: Obama executes final leg of Neo-Conservative imperialism

Paul Wolfowitz (right) in 1991 was apparently pleased with the 
outcome of Desert Storm. He believed that the time was ripe
to seize global hegemony before another world power rose to
challenge the Anglo-American establishment.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Long before the verified lies of Qaddafi's "door-to-door" genocide and even before the media cleverly tagged the engineered destabilization of the Middle East the "Arab Spring," Libya was already marked for destabilization and regime change. For nearly thirty years the US and UK have funded groups both inside Libya and beyond its borders in various attempts to remove Qaddafi from power. The current administration's feigned ignorance over the nature of the rebels in Libya is nothing short of absolute deception. The CIA and MI6 are on record for decades following, and in many cases supporting, these very groups.

Below is a partial time line covering Western efforts to implement regime change in Libya.

1980s: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
1990s: Noman Benotman and the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) wage a campaign of terror against Qaddafi with Osama Bin Laden's assistance.
2003: Upon Qaddafi's abandonment of WMD programs, Libya's collaboration with MI6 & the CIA to identify and expose the LIFG networks begins, giving Western intelligence a windfall of information regarding the group.
2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February, NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February, Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya
2011: Mid-March; UN adopts no-fly zone over Libya, including air strikes. Immediately, the mission is changed from "protecting civilians" to "ousting Qaddafi." Egypt violates the arms embargo of UN r.1973 with Washington's full knowledge by supplying Libyan rebels with weapons, while Al Qaeda's ties to the rebels are admitted by everyone including the rebels themselves.


Recently, Fareed Zakaria on his CNN show interviewed a former Libyan Al-Qaeda associate, Noman Benotman, to dispel "allegations" that Al Qaeda was playing a key role in the rebellion against Qaddafi. Benotman would concede that Al Qaeda was involved but not significantly, suggesting there were only a few hundred fighters. The Washington Times would later quote Benotman upgrading the number to a thousand. Then after Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted to recruiting extremists into his ranks and that he believed Al Qaeda members were "good Muslims," Benotman began back peddling and even claiming, "The way they start to make statements or to understand the conflicts is unbelievable, beyond my imagination. The only explanation I can offer is because they have been affected - whether they like it or not - by the wave of democracy."


It should be noted that Al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel commander, received his training in Afghanistan and witnessed the US bombing campaign which began in late 2001. He would fight Americans in Afghanistan and was eventually captured in Pakistan, handed over to the US and later released back to Libya in 2008. Now the same man that fought Americans is being provided American air cover over Benghazi while he leads fellow Al Qaeda fighters, some of which fought Americans in Iraq as well.

For the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which was founded in the mountains of Afghanistan during the CIA-backed war against the Soviets, then fighting the Americans in both Afghanistan and Iraq, now having the CIA back on the ground in Libya by their side may seem like a reunion of sorts, punctuated by the irony of jets flying overhead that had been hunting them abroad but are now protecting their lives. But to the thousands of US soldiers who have died and the tens of thousands maimed and destroyed supposedly fighting Al Qaeda, to the Americans who have been financially bled to death over the last ten years of war, and to the millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise affected by the "War on Terror," it is more like the punchline of a bad joke.

But the implications go much deeper than merely a conjured army of duped extremists, serving the globalist agenda every step of the way. The implications are deep, and dark indeed.

The Grander Agenda

Ten days after 9/11, General Wesley Clark visited the Pentagon where an officer from the Joint Staff warned him of an impending attack on Iraq. After the Afghan invasion, this officer shared with Clark a document handed down from the Office of the Secretary of Defense indicating plans to attack and destroy the governments of 7 countries; Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon and Libya. General Wesley Clark would go on to share this story in a 2007 speech given to the Commonwealth Club of California where he repeated this list.

Of course, the campaigns have already begun against each of the nations Clark listed. Iraq was invaded, decimated, and has been occupied by US troops since 2003. In 2006, Israel attempted to invade and dismantle Hezbollah in Lebanon but the conflict ended in a stalemate and an eventual Israeli withdrawal. Somalia was attacked by a proxy Ethiopian invasion force with US air support starting in 2007, but it too eventually ended in failure. A silent war has already begun within Iran, including covert military operations, the arming of terrorists, assassinations, and 2 failed US backed color revolutions. Sudan has been recently carved into two states and Syria is now being intentionally destabilized by US trained and funded activists.

And now, of course in Libya's case, aerial bombardment by US, UK, and French warplanes has begun, while the CIA and MI6 are on the ground attempting to collapse the Qaddafi regime.

Wesley Clark would backtrack in his 2007 talk in California and recall a conversation he had in 1991 with then Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz regarding Desert Storm. Clark was told that America's intervention in Iraq proved that the US could use its military force and the Soviets wouldn't stop them. Wolfowitz said the US had 5-10 years to clean up the old Soviet "client regimes" before the next super power rose up and challenged western hegemony. Clark claimed that this, along with the aftermath of 9/11 constituted a policy coup where Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other members of the of Project for a New American Century had hijacked US foreign policy to destabilize and turn the nations of the Middle East upside down - much the way they are now. The "Neo-Conservative" element of this current round of destabilization goes deeper than the promotion of war, as the "Neo-Cons" have uncharacteristically dedicated themselves to "human rights" and "democracy" side-by-side with the likes of George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization 
was planned as far back as 1991, with the destruction of Iraq, 
Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Iran on the
drawing board following the invasion of Afghanistan. 

Bush campaigned on an anti-war, anti-nation building platform. Obama then pledged to roll back the agenda Bush swindled the nation into, only to then continue it in earnest. All along we have been treated to the theatrics of the corporate-owned media, with pundits on the left and right reacting in shock and surprise as these engineered events unfolded according to plan.

Despite Wolfowitz' agenda being meted out nearly 20 years ago, the ham-fisted nature of both the operation itself in Libya and the propaganda surrounding it suggests a rushed sense of desperation on the globalists' behalf. Wesley Clark suggested that the operation to destabilize the Middle East and Northern Africa would take 5 years, starting in 2001. Wolfowitz believed that in 1991 the operation would have taken 5-10 years. The failed FBI attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was most likely the staged impetus to trigger the first blitzkrieg. Not only did the attacks fail to cause the catastrophic effects needed to justify such an operation, the Egyptian informant assisting the FBI had recorded his conversations with agents indicating that they were indeed building a bomb for extremists and providing them with real explosives as well.

1993 would have fit in perfectly to tip off Wolfowitz' plan. Upon failing, he and his PNAC cadre would attempt to destroy the World Trade Center buildings again, this time successfully on September 11, 2001. The catastrophic loss of life, the confusion, and the rage that was left in its wake gave the PNAC what they called a "new Pearl Harbor" they claimed they needed in their September 2000 report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

These men, who in fact helped create Al Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan to face the Soviets in the 80s would call on their legion of foreign mercenaries to wreck havoc across the planet, heralding globalist intervention along the way. Certainly this had nothing to do with defending America or spreading "democracy" but rather bolstering the hegemony of the corporate-financier oligarchythat both the PNAC cadre and the bankers who thoroughly saturate Obama's administration constitute.

What appears to have happened is a costly delay in 1993 and a post-9/11 campaign that has dragged on 5 years longer than expected. With the same clumsy hands fumbling in Libya also trying to stab simultaneously at both Moscow and Beijing with their agenda laid on the table openly for all to see, failure on the globalists' behalf now may incur a wrathful response from a planet about to truly awaken.

It should be expected that that any excuse to complete regime change in Libya will be made, including creating the conditions necessary to put troops on the ground - be it because of a failing rebellion, a false flag attack carried out in Qaddafi's name, or even feigned fears the globalists' own Al Qaeda might "seize" Libya should they not intervene. Similarly, with the US openly admitting to funding subversive activities across the Arab world, in Iran, and even as far as China, the globalists have painted themselves into an irredeemable, inescapable corner of confrontation.

Look past the feckless puppets occupying our public offices and toward the corporations and financial empires that are our true "misleaders." Boycott these corporations and systematically replace them by getting self-sufficient as an individual, as a household, and as a community. Independence is freedom, freedom is independence and the dominion of this dark empire can be broken by understanding that they need us, we do not need them.


For ways to battle the globalists by achieving self-sufficiency and freedom through independence please read on:

Self-Sufficiency 
Alternative Economics
The Lost Key to Real Revolution
Boycott the Globalists
Naming Names: Your Real Government

Tony Cartalucci's articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at 
Land Destroyer Report.   

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama has taken a ‘profoundly troubling’ position on assassinations, ACLU

David Edwards
Raw Story

Disclosure of government secrets often has little to do with the public's right to know and has everything to do an official's need to tell, according to ACLU deputy director Jameel Jaffer.

And that's especially true when it comes to assassinations, which have not traditionally been an openly admitted component of U.S. foreign policy -- but the American Civil Liberities Union is cautioning that the Obama administration is changing all of that.

In an exclusive interview with Raw Story, Jaffer, a key attorney with the rights group, even warned that the Democrat in office has taken a position on unilateral murder so extreme as to be "profoundly troubling" in its legal reach and potential for future use.

"U.S. officials hurt our democracy by withholding information from the courts but then disclosing it to the public whenever it suits their needs," Jaffer wrote in a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US Senate defeats bid to gut climate efforts

The dome of the US Capitol is pictured in Washington
© AFP/File Jewel Samad

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Senate on Wednesday rejected a bid to strip President Barack Obama of his power to regulate greenhouse gases, a move that could have thrown US efforts against climate change into chaos.

The Senate, where Obama's Democratic Party holds a majority, voted 50-50 on a bill to stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from setting standards on greenhouse gas emissions blamed for the world's rising temperatures.

The measure required 60 votes for passage. Four Democrats broke ranks to support the measure, while a sole Republican backed the efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Under Obama, the EPA has started a process of setting standards for emissions from fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries, the source of nearly 40 percent of US greenhouse gasses.

The White House said it was "encouraged" by the Senate vote and praised the role of the EPA, a federal agency, in protecting public health.
The Senate "rejected an approach that would have increased the nation's dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming and jeopardized America's ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy," White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement.

The rival Republican Party and business interests have been livid at the move, accusing Obama of overstepping his authority after Congress rejected efforts on climate change.

A bill to create a so-called "cap-and-trade" plan -- in which businesses would face restrictions on carbon emissions but be able to trade credits -- died last year in the Senate even when it had a larger Democratic majority.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the top Republican in the chamber, said that the votes showed clear discontent with EPA regulations.

"We in the Senate will continue to fight for legislation that will give the certainty that no unelected bureaucrat at the EPA is going to make efforts to create jobs even more difficult than the administration already has," he said.

The Republicans say that carbon restrictions would drive up gas prices and costs for businesses, while many Democrats and environmentalists counter that climate efforts would open up a new green economy creating well-paid jobs.

The House of Representatives, where the Republicans won control in November, was debating its own bill Wednesday to disempower the Environmental Protection Agency. But it cannot go into law with the Senate and the White House opposed.

The four Democrats who voted with the Republicans represent states that lean conservative or have major industries in fossil fuels -- Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bill Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Democrat Jay Rockefeller, the other senator from West Virginia, had offered an amendment to wait two years before allowing greenhouse gas regulation but his proposal was rejected by both sides.

The only Republican to take the side of the EPA was Susan Collins of Maine.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Blowing Smoke: Obama Is Morally High

Rick Gedeon
Activist Post

Git-Mo Gitmo
On his second day in office Obama promised to close the Guantanamo Bay “detention” center (if it was called a prison camp it would connote that the inmates are prisoners, and prisoners are entitled to rights, detainees aren’t.)  Guantanamo remains open for business and continues to be a national embarrassment to this day.

Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terror Obama continues to miserably renege on virtually all of his promises.  He voted for the extension of the Patriot Act, expanded the wars in Afghanistan and now into Pakistan, and the list goes on and on.  If that wasn’t bad enough, Obama recently launched an air war against Libya, completely bypassing Congress.  Obama’s moral high ground also means allowing tortured persons to be tried in a military tribunal without habeas corpus. 

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention…The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order…    January 22, 2009.

Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and Zacarias Moussaoui
A former Marine Corp officer and retired professor, Jim Fetzer, makes several telling points in, Bush Needs Torture and Terrorism: 

(1) It is common knowledge that torture is ineffectual at producing useful information (or “actionable intelligence”), because the subject will say anything to escape the torment.

(2) This fact cannot have escaped the administration, which found it irresistible to resort to torture to extract false confessions to support its fake rationale for a “war on terror.”

(3)  Khalid Shiekh Mohammed, for example, who is alleged to be the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks, reportedly confessed to no less than 31 attacks (“Al Qaeda Chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confesses to Planning Sept. 11, Gitmo Transcript Shows,” March 15, 2007).

(4) The fact that some of these occurred when he was a child and others after his capture doesn’t seem to have impressed The New York Times, which runs interference for the CIA.

(5) The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui was an even more grotesque case of the abuse of judicial procedure and violations of due process. He wasn’t convicted of the crime for which he was punished.” (“Scholars call Moussaoui Trial ‘A Charade’”  Scholars [for 911 Truth] published a press release about the Moussaoui trial (“Scholars Call Moussaoui Trial ‘A Charade’,” April 22, 2006)

(6)  He had confessed a year before to participating in a plot to free the blind shiek who had been involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center but had nothing to do with 9/11.

(7) He was equipped with a 50,000 volt ‘stun belt’ at the trial to determine his punishment, which no doubt made him very cooperative. But the situation is absurd.

(8) One day we have an article, ‘Bush Wants Limits on Access to Evidence’ (February 15, 2008), the next day a front page story, ‘U.S. Struggles to Tutor Iraqis in Rule of Law’ (February 16, 2008). We are suspended somewhere between ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘1984’.

(9) The nation is living a lie.  Bush -- and now Obama, too -- need torture and kangaroo courts to justify their phony ‘war on terror.’”


Spykids


Obama’s moral high ground means repeatedly spying on little children, as documents that were obtained by the digital rights advocacy organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), via Freedom of Information Act litigation, showed.   The FBI abused surveillance powers granted by the PATRIOT Act.  EFF found that the FBI monitored young kids for at least five days, even though the conversations did not match the language of the target. 

This same agency is currently going around the country arbitrarily questioning Libyans living in the US.  As if the FBI’s entrapment propaganda campaigns weren’t enough, now they’re on the prowl in search of more Arabs to waterboard.  Amazingly, the FBI remains mum to this day about the van loaded with explosives found on the George Washington Bridge on 9/11! 

...two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge ... The FBI ... says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge.

Not important, that; they’d rather check out your 8 year old. 
 
Know your rights! 


**Special thanks to Jim Fetzer from The Real Deal for assistance with this article.

Rick Gedeon is graduate from USAF Air University, amateur historian, and anti-imperial/anti-police brutality activist.   Rick Gedeon has traveled extensively throughout the US and Asia.  A political marketer, routinely bringing together and forging alliances with different political organizations that share similar goals. He considers himself a Political Atheist and sympathizes with many Libertarian causes.  He can be reached at rick_gedeon@hushmail.com

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Susan Lindauer Interview: Illegal War In Libya Is CIA Run, Media Shills Cover For Obama!

YouTube -- NotForSale2NWO



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama vs. Dancing With The Stars

Dees Illustration

Brandon Turbeville

Activist Post

If anyone thought the President’s speech defending the attack on Libya was broadcast a bit earlier than other Presidential speeches in the past, it might surprise you to know that you were right. When scheduling a time for the speech to be televised, the White House consulted with television networks as it normally does.

However, this time around, a conscious decision was made to broadcast before 8pm. Why? Because 8 p.m. is primetime and broadcasting at 8 p.m. would have coincided with “Dancing With the Stars.” I’m not kidding. This was reported by USA Today, CNN, and ABC News Radio.

Just in case you don’t believe it, CNN reports: 

As for the timing of President Obama’s Libya speech Monday night, the New York Times’ Bill Carter reports that the White House scheduled it around network shows, including ABC’s ‘Dancing With the Stars.’ In the end, all involved agreed on 7:30 p.m. ET, which meant the speech would end before ABC’s hit show – among other programs on NBC, CBS, and FOX, to name a few.

There is really no way to look at this decision in a positive light. The best possible scenario is that Americans are so addicted to brain cell murdering programs like “Dancing With the Stars” that they simply have no time or interest in watching a speech by a President who has no real connection to them and is only there to give them the party line on an agenda that they have no control over. That’s actually the best view I can think of, because at least it implies that the American people are aware that their government is unresponsive to anything they have to say.However, another more frightening view (the one that I take) is that our controllers are aware of this. They know that regardless of what is going on in the world or how it affects them, Americans are quite content to sit on their couches growing bigger and dumber with each passing hour. They know that rather than forcing themselves to form an opinion on an issue such as the new Libyan war, they would rather watch a ridiculous show where washed-up celebrities do things they would otherwise never do except for the fact that their careers are almost over and they need whatever money they can get at the time.

Our controllers know that while bombs fall on innocent Libyan civilians, Americans will not raise so much as a finger to stop it because they are too busy immersing themselves in trivia and the subconscious desire to watch famous people fail. That is, after all, the only thing we have left in this country -- the ability to watch others self-destruct so that we can feel a little better about our own lives. Of course, this saccharine version of self-respect only lasts as long as the program. Eventually we all have to get on with our dull, boring, and generally non-productive existence.

Indeed, our controllers know this quite well because it is the system they created. For those who are afraid that our society is in danger of becoming something out of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World, I have some very disappointing news -- it already has.

Our culture has degenerated into such a state where government officials and the mainstream media can now launch wars under the most outlandish methods of justification using recycled scare tactics based on interchangeable villains without the general public even noticing.

America is now involved in five wars and, realistically speaking, the average American would never be able to list all of them. Neverthless, it began with Afghanistan and the official fairy tale of 9/11   and Osama bin Laden. It then shifted to Iraq and bin Laden, which shifted into Iraq and WMDs, which, years later, shifted yet again to WMDs and bad intelligence. No doubt Americans are still convinced CIA-front “al-Qaeda” was involved, even though the US government doesn’t even try to hold this line anymore.

We then moved to “terrorists” crossing the border in Pakistan to Afghanistan, which justified the US murder of civilians in this country. Likewise, under the false pretenses of “al-Qaeda” operatives in Yemen and Somalia, the United States has been dropping bombs on these countries as well.

Now, in Libya, a fifth front has emerged. Unfortunately, the general American public having been bombarded by a myriad of boogeymen to be afraid of, has now reached the levels of being constantly so afraid that they can now be completely controlled by this fear. Yet, in the midst of it, they remain unable to articulate exactly what they are afraid of. In their minds, the term “terrorism” not only conjures images of Osama bin Laden and Muslim fundamentalists, but of all Middle Eastern countries (except Israel), American militias, anyone who speaks out against their government’s actions or doesn’t conform to narrow societal standards, plagues, flu, economic collapse, unemployment, and even the prospect of death itself. Logic no longer plays a part, if it ever did, in the culture of fear in which we now exist.

Intellectually, we have fallen so far as a nation that we cannot even describe the boogeyman Osama bin Laden and the fairy tales fed to us by our mainstream media and government controllers. We cannot even describe the details of exactly why Ghadaffi is such an evil man. In 2011, all that is needed is that the ever present channel of fear be tapped in to with a few mentions of “terrorism,” “al-Qaeda,” “extremists,” or “national security,” and the American people willingly rush off to war with little or no idea of what exactly they are rushing off to fight.

This is why a new war has been launched in Libya which is both illegal and immoral, a massive cost to the taxpayer, an act of blatant aggression, and the most obviously unconstitutional military action in American history with barely a peep from the citizenry.

Nevertheless, President Obama certainly walked a fine line Monday night. Indeed, he showed courage rarely expressed by American Presidents. Obama chose to present himself before the American people on the same night that “Dancing With the Stars” was scheduled to go on. One false move could have spelled disaster for him, as the President would have clashed with other, more fun, forms of entertainment. His plan could have backfired. His speech could have run too long. “Dancing With the Stars” could have been interrupted and, if that had happened, we might have finally seen a revolt in this country.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A Higher Level

Dees Illustration

Paul Craig Roberts

Information Clearinghouse

What does the world think? Obama has been using air strikes and drones against civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and probably Somalia. In his March 28 speech, Obama justified his air strikes against Libya on the grounds that the embattled ruler, Gadhafi, was using air strikes to put down a rebellion.

Gadhafi has been a black hat for as long as I can remember. If we believe the adage that “where there is smoke there is fire,” Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya.

Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, but Obama and Bush/Cheney initiated wars of aggression based entirely on lies and deception.

Yet Gadhafi is being demonized, and Bush/Cheney/Obama are sitting on their high horse draped in cloaks of morality. Obama described himself as saving Libyans from violence while Obama himself murders Afghans, Pakistanis, and whomever else.

Indeed, the Obama regime has been torturing a US soldier, Bradley Manning, for having a moral conscience. America has degenerated to the point where having a moral conscience is evidence of anti-Americanism and “terrorist activity.”

The Bush/Cheney/Obama wars of naked aggression have bankrupted America. Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the money wasted on the Iraq war could have been used to fix America’s Social Security problem for half a century.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan 

Instead, the money was used to boost the obscene profits of the armament industry.

The obscene wars of aggression, the obscene profits of the offshoring corporations, and the obscene bailouts of the rich financial gangsters have left the American public with annual budget deficits of approximately $1.5 trillion. These deficits are being covered by printing money. Sooner or later, the printing presses will cause the US dollar to collapse and domestic inflation to explode. Social Security benefits will be wiped out by inflation rising more rapidly than the cost-of-living adjustments. If America survives, no one will be left but the mega-rich. Unless there is a violent revolution.

Alternatively, if the Federal Reserve puts the brake on monetary expansion, interest rates will rise, sending the economy into a deeper depression.

Washington, focused on its newest war, is oblivious to America’s peril. As Stiglitz notes, the costs of the Iraq war alone could have kept every foreclosed family in their home, provided health care for every American child, and wiped out the student loans of graduates who cannot find jobs because they have been outsoured to foreigners. However, the great democratic elected government of “the world’s only superpower” prefers to murder Muslims in order to enhance the profits of the military/security complex. More money is spent violating the constitutional rights of American air travelers than is spent in behalf of the needy.

The moral authority of the West is rapidly collapsing. When Russia, Asia, and South America look at Europe, Australia and Canada, they see American puppet states that contribute troops to the aggressive wars of the Empire. The French president, the British prime minister, the “president” of Georgia, and the rest are merely functionaries of the American Empire. The puppet rulers routinely sell out the interests and welfare of their peoples in behalf of American hegemony. And they are well rewarded for their service. One year out of office former British prime minister Tony Blair had a net worth of $30 million.

In his war against Libya, Obama has taken America one step further into Caesarism. Obama did Bush one step better and did not even bother to get congressional authorization for his attack on Libya. Obama claimed that his moral authority trumped the US Constitution. The hypocrisy reeks. How the public stands it, I do not know: 

To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and--more profoundly--our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

This from the Great Moral Leader who every day murders civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and now Libya and who turns a blind eye when “the great democracy in the Middle East,” Israel, murders more Palestinians.

The American president, whose drones and air force slaughter civilians every day of the year went on to say Libya stands alone in presenting the world with “the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.” Obviously, Obama thinks that one million dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, and an unknown number of murdered Afghans is just a small thing.

The rest of Obama’s speech showed a person more capable of DoubleSpeak and DoubleThink than Big Brother and the denizens of George Orwell’s 1984.

How does a person as totally absurd as Obama expect to be taken seriously?

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama's Libyan Lies (Gary Franchi Video)

YouTube -- lonelantern



In this edition of the Reality Report, Gary Franchi reveals the lies behind President Obama's address to the nation on Libya and shoots down his justification to start an unconstitutional war. We have a clip with G. Edward Griffin on the Glenn Beck show explaining that the New World Order is taking over. Angie Ress runs down the latest headlines, including a car that runs completely on water. She also tells us about how the U.S. and the European Union are converging on internet privacy, and the rising radiation levels in Japan. We also have an exclusive interview with the former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. He tells us his view on the Libyan rebellion. Jason Bermas is back with a new Punk Rock Politics segment about the upstate New York prison system. Plus, we'll show you a commercial you'll actually want to see on TV. As always, we see what you, the viewer has to say as we dip into the mailbag and we brand a new enemy of the state. 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Americans worried about Libya conflict: poll

62% said they were confident the mission would succeed
© AFP Mahmud Hams

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A new poll published on Wednesday found nearly half of Americans were opposed to US military involvement in Libya, reflecting tricky political ground being navigated by President Barack Obama.

But the Quinnipiac University survey also found that most voters were confident the US mission to shield civilians from Moamer Kadhafi could succeed, though there was an undercurrent of concern about a long engagement.

Qunnipiac also uncovered warning signs for Obama over his wider political prospects, with its survey recording its lowest-ever approval rating for the president -- 42 percent -- down from 46 percent earlier this month.

Respondents also said by a margin of 50 to 41 percent that Obama did not deserve to be re-elected in 2012.

"Some reasons for his overall numbers might be that Obama receives negative ratings on his handling of the budget deficit, the economy, foreign policy, health care and energy policy," said Peter Brown, the university's assistant director of polling.

Other recent polls, most taken before the escalation of the US military effort in Libya, show Obama's approval rating between 48 and 51 percent.

More surveys will be watched in the coming days to see whether Obama's handling of the Libya crisis has hurt his popularity and dented his overall approval ratings.

The Quinnipiac survey was completed on Monday evening, as Obama made a major televised address to the American people to defend his Libya strategy against criticism that it lacked focus and a clear end-game.

Though it did not record reaction to his speech, the poll did reveal clear anxieties in public opinion about the Libya operation.

Voters polled opposed America's involvement in Libya by 47 to 41 percent.

However, 62 percent of voters were very or somewhat confident the mission to protect Libyan civilians would succeed.

But with the memories of the prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan still fresh, 74 percent of voters were very or somewhat concerned that the United States will get stuck in a long-term military conflict in Libya.

Voters were closely split 46 to 45 percent on whether protecting Libyan civilians was worth have US troops fight and possibly die. But 61 percent thought that an operation to remove Kadhafi was not worth possible American combat deaths.

Obama has said that from this week, US air forces will play a mainly support role in air operations over Libya and insisted that he will not deploy US ground troops.

The survey was conducted between March 22 and March 28 and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama: 'we stopped massacre in Libya'

Editor's Note: Says a president who had to apologize for more Afghan 'kill team' photos on the very same day.

Tomahawk missile launch/Wiki commons image

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A defiant President Barack Obama told Americans he had stopped a "massacre" in Libya, but bluntly warned that trying to oust Moamer Kadhafi by force could repeat the carnage of Iraq.

"As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," Obama said, mounting a robust defense of his decision to rain air strikes on Kadhafi's troops in a UN-mandated bid to protect civilians.

Obama spoke after Libyan rebels, enabled by pounding air attacks by international fighter jets, grabbed back government-held territory, and on the eve of a major international conference in London dedicated to Libya's future.

The president, in a major televised address at the National Defense University in Washington, also denied he had ceded leadership to US allies and had failed to lay out a clear strategy for war-weary Americans.
"In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly Zone with our allies and partners," Obama said.

Faced with a man who compared his people to "rats" and who had hanged "civilians in the streets," Obama said he had seen no choice but to act against Kadhafi's forces as they bore down on the key city of Benghazi.


He said the city could have suffered "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

"I refused to let that happen," said Obama, who came to power vowing to get US troops home from Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, but has found himself launching a new military adventure abroad on his own watch.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader -- and more profoundly -- our responsibilities to our fellow human beings ... would have been a betrayal of who were are," he said.

The president said US "interests and values" were at stake in the crisis, in an apparent response to those who question whether Libya represents a vital threat to the United States.

Obama did not, however, sketch an end game for the conflict, as critics warn that he may have taken sides in an intractable Middle Eastern civil war, and fear a blow to US credibility unless Kadhafi is ousted.

He made clear he wants Kadhafi gone, but warned that pursuing a military quest for regime change would backfire and exact a terrible price.

"If we tried to overthrow Kadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter."

"We would likely have to put US troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.

"Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

Top international powers including Britain and France meet in London on Tuesday to assess the success of the coalition effort against Kadhafi and to consider how to oust the long-time leader with non military means.

Protesters take part in an anti-war
demonstration in front of the
White House in Washington, DC,
© AFP Jewel Samad

Before making his speech, Obama spoke by videoconference with the leaders of France, Britain and Germany to review the progress made by the coalition, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

The United States and its partners have levied punishing financial and diplomatic sanctions on the Libyan regime, seized billions of dollars in assets and are policing an arms embargo.

Obama said a "badly weakened" Kadhafi could hang on for some time, saying Libya would remain "dangerous" with him still around.

But he warned Kadhafi was on the wrong side of history.

"The transition to a government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task," Obama said, adding that it was up to the international community to join the United States in a rebuilding effort.

The president also sought to explain his criteria for committing US power abroad, as analysts seek an "Obama doctrine" as revolt sweeps the Middle East.

He said he would never shrink from using force decisively and unilaterally if the US homeland was threatened, but said America could also deploy its military in situations when it was not at risk, for instance to prevent genocide.

But he said he would seek the support of allies in such cases, telling Americans who have seen a decade of war: "The burden of action should not be America's alone."

Obama's speech was partly an answer to a storm of criticism in recent days, especially from lawmakers who argued they were not fully consulted on the Libyan operation.

Republican Senator John McCain welcomed Obama's explanation of the US intervention in Libya, but said his comment that regime change by force was not on the table was "puzzling."

"Kadhafi must have been somewhat comforted by that," Obama's 2008 general election foe told CNN.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner