The Deadly Deceptions of the Political Spectrum

[UniverseSeven]

Countdown to Iran ... and Unprecedented Spikes in Oil and Gold Prices

Lou Passi

June 27, 2005

Background: On June 7, 1981, in a surprise air attack the Israeli Air Force using F-15 and F-16 fighter jets destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor located 30 kilometers south of Baghdad. Fast-forward 20 years later. Meir Dagan, the Chief of Mossad (an Israeli intelligence and counter terrorism agency), reveals to parliament members in his inaugural appearance before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran is close to the “point of no return” and that the specter of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to Israel since its inception. In a 2002 address to the nation, U.S. President George W. Bush called Iran, Iraq and North Korea an “axis of evil”.

During a 2003 visit to the United States, Israel’s Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated “under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession.” Six weeks earlier, Mossad had revealed plans for preemptive attacks by F-16 bombers on Iranian nuclear sites.

In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency’s call for closing down its nuclear fuel production program, which many in the U.S. and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons program. Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as U.S. military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

What follows is a chronology of signs and events over the past few months pointing to an imminent conflict with Iran and, as a result, the potential interruption of oil flowing from the Gulf region.

February 2005: Former U.N. Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq (1991-1998) Scott Ritter, appearing with journalist Dahr Jamail in Washington State, dropped a shocking bombshell in a talk delivered to a packed house in Olympia’s Capitol Theater. The ex-Marine turned UNSCOM weapons inspector said that U.S. President George W. Bush has “signed off” on Pentagon plans to have military capability in place by June 2005 to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran. Tehran responded that it would retaliate, if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel. These attacks could also target U.S. military facilities in the Persian Gulf. President Bush followed this stating, “The notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.” He quickly added, “Having said that, all options are on the table.”

March 2005: U.S. troops begin their biennial air-defense exercise with Israel with the focus on testing Israel’s Arrow II missile-killer system in conjunction with upgraded U.S. Patriot batteries. Both sides described the month-long game codenamed Juniper Cobra as routine. But Israeli security sources said Juniper Cobra would treat Iran’s most advanced Shehab-3 missiles as the main “threat”. Clearly, the drill will not ignore the possibility of an Iranian Shehab-3 missile armed with a nuclear warhead reaching Israel in the near future.

March 2005: European diplomatic initiatives, IAEA inspections, and U.N. sanctions are publicly discussed options to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear program. But U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview with Fox TV confides, “At the end of the day, if the Iranians don’t live up to their obligations and their international commitments to forgo a nuclear program, then obviously we’ll have to take stronger action.” News leaks in Israel regarding an initial authorization by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant “if diplomacy failed to stop Iran’s nuclear program”.

April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets U.S. President George W. Bush at his Texas ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Sharon was used to carry out high-level talks between U.S. and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran. If Israel were to act alone and attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would face a much greater challenge than it did with Iraq in 1981. Yiftah Shapir, an Israeli analyst, explains, “Israel’s options to counter the threat are limited. A preemptive strike against Iran’s missile or nuclear assets is problematic because the targets are too far away, too numerous and dispersed, and too well protected – some of them in deep underground installations.”

April 2005: U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld makes an official visit to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as “literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country.” Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin makes an official visit to Israel. He announces Russia’s decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran’s nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin’s timely visit must be interpreted as “a signal to Israel” regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran. Coinciding with Putin’s visit to Israel, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs to Israel. This decision was viewed by the U.S. media as “a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions”.

May 2005: The deepening animosities prevailing in relations between the White House and the Kremlin and Moscow’s assistance in Iran’s nuclear projects, including the sale of nuclear fuel and technology, makes a Russian veto of any U.N. Security Council penalty against Tehran more than likely. China too is strengthening its economic ties with the Islamic Republic and sees itself as a big buyer of Iranian oil. Moreover, Beijing entertains objections in principle to U.N. sanctions. The heads of the Islamic regime in Tehran sense a major victory in the offing for their plans for a nuclear weapon.

June 25, 2005: Ultra-conservative Tehran mayor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is swept to a stunning landslide victory in Iran’s presidential elections and immediately vowed to turn Iran into a strong and exemplary Islamic state. His victory puts in doubt Iran’s fragile liberalization process, started by outgoing reformist President Mohammad Khatami, and raises questions about whether Iran will harden its stance on its nuclear impasse with the West. “This all but closes the door for a breakthrough in U.S.-Iran relations,” said Karim Sadjadpour, Tehran-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. In his victory speech, Ahmadinejad hinted at a shake up in the oil sector, saying oil deals needed to be clarified.

Looking ahead, U.S. President Bush is scheduled to deliver a major address Tuesday, June 28, to U.S. troops and the nation from the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the speech would be delivered about 8 p.m. EST and U.S. television networks have been asked to air the speech live. Speculation is that the speech will focus on Iraq and the administration’s decision not to set a timetable for troop withdrawal. But given the progression of events noted above, Tuesday’s speech may be the opportune time to prepare the nation for war with Iran.

Conclusion

Iran is the next military target and already surrounded by U.S. military bases. The U.S. has troops in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. These countries as well as Turkmenistan are members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program and have military cooperation agreements with NATO. We are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a U.S. led war with Iran.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel’s participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East. Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the U.S. cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the U.S. Senate for use in conventional war theaters as “they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground.”

An attack on Iran must be viewed in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the oil-rich Caspian Sea Basin. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America’s overstretched military capabilities and resources since the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed.

Moreover, U.S. military action on Iran threatens Russian and Chinese geopolitical and economic interests in the Caspian Sea Basin and bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the U.S. and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

The U.S. media has been generally “missing in action” when it comes to alerting the American public to these events and the catastrophic possibilities to follow. While John Q. Public may be unaware that we are on the verge of nuclear war in the Middle East, a few savvy investors already see the potential for a serious and perhaps lengthy interruption in the flow of Middle East oil. I suspect that awareness, and not normal market forces such as supply and demand, is what’s behind crude oil’s recent move to record-high prices and gold’s unusual price rise in every major currency. Any serious curtailment in the flow of oil could result in the global economy grinding to a halt within days.

The first U.S.-Israeli air strike on Iran will surprise many complacent and uninformed investors. Don’t be one of them. You have been informed, now take appropriate action to protect your wealth and perhaps even profit from the inevitable. Today’s gold and oil prices will look very cheap in the aftermath of a attack on Iran and their expected retaliatory actions.

Lou Passi

June 26, 2005

www.321energy.com

[UniverseSeven]

Syrian MPs in Special Parliamentary Session: CIA/Mossad Assassinated Al-Hariri


Syrian MP: "You should look for the murderers of Al-Hariri in Tel Aviv and Washington. You should look for the perpetrators of this crime and for those who stood to gain from it.

"The Syrians will never forgive those who have made it their business to harm Syria."

[...]

Khalil Musa: "This report is political and politicized, and is far from being reasonable or just. The Mehlis report should have cleared Syria, if it had been professional and objective.

"It is invalid for the following reasons: First, it lacks even a modicum of justice and reason. Second, it contains grave professional errors, as my colleagues, who are also lawyers, have mentioned. Third, it is based on witnesses known for their lack of credibility, and for their hostility towards Syria. Fourth, there is no evidence in support of this report. Fifth, the report refrains from accusing, or even mentioning, Israel, although it is the only one to benefit from Al-Hariri's murder."

[...]

Huneim Namar: "The greatest thing that the Americans and Israelis achieved from this Mehlis report is to divert attention away from any possible role played by the Israeli Mossad, the American CIA, or any other party who may have been responsible for this crime, as well as to direct the spotlight exclusively on Syria."

[...]

Hassan Taleb: "The Syrian masses stress their loyalty to the homeland, and to the leader, Bashar Al-Assad. They say, and I say on their behalf: My soul I will sacrifice for you, Syria, and I will give everything for you. I have planted my heart and all I have in its soil. May Allah protect Assad, you are my sword. You are the mighty leader. You are my eyes. They chanted your name, Bashar, and I say: I will sacrifice my eyes for you. "

[...]

Anwar 'Ubeid: "What is happening today is an indication that America and Bush are coveting this nation's resources. Syria is the only thorn to remain in the eye of Zionism and its collaborators. Hence, the Mehlis report is a clear attempt to pressure and harm Syria, the Syrian people, and their leaders.

"We are all familiar with Lebanon and with the intrigues of its leaders. Collaboration flows in their veins, and treachery thrives in their midst. Today they repay Syria's loyalty to them with treachery. They repay the attempts to help them with an effort to destroy Syria, and to put pressure on us."

[...]

Syrian MP: "Syria in its entirety went [to battle] when some people wanted to attack it – the entire Syrian people, the young and the old, said: 'We will dig their graves with our bare hands.'

"Today, too, we say: With our hands, with our fingernails, with our children and our elderly, with our women and with our youth, we will dig their graves, if they think of attacking the capital of the Umayyad. Thank you."

memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP102105


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


MOSSAD BLEW UP JORDANIAN HOTELS TO ASSASSINATE PALESTINIAN INTEL HEAD
chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=116010


chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/print.php3?article_id=116010

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Assalamu aleikum.

The following is excerpted from the November 10, 2005 CNN article

Furious Jordanians take to streets
www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/10/jordan.blasts/index.html[scroll all the way down to the final paragraphs]

-
Despite being the supposed targets of the attacks, Westerners escaped their brunt, as most of the casualties were Jordanian. Jordanian Embassy officials said none of its government officials were wounded or killed.

Other government officials were less fortunate, including Maj. Gen. Bashir Nafeh, head of Palestinian military intelligence, and Jihad Fattouh, the brother of the Palestinian parliament speaker, said chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. The two were on their way back from Cairo, Egypt, he said.

-

Next, from the November 10, 2005 Los Angeles Times article below:

-

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Israelis staying at the Radisson on Wednesday had been evacuated before the attacks and escorted back home "apparently due to a specific security threat."

Amos N. Guiora, a former senior Israeli counter-terrorism official, said in a phone interview with The Times that sources in Israel had also told him about the pre-attack evacuations.

"It means there was excellent intelligence that this thing was going to happen," said Guiora, a former leader of the Israel Defense Forces who now heads the Institute for Global Security Law and Policy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "The question that needs to be answered is why weren't the Jordanians working at the hotel similarly removed?"
-

Guiora's question has an answer. When the Mossad targets a victim, zionists are warned in advance to stay away from the scene of the crime. This is precisely what happened when the Mossad attacked the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001 and when London's Underground got bombed on July 7, 2005. While Haaretz has subsequently recanted its article (no doubt under the kind of duress that only the Mossad can threaten), the L.A. Times article verifies it and proves that former IDF leader Guiora has independently sourced the zionist pre-attack evacuations.


groups.yahoo.com/group/islamiccommunitynet/message/8923

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Arrests begin as Amman blasts are tied to Iraq
www.smh.com.au/news/world/arrests-begin-as-amman-blasts-are-tied-to-iraq/2005/11/11/1131578234393.html?oneclick=true


Syria sends strong signal over Hariri probe
news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/11/content_3768754.htm


U.S., Jordan Forge Closer Ties in Covert War on Terrorism

By Ken Silverstein, Times Staff Writer
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gid11nov11,0,2053723.story?coll=la-home-headlines


CAUCASIAN SECRETS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE:
Mossad Will Separate the North Caucasus From Russia
www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=433


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chiapas IndyMedia
chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[UniverseSeven]

Neo-Con Jerusalem Summit, Part 3: Conspiracy against the Muslim World

By Habib Siddiqui

Al-Jazeerah, November 11, 2005



Asian Summits (2004-5)

The first "Jerusalem Summit Asia" was held in the Philippines on the week of April 24, 2004 in a show of solidarity with Israel.[1] A group of 200 Christian friends of Israel came from the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Burma, Thailand, India and Taiwan. They were met by members of the Knesset's Christian Allies Caucus, notably MK Yuri Shtern (National Union).

A declaration passed by the evangelical members of the conference at the conclusion of the two-day meet called on their respective governments to move their embassies to Jerusalem, not to vote against Israel at the United Nations, and to scrutinize the financial aid their countries are providing to the Palestinian Authority.

As to why the Jerusalem Summit (JS) organizers are now reaching out to Christians around the globe, Dmitry Radyshevsky, the Jerusalem Summit’s Executive Director, explained: “Israel should not be obsessed with the support of Europe and the US. The effort to get the public support of Asia, Africa, and Latin America is of equal importance. These regions have a tremendous development potential, and their population – first of all, Christians – possesses moral clarity that draws distinction between the Good and the Evil in the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

This remark is almost incredible given the fact that for years the Zionist state has always behaved as a ‘rampart’ of the West against Asia, Africa and Latin America. Her voting records in the UN (e.g., Resolutions 3382, 3481, 3482, 3377, 3378, 3521, 3411G) speak volumes on issues that were important to those nations. The remark is equally offensive to other religions, as if they do not possess moral clarity for good and evil. It also epitomizes hypocrisy since it was the same Christian church that once persecuted Jews and presented our world with the Crusades, Inquisitions, slavery, pogroms and Holocaust that the Ashkenazi neocon - Radyshevsky - is now paying homage to.

On June 8-9, 2005 the JS co-sponsored, together with Tel Aviv University (TAU), a conference on the security, foreign policy and economic aspects of the relationship between India and Israel. Other co-sponsors were Israel’s business daily - Globes; the Israel Export Institute; and prominent Australian businessman Brian Sherman. The conference was held on the TAU Campus and the guest of honor was Jaswant Singh, who served as the Minister of Defense, Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Finance in the previous (Hindutvadi) BJP-led government of India. He is currently head of the Opposition in the Upper House of the Indian Parliament.

The conference agenda was divided into two portions with the morning session dealing with Security and Foreign Policy issues, and the afternoon session with Economic and Commercial Aspects. Among the Israeli participants in the morning session were member of the Knesset - Dr. Yuval Steinitz – Chairman, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee; Maj. General (reserve) Giora Eiland – Head of the National Security Council; Moshe Arens - former Foreign and Defense Minister; Shabtai Shavit – former Head of the Mossad; Vice Admiral (res.) Alex Tal - former Commander of the Israel Navy; Maj. General (res.) Yaakov Amidror - former Commander of the Israeli Military Colleges; Prof. Maj. Gen. (res.) Isaac Ben-Israel - Tel Aviv University and former Director of Defense R&D Directorate in the Ministry of Defense; Mr. Itzhak Gerberg – Former Consul-General of Israel in India.

Among the participants from India included Prof. P.R. Kumaraswamy of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The session was chaired by Dr. Martin Sherman, the academic director of the JS.

While most participants warmly commended the close and cordial relations between the two countries, a number of Israeli delegates raised two points of concern on Israeli-Indian relationship: (a) India's voting record at international institutions – particularly at the UN – which, with the notable exception at the 2001 Conference on Racism in Durban, has been one of consistent support for anti Israeli resolutions, and (b) the close ties between New Delhi and Teheran.

In response to these concerns, Jaswant Singh stated that with regard to India's posture at international forums, positive changes in improving Israeli-Indian relationship were underway. With regard to Iran, he asserted that India had no special military relationship with that country and that the ties with Iran mostly reflected India's energy needs which have been growing rapidly in recent years. He reiterated that India would not sacrifice its wider national identity and interests for convenient sources of oil.

The afternoon session was chaired by Dr. Ora Setter, head of the Lahav executive program at TAU. The session featured a number of leading figures in the Israeli business world (who have had commercial experience with India) and members of relevant academic and public institutions.

Such interactions between India and Israel should not surprise anyone. India has long abandoned her progressive and anti-imperialist image. She established full-fledged diplomatic relation with Israel back in January 29, 1992. The Indo-Israeli civilian trade annually is now estimated at close to two billion dollars. Contacts at many levels have become quite common when BJP came to power in March 1998. The relationship became warmer after the 1999 artillery duels between Pakistani and Indian forces in Kargil. Israel rushed to provide needed military technologies to New Delhi. Since then ties between the two nations produced a booming defense trade and rising commercial ties. In the summer of 2000, Ministers Jaswant Singh and L.K. Advani visited Israel, followed by India's National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra’s visit. In that visit, Singh attributed India’s decades-long Palestine policy to the ‘Muslim vote-bank.’

Such trips by Indian government heavyweights to Israel were followed by two trips of Shimon Peres to India in August 2000 and January 2001. Sharon visited India in 2003. New Delhi was promised the Phalcon airborne early warning system and anti-ballistic missiles from Israel. Speaking to Atal Bihari Vajpayee (then Indian Prime Minister) and the assembled media, Sharon declared: "Today, Israel and India are embattled democracies and sharing values and the challenge of terrorism. United in our quest for life, liberty and peace, our joint determination to fight for these values can inspire our hope for a better future for our people."

One may recall that before Sharon’s visit, Mishra spoke at the Annual Dinner held by the American Jewish Committee on May 8, 2003. There, explaining the basis for the warm relationship between the two nations, he too said, “India, the United States and Israel have some fundamental similarities. We are all democracies, sharing a common vision of pluralism, tolerance and equal opportunity."[2]

In 2003 and 2004, JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) initiated a series of trilateral Indo-Israeli-US conferences on strategic ties. The Indian participants included Ram Jethmalani (former minister), B. Raman (RAW-chief), M.D. Nalapat (Times of India), Lt. Gen. R.K. Sawhney (Military Intelligence) and Jagdish Shettigar (PM’s advisor). The US side included Stephen Solarz (former congressman and ambassador), Shoshana Bryen (JINSA) and Stephen Blank (War College) amongst others. The Israeli side included the chiefs of army, navy and air force; and also Shabtai Shavit – formerly head of the Mossad; Martin Sherman (JS academic director); Ministers Silvan Shalom and Uzi Landau.[3]

While India is now run by a Congress-led coalition, her foreign policy has not changed an iota from the courses set by the previous Hindu fundamentalist (Hindutvadi) government. This was demonstrated in her September 24, ‘05 voting against Iran in the AEA in Vienna. It is high time that the countries that once belonged to the non-aligned group take a hard look at India’s reactionary role before they decide whether India can be trusted with a much coveted seat in the UN Security Council. If her inclusion would only strengthen the hands of hegemonic forces that already bully the UN agenda, there is no benefit in adding one more upstart willing to sing her “master’s voice.”

The JS organizers were also actively involved in shaping the agenda for the June 28, 2005 special session of the Knesset's forum on so-called ‘nuclearization’ of Iran.
This is not surprising given the fact that Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives have already been lobbying for war against Iran and Syria.

The Second Jerusalem Summit Asia took place in Seoul, South Korea on August 9-13, 2005. It was hosted by the Kingdomizer Mission Alliance, the largest church in South-East Asia and attended by members of South Korean Parliament, Mayor of Seoul - Myung Buk Lee (the former president of Hyundai Corporation and the leading contender for national presidency), and dignitaries from the major countries of the region.

From Israel, the Summit was attended by Knesset members headed by Yuri Shtern, co-chairman of Christian Allies Caucus of Knesset, as well as the Summit’s academic experts: Martin Sherman and Itamar Marcus. They spoke about the growth of “Islamism” in Indonesia and Malaysia, South Korea’s back-door neighbors.

At the end of the meeting, a resolution was passed that affirmed “the ‘inalienable’ right of the Jewish people to the “entire Holy Land and Jerusalem as its eternal capital.” The Summit adopted the "Jerusalem Accords" - a call on all Bible-believing Christians to demand from their respective governments to take three steps on behalf of Israel: (1) to move embassies to Jerusalem, (2) to resettle Palestinian refugees in the third countries, and (3) to condition financial aid to Palestinians on total cessation of terrorism and incitement.

The leaders of South Korea’s Christians called on their millions-strong community to pray daily for the deliverance of Israel from the threat of terror and the right of Jews to live in all the parts of the Promised Land.

Future Summits:

The JS organizers are planning to hold its first European summit in Odessa, Ukraine on January 28-30, 2006. The theme of the proposed summit is “New Europe.” [One may recall that on 22 January 2003 Defense Secretary Rumsfeld chided France and Germany as “Old Europe” for not supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq.][4] The organizers are preparing a White Paper on the need of a neo-conservative revival in Europe. This will be a collection of articles by leading European neo-conservative scientists, public and Christian leaders on - what the neocon organizers of the Summit call – (1) the necessity of bringing together the “constructive” forces of Europe to resist the “dying-out” of Europeans, the de-Christianization of Europe, and “radicalization” of its Muslim population. The organizers will explore the “feasibility of revival of Judeo-Christian values in Europe.”

Needless to say that Islam has long replaced Judaism as the second largest religion in Europe. So, by “de-Christianization,” what the neocons mean is the growth of Muslim population there. It is another scare tactic, adapted from Nazi hatemonger Julius Streicher’s anti-Semitic work, only scripted now by neocon bigots, to arouse European Christians against European Muslims.[5]

Funny that the JS organizers are all agog to claim Israel as a model of Judeo-Christian values, while it is not. Recently (October 23, 2005) Gideon Levy of Haaretz newspaper wrote: "For nearly five years, the basic freedom of movement has been denied to 2.5 million residents in the West Bank. … Most of the roads in the West Bank are desolate, with no people or cars. On days [Shabbat] and hours when the settlers are not traveling on them, they become ghost roads. … If you strain your eyes, you will notice at the sides of the road the traffic lanes assigned to the Palestinians: pathways through the terraces winding up the hills, goat paths on which cars are sputtering, including those carrying the sick, women in labor, pupils, and ordinary citizens who decide to place their life in their hands in order to travel for two to three hours to reach the neighboring village." Are these Judeo-Christian values that these neocons want to revive in Europe against immigrants or people of color?

The organizers are also planning a summit in South Africa to be held in early 2006 in cooperation with International Christian Embassy Jerusalem (ICEJ) and Bridges for Peace. This would be kind of a political coup d’etat for the supporters of Zionism for there never was a country more supportive of the (former) South African apartheid regime and racism than Israel. Israel opposed the rightful cause of the Black people of South Africa and Namibia. She opposed granting of independence to colonial countries, and the importance of universal realization of peoples to self-determination. She voted “No” in the UN for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights.

Israel’s stance against de-colonization (UN Resolutions 3481, 3482, 3382), along with its stance in favor of racism (UN Resolutions 3377, 3378) clearly set her apart from the more progressive forces of the world. So, in November of 1975 when the 30th session of the General Assembly of the UN considered and adopted its historical decision that “Zionism is a form of racial and radical discrimination,” it did so for the right reason. It is a disgrace that this historic decision was later reversed at the behest of Zionism’s powerful allies in the west. Truly, the declaration that Zionism constitutes a ‘national liberation movement’ would have sounded preposterous and grotesque to the ears of its founders and early leaders who looked at themselves as pioneers in a movement of settler colonization in western Asia and openly described them as such.[6]

It is worthwhile quoting here Stefan Goranov who stated, "Zionism is essentially a modification of Gobineau's racist views, according to which mankind is divided into three basic races. The most inferior is the black race, closely followed by yellow race. The white race is the most superior."



Concluding Words:

Ariel Sharon and his fanatic supporters don’t want to negotiate the fate of Jerusalem. They want to keep the city as the undivided capital of the rogue state.[7] The Zionist organizers of the Jerusalem Summit are in cahoots with Sharon to achieve that goal. In that process, they are also true to their Straussian root, displaying no qualms about exploiting religion to sanctify their evil agenda. To them, religious zeal is especially necessary when force is used to promote an agenda.[8] And who could be more zealous to ‘restore the Kingdom to Israel’ than the Bible-thumping evangelical Christian fanatics and (millennium/dispensation) fundamentalists?[9]

Likud party’s tie with the Christian Right is an old one, dating back, at least, to May 1977 when Begin was elected prime minister of Israel. A 1977 full-page advertisement that appeared in major U.S. newspapers read: "The time has come for evangelical Christians to affirm their belief in biblical prophecy and Israel's divine right to the land. … We affirm as evangelicals our belief in the promised land to the Jewish people . . . . We would view with grave concern any effort to carve out of the Jewish homeland another nation or political entity." The ad was financed and coordinated by Jerusalem's Institute for Holy Land Studies, an evangelical organization with a Christian Zionist orientation. The advertising campaign was one of the first public signs of a Likud-evangelical alliance. Although in the beginning the relationship was not without trouble, over time the relationship has only become stronger, especially since Netanyahu’s election in 1996.

An April 10, 1997, a New York Times ad Titled "Christians Call for a United Jerusalem" misleadingly claimed: "Jerusalem has been the spiritual and political capital of only the Jewish people for 3,000 years." Citing Genesis 12:17, Leviticus 26:44-45 and Deuteronomy 7:7-8, it spoke of Israel's biblical claim to the land. The ad was signed by Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network; Ralph Reed, then director of the Christian Coalition; Ed McAteer of the Religious Roundtable; and Falwell, among others. Voicing one of Netanyahu's themes, the ad asked that Israel "not be pressured to concede on issues of Jerusalem in the final status negotiations with the Palestinians."

While the U.S. and European governments in 1997 were pressing Netanyahu to negotiate with the Palestinians, the latter’s public relations specialists developed another strategy involving the cooperation of Christian Zionist organizations in Jerusalem. The initial phase of this strategy - launched in an October 22, 1997 report on Israeli Radio (Kol Israel) News - claimed that the Palestinian National Authority (PA) was persecuting Christians. Two days later the Jerusalem Post published an article charging that, according to a new Israeli government report "the few Christians remaining in PA-controlled areas are subjected to brutal and relentless persecution."

Palestinian Christian leaders were quick to respond to such allegations. Hanna Nasser, a Christian mayor of Bethlehem said: "Our churches have complete freedom, and I've never heard that they've been under pressure." Mitri Raheb, pastor of Bethlehem's Lutheran church, challenged the Israeli report as pure propaganda. He noted that while Bethlehem was under Israeli occupation, his house had been robbed and his car stolen twice; but "there have been no robberies since the Palestinian Authority has taken over. On the contrary, there is a greater sense of security now than there was under occupation."

In May 1998, Evangelicals for Middle East Understanding and Open Doors International sent a 14-member team to the Holy Land to investigate those allegations of persecution. The investigative team found "disturbing indications of political motivations behind [the] recent publicity about Christian persecution."

Unfortunately, such findings did not chill the warm relationship between the Likudniks (both within and outside Israel) with the Christian Right. Needless to say they needed each other for similar goals. In the post-Clinton era, under the direction of Carl Rove and neocons working within the White House, this relationship has only solidified.

Giddy with excitement to expedite Fukuyama’s flawed “clash of civilizations,” the neocon organizers of the JS have also been reaching out to non-Muslim countries, especially the bigoted elements with records of deep intolerance against their Muslim minorities. Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, and Likudnik neocons control America!

My wish is their fantasy and conspiracy against the Muslim world will fail as did the Confederates’ in the Battle of the Trench in utter disillusionment and humiliation


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/index_js_asia_manila.php

[2] See this author’s article “Semantics of Common Vision” for a detailed analysis on this subject.

[3] Kokhaviv publications: Israel Archives.

[4] BBC News, 23 January 2003.

[5] See, Daniel Pipes’s vilification in November 8, 2005 issue of the FrontPageMagazine on the riots in France. See, also Steve Emerson’s interview with the Washington Time, November 9, 2005.

[6] See, The Zionist Movement by I. Cohen.

[7] See this author’s article: “The Case of Jerusalem – the Holy City” for details on this issue.

[8] Michael Ledeen, who is one of the foremost theorists of the neoconservative movement today, says, “It’s been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.”

[9] In Luke's account of the ascension, the disciples ask Jesus, "Lord, is this the time when you will restore the Kingdom to Israel?" The question illustrates the early church's fascination with Israel and its prophetic role at the end of history--a fascination that continues to this day. Reflections on the end times draw on the Book of Daniel, Zechariah 9-14, Ezekiel 38-39 and various apocryphal books, as well as Matthew 24, the early Pauline letters (1 Thess. 4:16-17; 5:1-11) and the Book of Revelation. (See Donald Wagner’s article

“Evangelicals and Israel: theological roots of a political alliance,” The Christian Century, November 4, 1998, pp. 1020-1026, for an excellent review on this subject. Wagner writes: “The establishment of Israel in 1948 gave dispensationalism new momentum. The restoration of a Jewish nation was taken as a sign that the clock of biblical prophecy was ticking and we were rapidly approaching the final events leading to the return of Jesus. … When Israel captured Jerusalem in the 1967 war; dispensationalists were certain that the end was near. L. Nelson Bell, Billy Graham's father-in-law and editor of Christianity Today, wrote in July 1967: "That for the first time in more than 2,000 years Jerusalem is now completely in the hands of the Jews gives the student of the Bible a thrill and a renewed faith in the accuracy and validity of the Bible."”)

Dr. Habib Siddiqui ([e-mail])

[UniverseSeven]

Amman Bombings: Corporate Media Revises Script
Friday November 11th 2005, 4:44 pm

As more details about the Amman bombings emerge, the corporate media has gone into heavy-duty spin mode to shape events to the liking of the Bushcons and the Israelis. For instance, on the day of the bombing (November 9), Reuters reported that the bombs at the Radisson were “placed in a false ceiling,” a rather difficult operation in a busy hotel and demonstrating the fact the bombers, who we are now told are Iraqi resistance fighters brainwashed by the dead cretin al-Zarqawi, would have obviously required serious cover of the sort enjoyed by a state intelligence service working in tandem with Jordanian intelligence (since Jordan is “a police state with a democratic façade,” according to a former cabinet minister, sneaking explosives into a hotel that caters to affluent foreigners would have been, to say the least, difficult without government complicity and all but impossible for rag-tag Iraqi resistance fighters). In an effort to tighten the story and make it sound more plausible for the al-Zarqawi suicide angle, “police sources” (most likely Jordanian police spokesman Captain Bashir al-Da’jeh) dismissed the ceiling story and introduced the more acceptable suicide bomber explanation later in the day on November 9. Now we are told the ceiling simply “caved in” as a result of “al-Qaeda in Iraq” suicide bombers.

Suddenly everybody was on message. On November 10, the mythical al-Zarqawi, via the internet, claimed responsibility for the bombings in the “moderate Arab nation” that “has fought a long-running battle against Islamic extremists opposed to its 1994 peace deal with Israel,” according to the Bush Ministry of Disinformation, Associated Press division. Of course, in a monarchial police state run by Hashemites, accustomed to wielding dictatorial power through hereditary emirs, there is no such thing as moderate rule, but never mind. On the same day, thousands “of Jordanians rallied in the capital and other cities shouting ‘Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!’” and the corporate media imparts the impression these “protests” were spontaneous when in fact—again in a monarchial police state—such independent action is impossible and is in fact organized by the government (thus the display of “Jordanian flags and posters of King Abdullah II” by citizens we are expected to believe love their corrupt king and his freedom-hating retinue). It is nearly vomit-inducing to witness the length the corporate media has gone to portray average Jordanians as kowtowing citizens of a “moderate” Arab country when in fact they are oppressed subjects ruled under a “semi-constitutional” monarchy installed by British invaders in 1921 as they went about carving up the Middle East after defeating the Ottomans. But then tribal and chieftain-based monarchy (especially the Hashemite version) is precisely what Israel and the United States have in mind for the Arabs and Muslims of the Middle East, so this compliant behavior by the corporate media is to be more or less expected.

Now, with the ceiling story far behind us—and the evacuation of the Israelis prior to the attack story all but extinguished—we are told these al-Zarqawi suicide bombers included a “husband and wife team” and the terrorists “carried out the Amman attacks with explosive belts after carefully staking out the hotels for a month,” according to the Associated Press. Once again, all of this is absurd on its face—Iraqis staking out hotels in a police state as if they were casually walking around Cleveland, Ohio, staking out the local Red Roof Inn—and no doubt the “husband and wife team” bit was thrown in for shock value, a gruesome stick-to-the-wall detail that tells us the Iraqi resistance (under the sway of the dead cretin al-Zarqawi) is brutal, cold-hearted, and above all nihilistic. “It was believed to be the first time a married couple has carried out a suicide attack. The couple bombed the Days Inn after the woman ‘chose to accompany her husband to his martyrdom,’ the statement said.” Of course, we can expect more married couples—soon followed by fraternal and identical twins—to engage in such horrific violence against “filthy Jews” (according to the deceased al-Zarqawi) who are evacuated, leaving behind not only innocent Arabs attending a wedding party but also a number of important Palestinians and Chinese business partners.

“In its latest statement, Al-Qaida said the bombings were carried out in response to ‘the conspiracy against the Sunnis,’ referring to the Muslim Arab group favored under Saddam Hussein’s regime and now believed to form the core of the Iraqi insurgency.” Of course, this makes absolutely no sense—Sunni Muslims comprise a full 92 percent of Jordanians and it makes less than no sense to attack them to defend the honor of Sunnis in Iraq. But then we are expected to believe al-Zarqawi the black op team attacks Shia Muslims in Iraq because it is more important to kill heretics than defeat the American occupation.

Obviously, the attack in Amman was carried out by seasoned experts—almost certainly Mossad (the attacks fit their modus operandi)—with the complicity of Jordanian and U.S. military intelligence. It was engineered to reverse the support of average Sunni Jordanians for the Sunni-led resistance in Iraq, kill important Palestinians (and send a message to the Chinese, who support the Palestinians), and also dovetail with Bush’s desperate speech in western Pennsylvania earlier today. “We must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war against the terrorists,” said Bush. No doubt Bush and his neocon handlers believe the images from Amman of blown up hotels—very westernized hotels and thus striking a cord with mostly somnolent Americans—add the appropriate spin to his speech, which is in fact a act of desperation as the Bushcons circle the wagons to fend off growing criticism of the obvious fact Bush lied as he prepared to attack a sovereign and defenseless nation.

kurtnimmo.com/?p=114

[jonnygemini]

“Where is the world I was promised as a child?”
--- Stephen Ames


When I first saw the above quote, it resonated with me in a big way. The world that I was told to expect when I was in school (elementary, high school, and college: 1967-1982), simply did not exist by the time of my graduation -- if it ever did at all. Since that time nearly twenty-five years ago, things have gone steadily downhill, with all that is good and honest being left behind in favor of all that perpetuates the illusion that things are running just fine.

I cannot stand silent, while the country I love so much is being destroyed from within.

The form of government in the United States is said to be a democracy. However, there is a power elite that behaves in the manner of their being above and beyond all laws, and George W. Bush is just the latest of a long line of traitors that go back more than forty years, when John F. Kennedy was the last elected official that had more than superficial honesty to his name. For his troubles, President Kennedy was shot in the head, while his Secret Service patrol stood down in Dealey Plaza for only two minutes. When the police frequencies were unjammed mere moments after the assassination, the Morse Code for VICTORY could be heard across all police radios, proving it was an inside job.

I have made a sincere effort at trying to educate people about true and provable government crimes, and for my troubles, I have lost friends, enraged family members, and been called a conspiracy theorist and worse. Funny I should be called these things, especially as all of my writings are meticulously researched, and footnotes and source notes are always provided, just as they are at the end of this essay. My concern today is this; that it is simply too late to take back our own government, especially when folks are so obsessed with their own distractions -- and the machine has created so many of these that a person can spend their entire life hopelessly lost in their grips.

Where IS the world I was promised as a child?!?!

Public schools in the United States condition their students instead of teaching them anything real and worthwhile. The conditioning is B.F. Skinner-based behavior modification, and 95% of both the students and their parents do not even realize that anything is amiss. The few times that these schools actually teach something, it is merely the material that will appear on the standardized test at the end of the year. As far as teaching anything that can actually be useful in later life, forget it. The reader is invited to take a look at the writings of past New York City and New York State Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto; and former Reagan Education Department administrator Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt for the full details of the covert program to corrupt the minds of America’s school age children. Recommended books by these two authors appear at the end of this essay, in the Source Notes section.

In my lifetime, the percentage of high school seniors that actually graduate has fallen nearly 30% in my own area of the country. For example, in the 1980 Chicago, Illinois public school system, only about half of the 39,500 public school students who were freshmen in that year ended up graduating four years later. Only about 30% of those who did graduate, could read on a 12th grade level. In 1986-1987, only 23.1% of high school graduates in the Rochester, New York school system had Regents Diplomas, just like I did when I graduated. By 1990, this figure had fallen to 17.5%. When I graduated high school twenty-five years ago, I graduated with a Regents diploma, as did most of my senior class. We were told that it would help our chances to make a better impression on the college we were planning to attend. Three years ago in my city of Buffalo, New York USA, the passing grade in city public schools was lowered to 55%.

As Frosty Wooldridge pointed out in his September 19, 2005 article that had been published on Rense.com: “A perfect example occurred in Denver Public Schools this spring. According to the Rocky Mountain News, May 16, 2005, ‘What Happened?’ in 1999, 5,663 students started the eighth grade in Denver. Five years later, only 1,884 graduated from DPS. That's a 70 percent dropout/flunkout rate. Additionally, one in five teachers quits or transfers out of DPS during the nine month school year. Why? Total futility in schools! Why? Over 20,000 illegal alien kids that are functionally illiterate with functionally illiterate parents that can't help their kids. Also, over 40 languages are spoken by all those illegal alien students. Final result? Utter confusion, frustration and failure of education not only for the illegals, but American students!” As Mr. Wooldridge pointed out, part of the reason for the complete failure of the American public school system is the language barrier between American citizens and foreign immigrants.

Nearly all organized religions seek to control the behavior of their adherents, instead of instilling spiritual ascension and personal freedom. Such people are told that they are expected to behave in a very specific manner, while pedophile priests molest little children, thus violating the very essence of the trust that was given to them by these children’s parents. These priests are rarely if ever prosecuted, as they are most often simply moved to another area, where they are left to commit their crimes on new victims. Followers of these religions are told that if they misbehave, they will offend God, who will then unleash untold furies upon the sinner.

However, nothing is spoken of God’s anger toward the pedophile priests, which is a much more serious trespass than is eating pork among those of the Jewish faith, or eating meat on Friday, among those of the Christian faith. Nor have any Catholic diocese bishops told the faithful under their charge that the money they give to the collection plate has been used to pay off hundreds of families and victims of sexual molestation, to insure their remaining quiet about what happened to them as children, or what happened to their own children. Adding even more confusion to the already murky issue of pedophilia, some of those who have been accused of being pedophiles, actually are innocent of this crime, the possibility of this was raised in the riveting documentary by Andrew Jarecki, entitled ‘Capturing The Friedman’s,’ a 2003 Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury prize winner. As a parent myself, this is one aspect of today’s world which I was certainly never told to expect.

The so-called news from the globalist-controlled mass media, conditions their audience, more than it informs them. Perhaps the best example of this is FOX-News, who has become little more than the propaganda arm of the GOP, the Gangsters of Politics, as has been said of their true motivation and behavior. The pitifully disturbing documentary by Robert Greenwald, entitled ‘OutFOXed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism,’ has shown through the use of FOX’s own broadcasts and the words of their reporters and talking head news readers, that the evening’s news is more about conditioning thought, than it is about informing anyone of any given day’s events.

The politicians of today are said to be selected not because of their skill or ability to lead and manage complex situations, but because of their ability to keep silent about the bigger, hidden agenda, which has been stated by innumerable authors and researchers as a desire to bring about what the globalists themselves call their ‘New World Order.’ Such politicians must also keep quiet about the crimes in which they participate or witness. They are also selected also based on their ability to be blackmailed, and to be controlled by this blackmailing. Alex Jones of Infowars.com and Prisionplanet.com has reported that one of the purposes of Bohemian Grove in Sonoma County, California is to arrange homosexual trysts for prominent politicians and businessmen, who are then videotaped for future use, should they later prove difficult to control. In exchange for their allegiance to the larger agenda, they are rewarded with success beyond all reasonable expectations, which propels them into the upper echelon, where they become world famous and to most people, a household name.

The conditioning of the AmeriKan mind includes forced belief in many things that are obviously lies to anyone who still possesses a brain that still thinks. The first of these lies is that anyone can become President. Anyone who has royalty in their bloodline, that is. In the 1996 election between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, Harold Brooks-Baker, of the preeminent genealogy service Burke’s Peerage, stated that the candidate with the most royal connections in their family, has won every Presidential race in American history!

Of the 43 Presidents thus far, 34 of them have connections all the way back to Charlemagne (742-814), the most famous of all French monarchs. Even though America has been referred to as a melting-pot of immigration, this genetic diversity has not been fairly represented among White House occupants. There have been no Presidents other than wealthy aristocratic white men -- no women, no minorities, and certainly no one from the working middle class. Thus, it must be said that America is governed ONLY by members of an oligarchic aristocracy. Bill Clinton was represented as a so-called ‘common man,’ however, his ties to the Rockefeller family have long been rumored, and he would have to possess that type of familial connection in order to have successfully commandeered the White House for two terms.

According to the Burke’s Peerage website, 26 of the first 42 Presidents are cousins to the seventh degree, at most. 28 of these men are cousins to the sixth or seventh degree at most. George Bush Sr. shares with Franklin Roosevelt, 15 cousins who were President. Gerald Ford and William Taft are related to 14, and Barbara Bush is a member of the Pierce family, and is herself related to Franklin Pierce, our 14th President. 36 of the first 42 Presidential families can be traced back to royalty from England, Scotland, or Wales. In both the 2000 and the 2004 Presidential elections, George W. Bush and both Al Gore and John Kerry are cousins. In addition to being related family members, Bush and Kerry are both members of Yale University’s Skull & Bones occult fraternity. The hidden danger of Skull & Bones is that the oath that is taken when one has been selected to join the cabal, supercedes all subsequent oaths, including the Presidential oath!

Skull & Bones exists to destroy American sovereignty, and its’ members are all traitors to this nation. If the reader cares to read about this fraternal organization, I urge that they check into the book by Antony Sutton, ‘America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones,’ which was published in 1986, and remains in print to this very day. This book contains a complete description of how Skull & Bones has infiltrated the American business establishment and its’ political system, and it makes for some extremely disturbing reading.

So, can anyone become President of the USA? The answer to this is a resounding NO!

The next canard is that AmeriKa is a free country.

This is shoved down our throats beginning when we are young children, and it continues until we die. Patriotism and nationalism enflames advertising and marketing, as well as the mental conditioning that has been carried out through the media. The patriotic genius comedian named Bill Hicks, who sadly died in February 1994, constantly referred to the television as ‘Lucifer’s Dream Box.’ As I am uniquely qualified in the area of psychology, I recognize the mind-control that is broadcast over the airwaves 24/7/365. As Jeff Rense has said many times on his radio show; “the day that you set your children down in front of the television for the first time, is the day they have begun to be taken away from you.” I certainly have no choice but to agree with this frequent statement of Mr. Rense, as nearly everyone I personally know who is a couch-potato habitual TV viewer, has their mind compromised to one degree or another.

We are said to have freedom of speech in this country, but as a point of fact, we do not have anything of the sort. All someone has to do is read or write about the wrong person, and they will have the full force of the disapproval of others upon them. The hate-crimes legislation that the Neo-Nazi-Cons are trying to ram through Congress, is further proof that AmeriKa possesses only the illusion of freedom, and not true freedom in the basic sense of the word. Those behind hate crimes legislation first focus on someone who is despised by larger society, this is how they corral support for these heinous laws. Then, once the law is passed, the definition of what a hate crime is, and who is a hate criminal, suddenly changes. The third and final turn of the screw sees a shift from hate crimes and hate criminals, to ideas with which THEY do not agree.

How long do you think a Jeff Rense, an Alex Jones, or a Jack Blood would last once these laws are successfully passed? Not only are such laws dangerous threats to free expression, they will effectively kill all forms of talk-radio, community-access television, and the Internet blog movement. Truth-telling patriots and the Internet itself have become the target of the globalists, who were observed bitching about this at the most recent Bilderberg Group meeting of May 2005. The Internet is clearly a big threat to them, as it does inform and educate. Yet, those on the Dark Side supply much disinformation and lies on the Internet. But, there is a very easy way to identify such people:

“True patriots DO NOT attack each other. They agree to disagree.”
--- Jeff Rense, November 7, 2005

So, when the reader is at a website such as the fictitious IAmATruePartriot.com, and the so-called patriot behind that website is calling Jeff Rense a CIA operative, or Alex Jones a Mossad spy (just for example), chances are pretty excellent that Mr. True Patriot, based upon his own behavior, may be the true infiltrator.

Another commonly held belief is that there are two political parties in AmeriKa, which may have been true at some point in the past, but isn’t true of today. It is said that we have the Republicans of the conservative right and the Democrats of the liberal left. However, both only serve the purpose of Hegelian dualism, and are different in name only. Both are beholden to monetary interests, and of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, I can identify only seven honest politicians, who have not allowed themselves to become corrupted by money or criminal activity, which they have either observed or knew about, or in which they participated outright.

There is this discussion about whether AmeriKa is a democracy or a republic, because it has an elected President instead of a monarch. A democracy is little more than mob rule, while a republic sees its’ principles of governing come from a ratified constitution. Some contend that America is an oligarchy, and the Neo-Nazi-Cons are the beneficiaries of a well planned covert coup d’etat. The AmeriKa of today is none of these things.

AmeriKa of today is a kakistocracy, which means government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens. I do not believe that anyone who keeps an objective mind honestly believes that the Cheney-Bush regime has the countries’ best interests at heart. From the electronic voting machines without a paper-trail, to the fact that every one of the errors in the last Presidential election being in favor of the Republi-cons only, none of this serves the interests of the larger population. These traitorous scum sacrifice the greater good in order to benefit the corporate interests which only they control, and which receive no-bid contracts, while those without these connections stand on the sidelines, slowly going bankrupt, as they wonder what, if anything, they have done wrong.

No one told me while I was in school that 98% of the entire population remains for their entire life, in the economic level into which they were born, with virtually no chance to become upwardly mobile. This is the real reason why there are such youthful fantasies of becoming the sports star, the movie star, or the rock star. Other than this, there is simply no honest way of achieving monetary success. We are just ants in the globalist ant farm, walking that maze, year after year, until we drop dead.

I have a cousin who married into a wealthy globalist family, a family that has close ties to the Bush Crime Family. When I owned my own business during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, I attempted to secure even a small amount of business from them. I did not expect to get that business just because I was related to this man’s wife, and I told him so. I did, however, expect a fair chance to earn their business, as my work was of a fair price, high quality, and always delivered when needed. Beyond that, I had a reputation for being honest, and fair to my clients. If I ever made a mistake on their work, that job and the next was free of charge. Thankfully, I never had to give anyone anything for free, because I made sure it was done correctly the first time.

For my troubles, I was put through a humiliating number of business meetings with my cousin’s husband himself. Finally, I had overheard a conversation he was having with one of his real clients at a Christmas party at their lakeside mansion, where he spoke of how I was his ENTERTAINMENT AND AMUSEMENT, and that I must be a moron, because he had put me through ten or more meetings, and he never gave me a penny of his business. When I asked why, I was yelled at by my cousin, where she told me that I had a lot of nerve trying to cash in on a family connection, and they did not get their money by being nice people. Today, that company has more than one billion dollars a year in sales, and is a conglomerate of twenty-two companies in the USA, Canada, and Mexico.

If I had been given a fair chance to prove myself, today, I would be a multimillionaire, with a company that itself could have been among the most successful in my city. If this is what FAMILY will do to me, then is it any wonder why at the end of work one day, I locked the door, and never came back? I was never told to expect this when I was in school, and if I had known then what I know now, I would have picked a different career, such as the research-journalism in which I engage today.

So, where IS the world I was promised as a child?

It simply doesn’t exist, and this is one of the most important life-lessons that we all should be teaching our own children.


Source Notes:

The following sources have been consulted in the writing of this Kentroversy Paper . . .

Burke's Peerage - U.S. Presidents Families Page; November 28, 2002.

Fetzer, James H. – Murder In Dealy Plaza; 2000, pg. 51

Gatto, John Taylor – Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling; 2002.

Gatto, John Taylor – The Underground History of American Education; 2000.

Greenwald, Robert – OutFOXed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (DVD); 2004.

Iserbyt, Charlotte Thomson – The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America; 2002, pgs. 78, 218.

Jarecki, Andrew – Capturing The Friedman’s (DVD); 2003

Jones, Alex – Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove (DVD); 2001.

Jones, Alex – The Order of Death (DVD); 2005.

Sutton, Antony – America’s Secret Establishment; 1986.

Wooldridge, Frosty – English Created and Preserves America; Rense.com, September 19, 2005.

[jonnygemini]

Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler


Kunstler rightly brings up the issue of oil as the "elephant in the room" in debates about withdrawing from Iraq.

From the article:

Unless an anti-war opposition has a plan to withdraw from the project of suburban sprawl, we're going to have to keep soldiers in Iraq, if not in the cities, then out in desert bases guarding the oil works and keeping planes ready to fly in case some al-Zarqawi-type maniac mounts a coup in Saudi Arabia. It would certainly be legitimate for the Democratic party to oppose the idea that we can continue to be crippled by car-dependency, or that we ought to keep subsidizing that way of life -- which Vice-president Cheney called "non-negotiable." We'd better negotiate that or somebody else is going to negotiate it for us, and that is exactly what they are doing with IED's in Iraq and elsewhere.

As I've noted time and time again, there is no plan to ever withdraw completely from Iraq. U.S. domination of the Middle East's oil, with the requisite military bases to guarantee enforcement, has been part of the plan for decades -- not just since the Neocons took over.

Anyone with a lick of sense knew this occupation would be a nightmare, and the talk of Iraqis throwing sweets and flowers was a joke even to the Bush/Cheney cabal.

The creation of a quagmire is intentional. The creation of more terrorists via torture is intentional -- after all, you can't fight a war without an ever-replenishing supply of enemies to kill. What looks like incompetence and poor planning to the untrained eye is actually brilliant strategizing. Congratulations, Rove, Cheney, Feith, and Wolfowitz -- you've gotten the prize and hoodwinked the populace.

The goal, quite simply, is permanent occupation. As a modicum of stability returns to Iraq (via a puppet government), some troops will be withdrawn to placate the growing calls to bring them home. But U.S. military bases will remain, in perpetuity.

It's the oil, stupid.

[UniverseSeven]

Russia invites Hamas to Moscow talks
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060210.WORLD10-2/TPStory/TPInternational/


Russia-Hamas talks anger Israel
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4701312.stm


-------------------


Israel and US on back foot over Hamas
By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Peter Spiegel in Taormina, Italy

Financial Times

Published: February 10 2006 18:56 | Last updated: February 10 2006 23:46


US and Israeli efforts to isolate Hamas diplomatically appeared to be further undermined on Friday as France cautiously endorsed a Russian offer of talks with the militant Palestinian group.

The Bush administration and Israel have refused to deal with Hamas – listed as a terrorist organisation by Washington and the European Union – which is forming a government following its victory in last month’s Palestinian elections.

US officials admit they were blindsided and dismayed by Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, when he proposed on Thursday inviting Hamas to Moscow for talks. The White House was left urging Russia to use the occasion to underscore the principles it had signed up to as a member of the international Quartet – made up of the US, Russia, the EU and the United Nations – that Hamas recognise Israel, renounce violence and endorse existing agreements.

US officials said they thought they had an understanding that no party would unilaterally talk to Hamas.

Meir Sheetrit, an Israeli cabinet minister, on Friday accused Mr Putin of “stabbing Israel in the back”. But France said Russia’s initiative could be positive as long as Moscow stuck to the Quartet’s agreed principles.

Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defence minister, said all Quartet members would eventually have to deal with Hamas. “Hamas came to power as a result of a free, democratic election,” he said at a Nato meeting in Sicily.

He added, however, that Russia remained troubled by Hamas’s refusal to recognise Israel and to commit to resolve its disputes with the Jewish state peacefully.

Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, on Friday assured Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, that Moscow would send Hamas a “very clear, strong signal” that it must meet the conditions of the Quartet, the US State Department said

news.ft.com/cms/s/b31ceae0-9a66-11da-8b63-0000779e2340.html


-----------------------


Russia’s new swagger leaves west groping for response

By Neil Buckleyand Guy Dinmore

Published: February 9 2006 21:25 | Last updated: February 9 2006 21:25

Financial Times

As finance ministers head to Moscow for this weekend’s first big meeting of Russia’s presidency of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, hopes have largely evaporated that Russia would make a special effort this year to prove the doubters wrong about its fitness to hold that post.

Instead, Russia’s presidency has got off to a bumpy and defiant start. Having made energy security its top theme, Russia on its first day in the role turned off gas supplies to Ukraine and Moldova after they refused Moscow’s demands for hefty price increases.

Moscow has also clamped down on non-governmental organisations in the face of US and European criticism. And it has picked a fight with the UK, a G8 partner, over spying allegations that seemed designed mainly to support Russian claims that NGOs are being used as fronts for foreign intelligence.

Observers detect a new swagger in Russia’s behaviour, provoking a debate in the international community over how to deal with Moscow. Nowhere was that self-assurance more evident than in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s marathon meeting with the press last week. Asked about questions over its G8 presidency, he said these came only from “diehard Sovietologists” living in the past. No G8 leaders had voiced concerns.

“The dog barks, but the caravan has moved on,” he quipped.

Irina Kobrinskaya, a political analyst at Moscow’s World Economy and International Relations Institute, says Russia has regained some of its former influence thanks to the striking recovery of its economy and public finances, and above all high energy prices.

Yet that restoration of power has happened more quickly than expected, without allowing time for post-Soviet Russia to develop a modern political culture – what Ms Kobrinskaya calls the “civilising of the political elite”.

“The elite hasn’t changed,” she said. “It is the younger generation of the same old elite in power.”

The Bush administration’s questionable tactics in the war on terror – including the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and in Iraq – are seen in the Kremlin as undercutting US claims to moral superiority, she adds. French and Dutch voters’ rejection last year of the European Union’s planned constitution is, meanwhile, seen as having thrown Europe’s democratic project into disarray.

Yet Russia’s decision to turn off gas supplies to Ukraine, with a knock-on disruption of exports to three G8 members, looks set to dog its presidency. France, backed by some other states, is expected to call at this weekend’s meeting for Russia to break the export monopoly of Gazprom, Russia’s giant gas utility, and allow independent gas producers to use its pipelines. The mere suggestion, last week, that Gazprom might buy Centrica, owner of British Gas, brought a UK government warning that such a deal would face “robust scrutiny”.

But the hand-wringing over how to deal with Russia is most intense in Washington. There are particular concerns over the west’s perceived lack of leverage now that Russia is no longer dependent on World Bank and IMF loans.

John McCain, the Republican senator, called at a security conference in Munich last Sunday for international leaders to use one of the few levers they have and boycott July’s G8 summit in St Petersburg in protest over Mr Putin’s policies. This followed his joint call a year ago with Joe Lieberman, the Democratic senator, to suspend Russia’s G8 membership.

Such calls have found limited resonance in Congress. But debate is raging in the US foreign policy community. Nikolai Zlobin, a former Kremlin adviser in the Gorbachev era and director of the Washington-based World Security Institute, warned that the US-Russian relationship was “almost at a stage of collapse”.

“There are no fundamentals,” he added. “We don’t understand what we want from each other . . . There is an umbrella of good relations between [the] two presidents, but underneath there is a huge emptiness.”

In an emotional presentation to a Washington seminar last month, Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Centre think tank, accused the US administration of adopting a “fundamentally hostile…containment policy” towards Russia.

He warned that while Mr Bush and Mr Putin two years ago spoke regularly and had developed a special relationship, that was no longer true. Conversations between Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov were “infrequent, difficult and at times downright unpleasant”. The US was engaged in megaphone diplomacy with no concrete results, he added.

Another analyst who follows US-Russian relations closely argued both sides would not allow undeniable tensions to interfere with the central issue of co-operation in the war on terror and on non-proliferation. Some analysts feel Mr Putin believes that the west needs Russia more than it needs the west – as witnessed by the efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

A senior US official said the two presidents were still on good terms and could speak frankly.

But the US was concerned about “backsliding” on democracy, and alarmed by the cutting off of natural gas to Ukraine. “We can have a good relationship on the energy front,” he said. “But not if they behave like this.”

news.ft.com/cms/s/01a32126-99b2-11da-a8c3-0000779e2340.html


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Rice urges Russians to take tough stand on Hamas
english.pravda.ru/news/world/10-02-2006/75794-hamas-0

[UniverseSeven]

Russia, China Seek Dominance in Asia
By Zlatica Hoke
Washington, D.C.
10 February 2006
| Voices Magazine |


In the past few years, China and Russia have grown closer, wiping out old border disputes, signing new trade agreements and conducting large-scale joint military maneuvers. Analysts say Sino-Russian unprecedented rapprochement is a clear sign that the two countries want to control Asia-Pacific region.

The improvement of Sino-Russian relations caught the world's attention in 2001 when the two countries formalized their regional organization known as the Shanghai Five. The group composed of China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan was renamed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and stated that its official goal was to fight the three evils -- terrorism, separatism and extremism -- as well as expand mutual economic cooperation.

Sino-Russian Relationship Intensifying

Since then, agreements between China and Russia have been multiplying. In addition to arms sales, Russia has promised to supply China with oil and gas. Long-standing border disputes between the two countries have been settled. But most remarkable of all were joint military exercises conducted last summer, says David Satter, a scholar at The Johns Hopkins University's Foreign Policy Institute.

"There were ten-thousand troops involved and long-range Russian bombers took part. Russia has long been the chief arms supplier for China, but what was significant about these maneuvers, besides the fact that they happened at all and that they happened on Chinese territory, was the fact that Russia's Backfire bomber was involved in them. This is a bomber that the Chinese would like to purchase and it would definitely have a role in any Chinese invasion of Taiwan," says David Satter.

The size of the maneuvers caused concern for U.S. allies in the region -- Japan, South Korea and above all Taiwan. But China and Russia said that the exercises were not directed at any particular country. Their stated objective was to prepare against terrorist attacks and test weapons that China wants to buy.

Display of Military Power

But most analysts agree that the exercises were for conventional warfare, which would be of limited use against terrorist organizations. And new weapon systems, many say, can be better tested under factory conditions. Analysts generally agree that the maneuvers were a message to the United States that China and Russia consider themselves to be in control of the Asia-Pacific region. David Satter says that even before the maneuvers, the Sino-Russian Declaration on World Order in the 21st Century, signed last July, reveals an intent by China and Russia to tip the balance of power in their favor.

"It indicated in an indirect way that the two countries have a joint interest in preventing the United States from exercising hegemonic influence in the world. It said something to the effect that all countries should observe the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in each other's internal affairs," says David Satter.

He also says both Russia and China fear a spread of Muslim fundamentalism in Central Asia. They see western efforts to foster democracy in the region as destabilizing. Most of all, he says, both countries resent a perceived U.S. influence so close to their borders. Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst at the Washington-based Cato Institute, adds that Russia has long been concerned about expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"We've always been questioning, since the end of the Cold War, where Russia's red line is," says Logan, "You had NATO expansion into the Baltics. Some people thought that was going to cause a big problem. But I think that when you see regimes that have very prickly relations with Moscow in both Georgia and Ukraine cozying up to NATO, Russia has sort of drawn the line in the sand and said that this is too far."

Justin Logan says Russia has decided to show the West that it has alternatives. Meanwhile, China has a growing economy and is interested in Russia's oil and gas. And, he says, a display of military power through maneuvers is expected to discourage any attempts by Taiwan in the south or China's Muslims in the north to seek independence.

Looking for Allies

Last July, China and Russia granted India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The move brought together four nuclear powers and nearly half of the world's population. Some analysts say the United States should be concerned by such gathering of powers. But many argue that the organization does not have a long-term future.

Ilan Berman, a senior analyst at the American Foreign Policy Council, says China and Russia have a history of tense relations and that old rivalries are bound to resurface. "First of all, China is expanding economically very quickly and it needs more and more foreign energy sources to fuel its economic growth," says Berman. "And a lot of them are situated to the north of Beijing. So, as China begins to expand into Central Asia and into the Caucasus, it is looking for the same things that Russia is looking for. It is looking for prestige, political influence and sources of new energy. And that means that eventually competition, and not cooperation, is going to become the order of the day."

Some observers add that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is essentially based on a negative strategic objective: to counter U.S. or western influence, while positive common goals are largely absent. Ilan Berman says states with such divergent interests are unlikely to form a strong and long lasting alliance that could pose a threat to the United States.


www.voicesmag.com/Archives/News/feb2006/russia_china_dominance_asia_021006.htm

-------------------------------


China hopes for positive Russia-Iran nuclear talks outcome
BEIJING, February 9 (RIA Novosti, Alexei Yefimov)
en.rian.ru/world/20060209/43441168.html


Russia, Iran Call for Political Settlement in Middle East
www.mosnews.com/news/2006/02/07/russiran.shtml


China's energy imports from Iran could suffer in nuclear stand-off
By David Stanway
www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=9879&slug=IRAN


China's energy insecurity and Iran's crisis
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Friday, Feb. 10, 2006
indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=10484

[UniverseSeven]