Archive for the ‘Cuba’ Category
January 15, 2011: Andrew Gavin Marshall / Global Research – January 14, 2011
Defining The Imperial Stratagem
In the late 1990s Brzezinski wrote up the design for America’s imperial project in the 21st century in his book, “The Grand Chessboard.” He stated bluntly that, “it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America,” and then made clear the imperial nature of his strategy: “To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.”
He further explained that the Central Asian nations (or “Eurasian Balkans” as he refers to them): “…are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.”
Brzezinski emphasizes “that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”
Obama As A Rabid Imperialist
Obama wasted no time in rapidly accelerating America’s imperial adventures. While dropping the term “War on Terror” from usage, the Pentagon adopted the term, “overseas contingency operations.” This was to be the typical strategy of the Obama administration: change the appearance, not the substance. The name was changed, but the “War on Terror” remained, and not only that, it was rapidly accelerated to a level that would not have been possible if undertaken by the previous administration.
The current expansion of American imperialism globally has been rapidly accelerated since Obama became President, and seems intent on starting and expanding wars all over the world. When Obama became President, America and its Western allies were engaged in a number of wars, occupations and covert destabilizations, from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, to the Congo, and Obama took office in the midst of Israel’s brutal assault against Gaza. From the beginning of his presidency, Obama immediately justified Israel’s vicious attack against innocent Palestinians, rapidly accelerated the war and occupation of Afghanistan, expanded the war into Pakistan, started a new war in Yemen, and supported a military coup in Honduras, which removed a popular democratic government in favour of a brutal dictatorship. Obama’s administration has expanded covert special operations throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, and is paving the way for a war against Iran. In fact, the Obama administration has expanded Special Operations forces into 75 countries around the world (compared with a height of 60 during the Bush regime). Among the many countries with expanded operations are Yemen, Colombia, the Philippines, Somalia, Pakistan, among many others. Further, in recent months, the Obama administration has been saber rattling with North Korea, potentially starting a war on the Korean Peninsula. With the creation of the Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), American foreign policy on the continent has become increasingly militarized.
No continent is safe, it seems. America and its NATO cohorts are undertaking a seemingly insane foreign policy of dramatically accelerating overt and covert military imperialism. This policy seems to be headed for an eventual confrontation with the rising eastern powers, in particular China, but potentially India and Russia as well. China and America, specifically, are headed on an imperial collision course: in East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The competition for access to resources is reminiscent of the ‘Great Game’ of the 19th century, of which Afghanistan was a central battlefield.
One would think that in the midst of a massive global economic crisis, the worst the world has ever seen, the major nations would scale back their imperial over-reach and militarism in order to reduce their debts and preserve their economies. However, there is an ‘imperial logic’ behind this situation, and one that must be placed within a wider geopolitical context.
Conceptualizing The Rise Of China
First, we must properly address the nature of China’s rise in the world order. What we are witnessing is an historically unique situation. For the first time, the rise of a ‘new’ power is taking place not in the context of rising against the hegemonic powers of the time, but within the hegemonic order. In short, China’s rise has not been a rise against America, but rather a rise within the American world order. Thus, China has risen as much as the West has allowed it to rise, but that does not mean that China will not seek to serve its own interests now that it has accumulated significant global status and power. China has risen by integrating with the Western-dominated economic system, and in particular the Western banking and central banking systems. China and America are economically dependent upon one another, as America purchases China’s cheap products, and China funds America’s debt. In effect, China is also funding America’s imperial adventurism.
Thus, we are presented with a unique situation: one of mutual dependence and competition. While China and America are dependent upon one another, they are also each other’s greatest competitors, specifically in terms of access to and control over resources. For example, China supports both Iran and Sudan. These two nations are major targets of American imperial ambitions, not because of any humanitarian or anti-terrorism concerns (although that is the propaganda espoused most often), but because of the significant resources and strategic relevance of these nations. As they are not subservient to the West and specifically America, they are considered ‘enemy nations’, and thus the media focus on demonizing these nations so that the public is supportive of military or other means of implementing “regime change.” China supports these nations because of its access to their resources, and as a counter to American influence.
To add another complex feature to this story, we must place this conflicting relationship in the context of the global economic crisis and the world response to it. The G20 is the principle forum for ‘global governance,’ in which the nations of the world are working together to increasingly integrate their governance approaches on a global scale. The economic crisis has provided the impetus to spur on calls for and the implementation of plans to construct a system of global economic governance: a global central bank and global currency. So, as China and America are seeking to further integrate economically and globally, they are also competing for access to and control over resources.
The logic behind this is that both powers want to be able to negotiate the process of constructing a system of global governance from a more secure standpoint. While it is generally acknowledged that the world is witnessing “the rise of the East,” in particular with China and India, we see the center of global power moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Several commentators for years have been analyzing and discussing this issue; however, the fact that power has been centered in the Atlantic for the past 500 years means that it will not be so easily moved to the Pacific. In fact, the Western powers not only acknowledge the rise of the East, but that the East has risen because they have allowed it to and aided it in this process. The Western powers have done this not out of some benevolent design, but because the organized intellectual powers of the West (namely, the principle think tanks and banking interests) have sought to create a perfect global system of governance, one in which power does not sway from nation to nation, or West to East, but rather that power is centralized globally. This is obviously a long-term project, and will not (if ever) be realized for several more decades. Yet, it is through crises – economic, political, and social – that this process of global governance can be rapidly accelerated. See: “Crisis is an Opportunity”: Engineering a Global Depression to Create a Global Government
Understanding Imperial Dynamics
There is another dynamic to this complicated relationship that must be addressed, that of the internal dynamics between the political, economic and military elite of the dominant nations. For the sake of time, I will focus on the two principle nations: America and China. America’s national security apparatus, namely the Pentagon and intelligence services, have long worked in the service of the economic elite and in close cooperation with the political elite. There is a network that exists, which President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex” where the interests of these three sectors overlap and thus America is given its imperial impetus.
It is within the major think tanks of the nation, specifically the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), where cohesion between these sectors is encouraged and managed. The think tanks, and the CFR most especially, are the policy-makers of the American Empire. Think tanks bring together elites from most power sectors of society – the military, political, corporate, banking, intelligence, academia, media, etc. – and they discuss, debate and ultimately produce strategy blueprints and recommendations for American foreign policy. Individuals from these think tanks move in and out of the policy-making circles, creating a revolving door between the policy-planners and those that implement them. The think tanks, in this context, are essentially the intellectual engines of the American Empire.
Still, we must not assume that because they are grouped together, work together, and strategize together, that they are identical in views or methods; there is significant debate, disagreement and conflict within and between the think tanks and policy-making circles. However, dissent within these institutions is of a particular nature: it focuses on disagreement over methods rather than aims and objectives. To elaborate, the members (at least the powerful members) of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations do not disagree on the cause of empire and supporting American hegemony, that is a given, and is not often even discussed. That is the environment in which the elite operate.
What is up for debate and discussion is the methods used to achieve this, and it is here where significant conflicts arise between elites. Bankers and corporations seek to protect their financial and economic interests around the world. Military officials are concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and are largely focused on potential rivals to American military power, and tend to favour military options of foreign policy over diplomatic ones. Political representatives must be concerned with the total influence and projection of American power – economically, militarily, politically, etc. – and so they must weigh and balance these multiple interests and translate it into a cohesive policy. Often, they lean towards the use of military might, however, there have been many incidents and issues for which political leaders have had to reign in the military and pursue diplomatic objectives. There have also been instances where the military has attempted to reign in rabidly militaristic political leaders, such as during the Bush administration with the neo-conservatives pushing for direct confrontation with Iran, prompting direct and often public protests and rebuttals from the military establishment, as well as several resignations of top-ranking generals.
These differences are often represented directly within administrations. The Kennedy years, for example, saw a continual conflict between the military and intelligence circles and the civilian leadership of John Kennedy. His brief term as President was marked by a constant struggle to prevent the military and intelligence services of America – particularly the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA – from starting wars with Cuba, Vietnam and the Soviet Union. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved only after Robert Kennedy, JFK’s brother and the Attorney General, convinced the Russians that Kennedy was at risk of being overthrown in a military coup, which would result in a direct nuclear war against the USSR. See: The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK
Thus, within the key policy circles – namely the think tanks and presidential cabinets – there is always a delicate balancing act of these various interests. Fundamentally, with American power, they all rest and support American corporate and banking interests. Diplomacy, especially, is concerned with supporting American corporate and financial interests abroad. As the Wikileaks diplomatic cables have revealed in a number of cases, diplomats directly intervene on behalf of and work with various corporate interests. US diplomats acted as sales agents to foreign governments promoting Boeing planes over European competitors, they pressured the government of Bangladesh to reopen a widely-opposed mine in the country operated by a British company, they lobbied the Russian government directly on behalf of the interests of Visa and Mastercard, engaged in intelligence sharing with Shell in Nigeria, and in the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, US diplomats worked with major British business interests and British Prince Andrew, who stated that, “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too,” were “back in the thick of playing the Great Game,” and that, “this time we aim to win!”
The military, in turn, acts in the interests of the corporate and financial elite, as those countries that do not submit to American economic hegemony are deemed enemies, and the military is ultimately sent in to implement “regime change.” Strategic concerns are de facto economic concerns. The military is concerned with preserving and expanding American hegemony, and to do so they must be focused on threats to American dominance, as well as securing strategic locations in the world. For example, the war in Yemen, a country with very little to offer economically, has a lot to do with strategic-economic interests. The ‘threat’ in Yemen is not in the form of al-Qaeda, though that is what is most propagandized, but rather it is the fact that the long-supported dictatorship of President Saleh, who has been in power since 1978, is threatened by a rebel movement in the North and a massive secessionist movement in the South, as the central government controls barely one-third of the country. In short, Yemen is on the verge of revolution, and thus, America’s trusted ally and local despot, President Saleh, is at risk of being usurped. Thus, America has heavily subsidized Yemen’s military, and has even directly launched cruise missiles, sent in Special Forces and other forms of assistance to help Yemen’s dictator suppress, repress and ultimately crush these popular people’s movements for independence and liberty.
Now why is this a strategic-economic concern to America, for a country that has little dwindling resources to offer? The answer is in Yemen’s geographic location. Directly below Saudi Arabia, a revolutionary government that would be highly antagonistic towards America’s trusted Saudi proxy state would be a threat to America’s interests throughout the entire Middle East. It would be likely that Iran would seek to ally itself and aid such a government, allowing Iran to expand its own political influence in the region. This is why Saudi Arabia is itself taking direct military action in Yemen against the rebels in the North, along its border. The Saudi elite are fearful of the rebellious sentiments spreading into Saudi Arabia itself. No wonder then, that America recently signed off on the largest arms deal in U.S. history with Saudi Arabia, totaling $60 billion, in an effort to support operations in Yemen but principally to act as a counter to Iranian influence in the region. Further, Yemen sits atop the Gulf of Aden, directly across from the Horn of Africa (namely Somalia), connecting the Black Sea to the Arabian Sea, which is itself one of the major oil transport routes in the world. Strategic control over the nations lining the Gulf of Aden is of primary interest to American imperial strategists, whether they are military, political or economic in nature.
Yemen is also directly across the water from Somalia, another country ravaged by the American war machine. As the diplomatic cables confirmed, in 2006, “the Bush Administration pushed Ethiopia to invade Somalia with an eye on crushing the Union of Islamic Courts,” which is exactly what happened, and Somalia has been a ‘failed state’ mired in civil war ever since. The piracy that has exploded in the waters off of Somalia are a result of the massive toxic waste dumping and over-fishing done by European and American and other major shipping lines, and have served as an excuse for the militarization of the waters. In this context, it would be unacceptable from a strategic standpoint to allow Yemen to fall from American influence. Thus, America is at war in Yemen. See: Yemen: The Covert Apparatus of the American Empire
China, alternatively, does not have such direct cohesion between its political, economic and military sectors. China’s military is intensely nationalistic, and while the political elite are more cooperative with U.S. interests and often work to achieve mutual interests, the military sees America as a direct challenge and antagonistic (which of course, it is). China’s economic elite, specifically its banking elite, are heavily integrated with the West, so much so that it is very difficult to separate the two. There is not such an integration between the Chinese and American military establishments, nor is there an internal dynamic within China that reflects the American system of empire. The divisions between military, political and economic circles are more pronounced within China than in America. The Chinese political leadership is put into a very challenging situation. Determined to see China advance economically, they must work with America and the West. However, on key political issues (such as with Taiwan), the political leadership must adhere to an intensely nationalistic approach, which is counter to U.S. interests, and supportive of Chinese military interests. Increasing military superiority is seen as a key aspect and objective of China’s increasing political dominance in the world scene. As one top Chinese General stated in 2005, “China should use nuclear weapons against the United States if the American military intervenes in any conflict over Taiwan.” The General cited “war logic” which “dictates that a weaker power needs to use maximum efforts to defeat a stronger rival.” His view suggested that elements within the Chinese military are ‘determined’ to respond with extreme force if America intervenes in any potential conflict over Taiwan, saying that, “We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”
The Logic Of Competitive Co-Operation
The Chinese military must be ready to protect its economic interests abroad if it is to have control over its own economic growth and thus maintain international power. Thus, China’s political impetus to support and increase its international influence is very conflicting. On the one hand, this means actively cooperating with America and the West (primarily in economic matters, as we see with the G20, where China is engaging in the dialogue and the implementation of global governance arrangements); and on the other hand, China must also challenge America and the West in order to secure its own access to and control over vital resources necessary for its own economic and political growth. China is placed in a paradoxical situation. While working with the West to construct the apparatus of global governance, China does not want to be dictated to, and instead wants a strong negotiating position in these arrangements. So while engaging in discussions and negotiations for the construction of a system of global governance, China must also actively seek to increase its control over key strategic resources in the world in order to strengthen its own negotiating position. It is often the case that when warring parties come to the table for negotiations, the on-the-ground operations are rapidly accelerated in order to strengthen the negotiating position of the respective party.
This was the case during the Rwandan Civil War, where throughout the Arusha Peace Process, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), heavily supported by America against the Rwandan government (which was supported by France and Belgium), rapidly accelerated its military campaign, thus gaining the upper hand during negotiations, which worked in its favour, ultimately resulting in the Rwandan genocide (which was sparked by the RPF’s assassination of the Rwandan president), and the RPF usurped power in Rwanda. This is also the case in Israel-Palestine “peace” negotiations, such as during the Oslo process, where Israel rapidly accelerated its expansion of settlements into the occupied territories, essentially ethnically cleansing much of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This expanded process of ethnic cleansing is what the Western political leaders and media call a “peace process.” Thus, when Palestinians react to this ethnic cleansing and expansion of the settlements (which is an inherently violent process), or a suicide bombing or mortar attack takes place in reaction to this expansion of settlements, Western political leaders and media blame the Palestinians for breaking a period of “relative peace” or “relative calm.” Apparently, it is considered to be “relative peace” if only Palestinians are being killed. Thus, Israel always ensures that through any negotiation process, its interests are met above all others.
So we see this logic with China and America today. While not directly at war with one another, they are each other’s greatest competition. This competition is prevalent in Central Asia, where America is seeking dominance over the region’s enormous natural gas reserves, thus depriving China of access to and control over these vital strategic resources. It is also heavily present in Africa, where China has presented an alternative to going to the World Bank and IMF for African governments to get loans and support in exchange for resource access. In this context, America established its newest Pentagon command, Africa Command (AFRICOM) to merge American diplomatic, civil society and military policy in Africa under command of the Pentagon. In the Middle East, America is primarily dominant, thus leaving China pushed to ally itself with Iran. In South America, China is allying itself with the somewhat progressive governments which rose in opposition to American military and economic hegemony over the region.
This logic holds for both America and China. Both seek to secure a dominant position while engaging in discussions and the implementation of a global governance apparatus. This leads both powers to seek cooperation and mutual benefit, yet, simultaneously, compete globally for control of resources. This is magnified by the global economic crisis, which has revealed the weaknesses of the global economy, and indeed the global monetary and banking systems. The world economy is on the verge of total collapse. The next decade will be scarred by a new Great Depression. This provides a further impetus for both of these powers to rapidly accelerate their control over resources and expand their military adventurism.
The American Empire is in decline, and is utterly bankrupt; however, its elites, which are in fact more global than national in their ideology and orientation, are seeking to not simply have American power disappear, or be replaced with Chinese power, but rather to use American power to construct the apparatus of a new global structure of authority, and that the American Empire will simply fade into a global structure. This is a delicate balancing act for the global elite, and requires integrating China and the other dominant powers within this system. It also inherently implies the ultimate domination of the ‘global south’ (Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia). This is an entirely new process being undertaken. Empires have risen and fallen throughout all of human history. This time, the fall of the American Empire is taking place within the context of the rise of a totally new kind of power: global in scope, structure and authority. This will no doubt be one of the defining geopolitical events of the next several decades.
Historically, periods of imperial decline are marked by a rapid acceleration of international conflict and war, as the declining power seeks to control as much as it can as fast as it can (thus we see America’s seemingly insane expansion of war, conflict and militarization everywhere in the world), while rising powers seek to take advantage of this decline in order to accelerate the collapse of the declining power, and secure their position as the next dominant power. Yet, in this geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, we are faced with this entirely new context, where the decline of one empire and the rise of a new power are taking place while both seek to integrate and construct an entirely new system and structure of power, yet both seek to secure for themselves a dominant position within this new structure. The potential for conflict is enormous, possibly resulting in a direct war between America and China, or in a mass of global proxy wars between them.
This new century will indeed be an interesting one. The prospects of a new global war are increasing with every accelerated military adventure. The primary antagonist in this theatre of the absurd is without a doubt, the United States. If the world is headed for World War III, it is because America has made such a situation inevitable. One cannot preclude that for many global elites, such a result may be desirable in and of itself. After all, World War I provided the impetus for the formation of the League of Nations, and World War II provided the push for the United Nations to “secure peace between nations.” In a world largely run by global strategists, it would be naïve to assume that it has not occurred to some that a new world war could be precisely the event they need to convince the people of the world to accept their desired system of global governance; no doubt to secure ‘world peace.’ At least, I am sure it will be sold under that pretense.
The New American Century (Part 1/10)
Watch full documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499#
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Great article and an outstanding documentary. Watch in full… – SJH
Link to original article with notes below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
January 15, 2011 at 1:37 am
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Africa, al-Qaeda, Asia, Big Brother, Big Oil, Bush Regime, Central America, CFR, China, CIA, Civil Rights, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, DHS, Disinformation, Documentary, Economy, Education, Eugenics, Europe, False Flag, Fascism, FBI, Federal Reserve, Freedom, G20, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, IMF, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, JFK, Law and Justice, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, New World Order, North Korea, Nuclear Warfare, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Palestine, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Revolution, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Science / Technology, Secret Societies, Slavery, Socialism, South America, South Korea, Sovereignty, Terrorism, Trilateral Commission, U.S. Constitution, United Nations, Venezuela, Video, Viet Nam, Wall Street, War, War Crimes, White House, WMD, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII, Yemen, Zionism
November 7, 2010: Sherwood Ross / Global Research – November 6, 2010
If the CIA routinely lies to the American people, maybe that’s because its got so much to lie about, like killing millions of innocent human beings around the world.
As far back as December 1968, the CIA’s own Covert Operations Study Group gave a secret report to president-elect Richard Nixon that conceded, “The impression of many Americans, especially in the intellectual community and among the youth, that the United States is engaging in ‘dirty tricks’ tends to alienate them from their government.”
According to Tim Weiner’s book “Legacy of Ashes”(Anchor), the report went on to say, “Our credibility and our effectiveness in this role is necessarily damaged to the extent that it becomes known that we are secretly intervening in what may be (or appear to be) the internal affairs of others.”
President Bill Clinton, who first gave the CIA the green light to launch its illegal “renditions” (kidnappings,) told the nation on the occasion of the Agency’s 50th birthday (1997), “By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage.” (Courage? For 22 agents to grab one Muslim cleric off the streets of Milan, Italy, and ship him abroad to be tortured?)
Anyway, presidents who authorize criminal acts by the CIA, as virtually all have done since its founding in 1947, don’t want the truth out either, lest knowledge of those “dirty tricks” sicken and revolt the American people when they find out what crimes the Agency is perpetrating with their tax dollars. As former CIA agent Philip Agee once put it, “The CIA is the President’s secret army.”
This point was underscored at a luncheon by President Gerald Ford himself, which he hosted for New York Times top editors on Jan. 16, 1975. According to Weiner, Ford told them the reputation of every President since Truman could be ruined if the secrets became public. Asked by an editor, like what? Ford replied “like assassinations.”
One reason the Agency seeks to hide its operations is that it sadly is often guilty as charged. For example, take its complicity in the murders of American missionaries in Peru. As Reuters reported Nov. 21, 2008:
“The CIA obstructed inquiries into its role in the shooting down of an aircraft carrying a family of U.S. missionaries in Peru in 2001, the agency’s inspector general(IG) has concluded. The (IG’s) report said a CIA-backed program in Peru targeting drug runners was so poorly run that many suspect aircraft were shot down by Peruvian air force jets without proper checks being made first.”
A small plane carrying Veronica Bowers, her husband Jim, their son Cory and infant daughter Charity was shot down by a Peruvian jet on April 20, 2001, after it was tracked by a CIA surveillance plane that suspected it was carrying drugs. Veronica and Charity Bowers were killed, while their pilot, Kevin Donaldson, who crash-landed the bullet-riddled plane into the Amazon River, was badly injured. The IG’s report said that in the aftermath of the 2001 incident the CIA sought to characterize it as a one-time mistake in an otherwise well-run program.
“In fact this was not the case. The routine disregard of the required intercept procedures … led to the rapid shooting down of target aircraft without adequate safeguards to protect against the loss of innocent life,” the report from the Agency’s own IG said. (One might ask why the CIA didn’t wait for the plane to land to interrogate the passengers?)
The kicker in the Reuters account is “The IG said the CIA found ‘sustained and significant’ violations of procedure in its own internal investigation but had denied Congress, the National Security Council and the Justice Department access to its findings.” This raises the question of whether the CIA has become so powerful it can withhold findings even from the Justice Department and Congress?
The answer is that it can, has, and likely continues to do so, because it is indeed both powerful and influential. After all, with the exception of President Clinton, who abetted the CIA’s crimes, presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush Jr., and Barack Obama all have been directly on the CIA payroll as employees at one time or another. Bush Sr., of course, headed the Agency during 1976-77. Bush Jr. worked for a CIA front in Alaska, and President Obama worked for CIA front Business International Corporation after he got out of college.
The CIA’s influence is such that it can successfully forbid other agencies of government to reveal its crimes if they find out about them. Example: “The Drug Enforcement Administration(DEA) knew about and helped cover up of the CIA’s involvement in Guatemala’s drug war murders, a former DEA agent said,” the AP reported on July 23, 1996. Although the DEA denied the allegations, Celerino Castillo, who was a special DEA agent assigned to Guatemala, said he and other DEA agents there “were aware of specific murders committed by the Guatemala military with CIA involvement and were ordered to lie to keep the crimes secret.”
AP said the Intelligence Oversight Board issued a report stating CIA agents in Guatemala “were credibly alleged” to have ordered, planned or participated in human rights violations such as murder, torture and kidnapping.” (I.e., Castillo’s charges were true.) So it has long since gotten to the point that officials of other U.S. agents cannot report the CIA’s crimes either, as if they were under a Mafia oath of secrecy.
CIA employees themselves are forbidden by secrecy agreements (under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act passed under President Ronald Reagan) to write anything about the Agency without first clearing it with a CIA publications review board. Accordingly, the CIA recently cracked down on a former officer who wrote under the pseudonym “Ishmael Jones.” His “crime” was to publish two years ago “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture.”
The Associated Press quotes Jones as saying, “CIA censors attack this book because it exposes the CIA as a place to get rich, with billions of taxpayer dollars wasted or stolen in espionage programs that produce nothing.” Denying the truth, however, is a long established CIA practice. John Stockwell, for 13 years a CIA station chief in Angola and a top man in Viet Nam, said in a lecture, “What I ran into…was a corruption in the CIA and the intelligence business…what I found was that the CIA, us, the case officers, were not permitted to report about the corruption in the South Vietnamese army.”
Whether it’s the Agency’s John Stockwell, Ishmael Jones or DEA’s Celerino Castillo, we note that many of the CIA’s critics are former American intelligence officers who have seen too much, men apparently with a conscience and respect for human rights. Stockwell, a former Marine who held high posts in the field for the CIA was in a position to know when he charged that over the years the CIA has killed “millions” of innocents.
He says the victims were largely “people of the Third World…that have the misfortune of being born in the Metumba mountains of the Congo, in the jungles of Southeast Asia…in the hills of northern Nicaragua…most of (whom) couldn’t give you an intelligent definition of communism or of capitalism.” Stockwell estimated the CIA has perpetrated “10 to 20 thousand covert actions” between 1961, about the time of its Cuban Bay of Pigs fiasco, and 1987.
Stockwell concludes “We are responsible for doing these things on a massive basis to people of the world…we create a CIA, a secret police, we give them a vast budget, and we let them go and run these (covert) programs in our name and we pretend like we don’t know it’s going on…And we’re just as responsible for these 1 to 3 million people we’ve slaughtered and for all the people we’ve tortured and made miserable, as the Gestapo was of the people that they slaughtered and killed. Genocide is genocide.”
Is it? The Obama administration apparently has no plans to expose and bring to trial past CIA killers and torturers, much less those who obstructed justice by destroying tapes of their torture or lying to Congress about it. This is the same country—which is now waging war in three Middle East nations and has been responsible for the violent and bloody overthrow of dozens of foreign governments—that keeps a quarter of a million pot smokers in prison who have never hurt another person in their lives.
Pardon me if I ask whether my native land has not, in fact, become a lunatic asylum run by the criminally insane?
CBS 1994: Iran Contra CIA Drug Running – Mena, Arkansas
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The CIA funds the vast majority of their covert operations through drug-running money laundered by international banks to carry out their crimes against humanity. So once again, it all leads to the banksters… Follow the money and you find the ring leaders! – SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
November 7, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Posted in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Asia, Assassination Teams, Big Brother, Bush Regime, Central America, CIA, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, Cocaine, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, Disinformation, Drug Wars, Economy, Education, Eugenics, Europe, Fascism, FBI, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, Indefinite Detentions, Iran, Iraq, IRS, Law and Justice, Marijuana, Media, Mexico, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Pakistan, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Reagan Regime, Renditions, Slavery, Socialism, South America, Sovereignty, Surveillance, Taleban, Terrorism, Torture, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, Video, War, War Crimes, War On Drugs, White House, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
July 24, 2010: Sherwood Ross / Veterans Today – July 24, 2010
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has confirmed the worst fears of its creator President Harry Truman that it might degenerate into “an American Gestapo.” It has been just that for so long it is beyond redemption. It represents 60 years of failure and fascism utterly at odds with the spirit of a democracy and needs to be closed, permanently.
Over the years “the Agency” as it is known, has given U.S. presidents so much wrong information on so many critical issues, broken so many laws, subverted so many elections, overthrown so many governments, funded so many dictators, and killed and tortured so many innocent human beings that the pages of its official history could be written in blood, not ink. People the world over regard it as infamous, and that evaluation, sadly for the reputation of America, is largely accurate. Besides, since President Obama has half a dozen other major intelligence agencies to rely on for guidance, why does he need the CIA? In one swoop he could lop an estimated 27,000 employees off the Federal payroll, save taxpayers umpteen billions, and wipe the CIA stain from the American flag.
If you think this is a “radical” idea, think again. What is “radical” is to empower a mob of covert operatives to roam the planet, wreaking havoc as they go with not a care for morality or, for that matter, the tenets of mercy implicit in any of the great faiths. The idea of not prosecuting CIA interrogators (i.e., torturers), as President Obama has said, is chilling. These crimes have to be stopped somewhere, sometime, or they will occur again.
“The CIA had run secret interrogation centers before—beginning in 1950, in Germany, Japan, and Panama,” writes New York Times reporter Tim Weiner in his book “Legacy of Ashes, The History of The CIA” (Random House). Weiner has won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the intelligence community. “It had participated in the torture of captured enemy combatants before—beginning in 1967, under the Phoenix program in Vietnam. It had kidnapped suspected terrorists and assassins before…”
In Iran in 1953, for example, a CIA-directed coup restored the Shah (king) to absolute power, initiating what journalist William Blum in “Rogue State” (Common Courage Press) called “a period of 25 years of repression and torture; while the oil industry was restored to foreign ownership, with the US and Britain each getting 40 percent.” About the same time in Guatemala, Blum adds, a CIA-organized coup “overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims—indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century.” The massive slaughter compares, at least in terms of sheer numbers, with Hitler’s massacre of Romanian and Ukranian Jews during the holocaust. Yet few Americans know of it.
Blum provides yet other examples of CIA criminality. In Indonesia, it attempted in 1957-58 to overthrow neutralist president Sukarno. It plotted Sukarno’s assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government, including bombing runs by American pilots, Blum reported. This particular attempt, like one in Costa Rica about the same time, failed. So did the CIA attempt in Iraq in 1960 to assassinate President Abdul Kassem. Other ventures proved more “successful”.
In Laos, the CIA was involved in coup attempts in 1958, 1959, and 1960, creating a clandestine army of 30,000 to overthrow the government. In Ecuador, the CIA ousted President Jose Velasco for recognizing the new Cuban government of Fidel Castro. The CIA also arranged the murder of elected Congo Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in 1961 and the installation of Mobutu Seko who ruled “with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers,” Blum recalls.
In Ghana, in 1966, the CIA sponsored a military coup against leader Kwame Nkrumah in 1966; in Chile, it financed the overthrow of elected President Salvador Allende in 1973 and brought to power the murderous regime of General Augusto Pinochet who executed 3,000 political opponents and tortured thousands more. In Greece in 1967, the CIA helped subvert the elections and backed a military coup that killed 8,000 Greeks in its first month of operation. “Torture, inflicted in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States, became routine,” Blum writes.
In South Africa, the CIA gave the apartheid government information that led to the arrest of African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela, who subsequently spent years in prison. In Bolivia, in 1964, the CIA overthrew President Victor Paz; in Australia from 1972-75, the CIA slipped millions of dollars to political opponents of the Labor Party; ditto, Brazil in 1962; in Laos in 1960, the CIA stuffed ballot boxes to help a strongman into power; in Portugal in the Seventies the candidates it financed triumphed over a pro-labor government; in the Philippines, the CIA backed governments in the 1970-90 period that employed torture and summary execution against its own people; in El Salvador, the CIA in the Nineties backed the wealthy in a civil war in which 75,000 civilians were killed; and the list goes on and on.
Of course, the hatred that the CIA engenders for the American people and American business interests is enormous. Because the Agency operates largely in secret, most Americans are unaware of the crimes it perpetrates in their names. As Chalmers Johnson writes in “Blowback” (Henry Holt), former long-time CIA director Robert Gates, now Obama’s defense secretary, admitted U.S. intelligence services began to aid the mujahideen guerrillas in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet invasion in December, 1979.
As has often been the case, the CIA responded to a criminal order from one of the succession of imperial presidents that have occupied the White House, in this instance one dated July 3, 1979, from President Jimmy Carter. The Agency was ordered to aid the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul—aid that might sucker the Kremlin into invading. “The CIA supported Osama bin Laden, like so many other extreme fundamentalists among the mujahideen in Afghanistan, from at least 1984 on,” Johnson writes, helping bin Laden train many of the 35,000 Arab Afghans.
Thus Carter, like his successors in the George H.W. Bush government — Gates, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and Colin Powell, “all bear some responsibility for the 1.8 million Afghan casualties, 2.6 million refugees, and 10 million unexploded land mines that followed from their decisions, as well as the ‘collateral damage’ that befell New York City in September 2001 from an organization they helped create during the years of anti-Soviet Afghan resistance,” Johnson added. Worse, the Bush-Cheney regime after 9/11 “set no limits on what the agency could do. It was the foundation for a system of secret prisons where CIA officer and contractors used techniques that included torture,” Weiner has written. By some estimates, the CIA in 2006 held 14,000 souls in 11 secret prisons, a vast crime against humanity.
That the CIA has zero interest in justice and engages in gratuitous cruelty may be seen from the indiscriminate dragnet arrests it has perpetrated: “CIA officers snatched and grabbed more than three thousand people in more than one hundred countries in the year after 9/11,” Weiner writes, adding that only 14 men of all those seized “were high-ranking authority figures within al Qaeda and its affiliates. Along with them, the agency jailed hundreds of nobodies…(who) became ghost prisoners in the war on terror.”
As for providing the White House with accurate intelligence, the record of the CIA has been a fiasco. The Agency was telling President Carter the Shah of Iran was beloved by his people and was firmly entrenched in power in 1979 when any reader of Harper’s Magazine, available on newsstands for a buck, could read that his overthrow was imminent—and it was. Over the years, the Agency has been wrong far more often than it has been right.
According to an Associated Press report, when confirmed by the Senate as the new CIA director, Leon Panetta said the Obama administration would not prosecute CIA officers that “participated in harsh interrogations even if they constituted torture as long as they did not go beyond their instructions.” This will allow interrogators to evade prosecution for following the clearly criminal orders they would have been justified to disobey.
“Panetta also said that the Obama administration would continue to transfer foreign detainees to other countries for questioning but only if U.S. officials are confident that the prisoners will not be tortured,” the AP story continued. If past is prologue, how confident can Panetta be the CIA’s fellow goons in Egypt and Morocco will stop torturing prisoners? Why did the CIA kidnap men off the streets of Milan and New York and fly them to those countries in the first place if not for torture? They certainly weren’t treating them to a Mediterranean vacation. By its long and nearly perfect record of reckless disregard for international law, the CIA has deprived itself of the right to exist.
It will be worse than unfortunate if President Obama continues the inhumane (and illegal) CIA renditions that President Bill Clinton began and President Bush vastly expanded. If the White House thinks its operatives can roam the world and arrest and torture any person it chooses without a court order, without due process, and without answering for their crimes, this signifies Americans believe themselves to be a Master Race better than others and above international law. That’s not much different from the philosophy that motivated Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich. It would be the supreme irony if the American electorate that repudiated racism last November has voted into its highest office a constitutional lawyer who reaffirms his predecessor’s illegal views on this activity. Renditions must be stopped. The CIA must be abolished.
(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant and columnist who formerly reported for the Chicago Daily News, the New York Herald-Tribune, and wire services.)
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: And President Obama, along with the rest of these criminals need to all be arrested and charged with treason! – SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
July 24, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Africa, al-Qaeda, Asia, Assassination Teams, Australia, Big Brother, Big Oil, Britain, Bush Regime, Central America, CIA, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, Disinformation, Drug Wars, Economy, Education, Eugenics, Europe, False Flag, Fascism, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Government, Greece, History, Indefinite Detentions, Iraq, Law and Justice, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Propaganda, Psyops, Renditions, Revolution, Socialism, South America, Sovereignty, Surveillance, Terrorism, Torture, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, Viet Nam, War, War Crimes, War On Drugs, White House, World Disasters, World Government, World News
July 7, 2010: Deanna Spingola / Conspiracy Archive – May 10, 2010
David Rockefeller said, “All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” In the Project for a New American Century document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century we find the following: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”1
False Flag (choreographed catastrophes) operations have been used for generations for various motives: the seizure of additional land and/or natural/mineral resources (domestic or foreign), the acquisition of cheap labor, economic destabilization, the military depopulation of indigenous populations, the destruction of religious or political ideologies, the establishment of political tyranny or a coup d’état (as experienced after 9/11 with the establishment of the PATRIOT Act and the Department of Homeland Security), to assist an allegedly threatened ally or to protect U.S. citizens living in a foreign country. The foundational factor in the majority of all false flag operations is the imposition of greater restrictions on worldwide residential populations in order to implement internationalism or globalism, formerly known as the utopian New World Order under the direction of an elite hierarchy. False flag catastrophes include terrorist attacks, assassinations of political leaders, “natural” disasters, industrial “accidents,” armed assaults against citizens (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Kent State), economic assaults in the form of economic crashes like 1929 or more recently the banker bailouts, both massive redistribution scams. The prevailing feature in all of these circumstances, whether manmade or “natural,” is the transference of culpability followed by the government’s predictable exploitation of any and all circumstances.
False flag operations manipulate individuals, either dupes or well-paid, skilled operatives – who masquerade as purported enemy aggressors. Aircraft or ships are either camouflaged to conceal their identity or marked in such a way as to confuse witnesses. The operation is compartmentally constructed in such a way that individuals participate in a small part of the venture without knowing the entire scope of the operation. After the fact, their willing but unwary participation might insure their silence. False flag operations accelerated after the formation of government intelligence agencies, like the CIA, again at the behest of private interests with the ready assistance of the media who introduce false leads to sustain the preconceived cover story. A false flag operation where innocent people are murdered invariably supplies the pretext for a military invasion where even more killing occurs including unwary U.S. soldiers who believe they are fighting for their country. Ambrose Pierce, the satirist, and creator of The Devil’s Dictionary defined politics as, “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles, the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”2
On January 24, 1898, during a Cuban insurrection against Spain, the USS Maine arrived at Havana, where it had been sent to allegedly protect some U.S. citizens living there. In reality, U.S. corporations, with about $50 million invested in the production and distribution of Cuban sugar and tobacco, had concerns about their investments. On February 15, 1898, while it was docked in Havana Harbor, a devastating explosion sank the ship. The incident killed 260 Americans. We now know that is was an internal explosion, not the result of an attack. However, the citizens were fueled by warmongers in the print media who pushed the slogan, “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain.” Outraged citizens agreed to retaliate and go to war against Spain because of the incident. Congress, which was wholly controlled by private interests, declared war on April 25, 1898. Two days later, the U.S. sent 11,000 occupational troops to the resource-rich Philippines, a Spanish colony and the real target. The Filipinos resisted America’s “liberation” efforts for three years during which several thousand civilians were slaughtered. The strategic location of the Philippines would provide easier access to the riches of Asia, a highly populated area replete with abundant resources and almost numberless people who had been hoarding and passing down their gold and treasures for centuries.
With the deceptive establishment of the privately owned Federal Reserve printing press by a compromised Congress, large-scale, debt-based warfare became even more feasible, its costs being shifted to U.S. citizens and their children and grandchildren. World War I in Europe was initially provoked by the assassination of an Austrian Archduke. But that was hardly an interest to Americans who had to feel some sense of personal outrage in order to justify U.S. military participation in a foreign war where American soldiers were likely to be killed. The Lusitania, an armed British passenger vessel deceptively flew the American flag and carried ammunition from U.S. companies bound for belligerent Britain. The ship, described as “live bait” by Winston Churchill, a Rothschild minion, was deliberately sent into harm’s way. Her military escort inexplicably withdrew and the ship dramatically slowed down and abandoned the defensive zigzag pattern of travel. In early February 1915, the British Admiralty, under the direction of Churchill, had ordered British merchant ships, like the Lusitania, to ram German submarines on sight. The Lusitania, borrowed by the British government and reclassified as an auxiliary cruiser, was equipped with bases for mounting guns.3 Germany was aware of Churchill’s orders by February 15. On April 22, 1915, Germany, through its U.S. Embassy warned Americans not to travel on British ships in the war zone. They also paid to advertise the warning in The New York Times on that same day.4 The warning was not printed in the Times until the day of departure. The Germans predictably attacked on May 7, 1915 and 785 people, including 128 Americans perished, but it ultimately got the U.S. into World War I.
Lenin said, “The first World War gave us Russia, while the Second World War will hand Europe to us.”5 For Lenin, a true Marxist, world revolution was the goal. World War I followed immediately by the Bolshevik Revolution subjugated only one country under communist rule, Russia. Lenin’s Bolshevik party was financed wholly by some of the same international bankers who instigated the Federal Reserve. In 1916, Lenin recognized that war was simply a revolution on a massive scale and professed that the world would need another war, as one was insufficient.6 Before the Czar’s assassination and the usurpation of Russia’s government, Lenin said, “After Russia we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then we will encircle the United States which will be the last bastion of capitalism. We will not have to attack. It will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands.”7 This would be accomplished through infiltration, all the while using the Hegelian dialectic of controlled opposition – as used by Lenin. Control the opposition, the proverbial right-left cultural division, in order to assure the desired result – total takeover and communization of the U.S.
Stalin (Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili), nicknamed Soso, was an agitator, terrorist and a murderer, along with his Bolshevik comrades. Beginning in 1902, he worked at the Rothschild oil refinery in Batumi. He probably still worked for the Rothschilds when he moved to the Baku area in 1907.8 “Oil tycoons” made contributions to the Bolsheviks. Berta Nussimbaum, wife of an oil baron, financed Stalin’s communist press. Rothschild’s managing director, David Landau, personally made regular contributions to Stalin. David Sagirashvili, a Menshevik, knew Stalin in Baku and claimed he engaged in routine kidnappings after which he demanded ransom.9 The Mensheviks, a less violent faction of the Russian revolutionary movement, emerged in 1904. The word Bolshevism was Russian and would have to be appropriately changed for each country.
Stalin always favored the more violent approach and ultimately killed millions, even during peacetime – in the gulags (slave labor camps), and in the Ukraine where five to ten million were deliberately starved to death during Stalin’s imposed famine during the winter of 1932-1933. Despite knowledge of Stalin’s horrific genocidal crimes against humanity, Franklin D. Roosevelt, a like-minded individual, officially recognized the legitimacy of the government of the Soviet Union, without Congressional approval. This later enabled the Soviet Union to fully participate in the banker-supported United Nations, situated on land donated by banker John D. Rockefeller Jr. whose illustrious family made their millions via Rothschild support. Roosevelt, whose administration was knowingly filled with Communist agitators and Soviet spies, did as much to promote communism, even in this country, as any revolutionary Communist.
Churchill’s estate mortgage was paid off by the “Jewish European financiers,” known as the Focus Group. Churchill then arranged a meeting with these bankers and Franklin D. Roosevelt in order to get the U.S. into war through the back door.10 Churchill and Roosevelt monitored the entire progress of the Japanese as they approached Pearl Harbor. After months of illegally blockading Japan which totally depended on imports to survive, the Japanese predictably attacked – all according to Henry L. Stimson’s strategy. He was a Standard Oil attorney and a member of Skull and Bones (appropriately known as the Brotherhood of Death). The attack on Pearl Harbor got America into a two-front war – with Japan and her European ally, Germany. Japan’s assault on Pearl Harbor killed 2,345 U.S. military men and injured another 1,100 people. Fortuitously, the U.S. government had already withdrawn their newer ships and planes to save them from destruction. Obligatory commissions, some by independent entities, were convened to investigate. Foreknowledge of the event, if not actual participation, was verified, but the compromised media deliberately concealed all conclusions that divulged U.S. government participation.
On April 27, 1961, in an address to newspaper publishers, President Kennedy said the following regarding Freemasonry, “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.” Kennedy, by his rhetoric and his actions did not support the nefarious schemes of those who covertly arrange all wars through their secret society associations and false flag operations. On June 28, 1961, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, former Wall Street lawyer and attempted to strip the CIA of all power with NSAM 55 and NSAM 57.11 Kennedy was also against Israel’s development of a nuclear weapon. On October 9, 1997, the Washington Jewish Week reported, “Israel need not apologize for the assassination or destruction of those who seek to destroy it. The first order of business for any country is the protection of its people.”12 That last sentence is a bit duplicitous and disingenuous, given the support and billions of dollars that the economically-stressed U.S. has given to Israel at the expense of our own economic security. Apparently our politicians have other loyalties. Almost 300 members of Congress signed a declaration reaffirming their commitment to “the unbreakable bond that exists” between the U.S. and the State of Israel in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.13 George Washington warned us, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence…the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government…Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side…The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”14
Allen Dulles would later participate on the Warren Commission which concealed the facts regarding John F. Kennedy’s assassination, a combined CIA/Mossad operation blamed on a lone gunman who was immediately killed. The astute allegations of Michael Collins Piper in Final Judgment: the Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy were verified in the Jerusalem Post on July 25, 2004 by Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli nuclear technician15 and shift manager at the Negev Nuclear Research Center from 1976 to 1985. He was troubled by Israel’s nuclear weapons program and their war strategies. Probably because of his views and activism, he was laid off from Dimona in 1985 and soon left the country for Sydney, Australia where he converted to Christianity. In Australia, he revealed Israel’s covert nuclear program to Peter Hounam of the British press. On October 5, 1986, a front-page story appeared in The Sunday Times, “Revealed: the secrets of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.” Thereafter, Vanunu was drugged and kidnapped with the help of Israeli Mossad agent Cheryl Bentov who deceptively befriended him. He was taken to Israel, tried behind closed doors and sentenced on February 27, 1988. Vanunu spent eighteen years in prison, eleven of which were in solitary confinement. He was released on April 21, 2004.16 According to satellite images, by February 1991, during the Gulf War, Israel had fired six to eight rounds of low-yield, miniaturized nuclear weapons from the Negev desert on Baghdad, 600 miles away.17
Following World War II, according to the Rhode Island Freemason Newsletter, “Lyman Lemnitzer was a military planner,” as was his good friend, Dwight D. Eisenhower.18 During Kennedy’s administration, Lemnitzer, a 33rd Degree Freemason and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others proffered a document entitled Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba,19 dated March 13, 1962, which recommended a false flag attack against the U.S. with the blame to be put on Cuba, which would then justify a retaliatory strike against that country. Their plan, called Operation Northwoods, may have originated with President Eisenhower and might even involve the killing of American citizens, the hijacking of planes and false arrests.20 Per the document, “We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington.” They could target a specific ethnic group who would be incorrectly vilified as terrorists.21 Or, Lemnitzer said, “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blame Cuba.” Further, he suggested that they could create “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers” to provoke “national indignation.”22 They could paint a CIA plane to look like a commercial plane and then swap the real plane with a drone. Lemnitzer wasn’t intending to free the Cuban people who supported Castro, but rather, “Forces would assure rapid essential military control of Cuba” where “continued police action would be required.” The details of Operation Northwoods, under Operation Mongoose, were concealed for over forty years. Lemnitzer thought that all of the copies were destroyed.23
Kennedy absolutely opposed Operation Northwoods, planned to withdraw troops from Vietnam, was determined to prevent Israel from becoming a nuclear state per Kennedy’s “harsh” letter of July 5, 1963 to Prime Minister Levi Eshkol,24 and threatened to break up the CIA, an organization wholly devoted to protecting Wall Street interests. Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a public relations executive with CIA connections was in charge of planning Kennedy’s Dallas motorcade route.25 On that fateful day in Dallas, Kennedy, like the Lusitania, was deliberately sent into harm’s way, security policies were altered and Kennedy’s protective forces were inexplicably withdrawn and he was brutally assassinated on November 22, 1963, an event which essentially functioned as another political coup.26 Operation Northwoods, or other false-flag attacks perpetrated against America, could now be implemented as regular policy with the able assistance of the CIA, still intact.
On November 29, 1963, the newly installed President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Freemason,27 convened the Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known as the Warren Commission from its chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren. On September 24, 1964, the Commission presented its 888-page final report which claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Commission member, Gerald Ford, also a Freemason, according to declassified files, admitted that he persuaded the Commission to state that Kennedy’s back wound was several inches higher than it really was. Ford and Arlen Specter, another commission member, promoted the implausible single bullet theory.28
Ford, perhaps as a reward, would be installed as Vice President on December 6, 1973 when Spiro Agnew was ousted over tax issues. Rockefeller agent, Henry Kissinger orchestrated Watergate, a media circus that got rid of Nixon and ultimately politically benefited Kissinger, Ford and Rockefeller.29 Attorney Hillary Rodham, along with Fred Thompson, Trent Lott, and Howard Baker,30 were on the legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate fiasco to help prepare articles of impeachment against Nixon. Rodham landed this job right out of law school, thanks to Ted Kennedy and Burke Marshall. Allegedly, her legal procedures were ethically flawed.3132 On August 9, 1974, Ford became president of the U.S. after Nixon’s resignation. Ford, the unelected president, unconditionally pardoned Nixon and carried out the banker’s agenda as every president has done since Johnson took office after Kennedy’s assassination.
The USS Maddox was allegedly assaulted by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin on August 2, 1964, followed by an incident on August 4, 1964. There were no U.S. casualties in either incident. However, President Johnson obtained the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was co-authored by brothers McGeorge and William P. Bundy (both members of Skull & Bones). William P. Bundy was the chief architect of the Vietnam War.33 At the request of CFR Chairman, David Rockefeller, William Bundy served as editor or the CFR magazine Foreign Affairs from 1972 to 1984.34 Those who arrange all wars propelled the U.S. and her citizens into an expensive, bloody, devastating, lengthy war against a country that hadn’t actually attacked us, a fact that was revealed by declassified documents in 2005. Author James Bamford states that Lemnitzer advocated nuclear war in Vietnam. In terms of lives, the war cost the lives of almost 60,000 U.S. citizens and four million Vietnamese and Cambodian (secret bombing) residents.
The U.S. has found it more expedient and less expensive to train and arm “local cannon fodder” or “indigenous ethnic or religious groups” to slaughter each other. The U.S. did this in Vietnam. Green Berets trained the Montagnards, the people in the southern highlands. The CIA’s Air America flew arms and other supplies into the remote Hmong villages and flew opium out – “to supply American troops fighting in Vietnam” and the vast international market.35
False flags, including the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with blame to be placed on Egypt, the first attack at the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, 9/11 followed by two U.S. invasions – Afghanistan and Iraq, the anthrax scare (origin – Fort Detrick), the numerous threats and allegedly failed terrorist attacks – the Christmas bomber, the Times Square bomb incident perpetrated by accused bomber Faisal Shahzad, an alleged member of a British MI6 and the CIA-controlled terrorist organization who,36 apparently after extensive training from the Pakistani Taliban, created a dud bomb incapable of exploding. Consequently, Senators Joe Lieberman and Scott Brown, along with Representatives Jason Altmire and Charlie Dent want to pass legislation that would eliminate, without due process, the citizenship of anyone even suspected of affiliating with a “foreign terrorist organization” with the exception of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).37 The Jewish Defense League (JDL), according to the FBI in 2001, is “a right-wing terrorist group.” Also, according to the FBI, the JDL has plotted numerous terrorist attacks within the U.S. The organization, founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, is no longer categorized as a terrorist organization. So, apparently, U.S. citizens, some with duel citizenship, involved with either the IDF or the JDL will not have to forfeit their U.S. citizenship.
Another person purportedly went off the deep end and perpetrated a massacre at Fort Hood, Texas on November 6, 2009 similar to Columbine (April 20, 1999). Other questionable catastrophes, not currently categorized as false flag events, still provide the exploitive circumstances for the imposition of tyrannical legislation and regulations. For as Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
These catastrophes include the US Airways Flight 1549 being ditched in the Hudson River adjacent Manhattan, New York City, on January 15, 2009. Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with numerous other opposition party officials, died in a mysterious plane crash in Smolensk, Russia on April 10, 2010. This “accident” probably had more to do with Kaczynski’s opposition to a $100 billion dollar contract with Russia’s Gazprom Gas deal than with problematic weather. It would have made Poland 100% dependent on Russian gas for the next 28 years.38 See the remarkable digital enhancement of the amateur plane crash site footage.
There was the 9.0 earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean region on December 26, 2004 with the resultant tsunami which killed approximately a quarter of a million people. Americans and their European allies were immediately aware of this earthquake due to the location of various seismic stations and satellites. The officials, including those at one of those bases, Diego Garcia failed to notify the predominantly Muslim countries in the path of tsunami.39 Diego Garcia, the U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean, from which the U.S. stages bombing assaults in the Middle East, which was directly in the path of the tsunami experienced no apparent damage.40 Then there was the cataclysmic earthquake on just half of an island – oil-rich Haiti, followed by militarized aid. In other words, selective assistance to the survivors based on their obedience.
Rhetoric about the Times Square bomber has preempted the more devastating news about Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean Limited, the world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, and leased to BP, which caught fire on April 20, and exploded killing 11 people. It was insured for $560 million.41 This crisis resulted in the worst oil spill in history – 5,000 barrels of oil spilling into the sea each day.42 The Rothschilds own a controlling share of the BP stock. BP, despite an egregious safety record, got an exemption and a cap on damages from the National Environmental Policy Act rules on April 6, 2009 and then lobbied to expand those exemptions just eleven days before the explosion.43 According to a law passed after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill limits cleanup costs liability to no more than $75 million although legislation is being introduced to increase liability to $10 billion, retroactively.44 BP is also responsible for the biggest oil spill ever to occur on Alaska’s North Slope.45 The Rothschilds, by lending money for Halliburton’s clean-up operations will make profits. The failed cement casing had been installed by Halliburton and this is the second time within a year that a Halliburton casing has catastrophically failed on an oil rig.
As if Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast the end of August 2005, didn’t do enough economic damage and forced relocation of residents in the gulf coast states, this oil spill only furthers the devastation. Louisiana’s fishing industry, according to Business Week, has a retail value of $1.8 billion while others claim it is even higher. Louisiana supplies a third of the nation’s oysters and a quarter of all its seafood. The industry employs some 90,000 people in Louisiana. Unfortunately, the “accident” coincides with the opening of the shrimp season, May 16. Mississippi and Alabama are also very dependent on the fishing industry.46
On April 30, 2010, the press reported that President Obama has reversed his decision to lift the moratorium on certain offshore drilling. No new oil drilling will be authorized until authorities discover the causes of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig. Deepwater received a safety award in 2009. Lindsey Williams claims that the Gulf incident was sabotage and states that the technology was too advanced for such explosions to occur.
Former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, a globalist pawn for the Nature Conservancy, thought nothing of seizing land from Colorado ranchers in the purported interest of conservation; he was confirmed as Interior Secretary on January 20, 2009. Since April 2009, hundreds of farmers in the San Joaquin valley in Central California have been targeted by U.S. government domestic terrorists who turned off the water in the formerly fertile Fresno area which is about to be turned into a desert. This created forty percent unemployment in the valley. Farmers in the San Joaquin valley grow about 25 % of the Nation’s food supply. These decisions caused hundreds of millions of dollars in crop losses.
On May 2, 2010, U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar said, “Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of BP.” Interestingly, the Bureau of Land Management, under the direction of the Department of the Interior, conducted a surprise inspection on the oil rig two hours before it exploded. In 1969, Dr. Richard Day, an admitted “insider” delivered an invitation-only lecture about the “new world system” in which he defined the changes, according to an actual timetable, that would be accomplished by the year 2000 which included the following:
– Travel restrictions will occur. It will be considered a privilege! People will need permission and a good reason to travel. An under-the-skin implantation device will be developed, coded specifically to identify each individual to accommodate government surveillance through radio signals.
– More airplane and auto accidents will occur contributing to a general feeling of insecurity. This will also initiate more government regulations.
– Manufacturing will be curtailed in order to give other countries a chance to build their industries in order to compete against the United States. Our heavy industries will be deliberately cut back while the same industries are developed in other countries, notably Japan.
– Food supplies will be centralized and come under tight control. If population growth doesn’t slow down, food shortages can be orchestrated to scare or starve people into accepting the theory of overpopulation. Personal gardens and perhaps small farms will be eliminated.
– Dr. Day said, “We can or soon will be able to control the weather…“I’m not merely referring to dropping iodide crystals into the clouds to precipitate rain that’s already there, but REAL control.” And weather will be used as a weapon of war, a weapon for influencing public policy or perhaps habitation patterns.
– Terrorism, once thought unnecessary in the United States, will be used by necessity if the United States does not move rapidly enough into accepting the new system.47
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Many of you know this information. For the rest… Get the picture?! – SJH
Link to original article with sources below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
July 7, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Agenda 21, al-Qaeda, Assassination Teams, Big Brother, Big Oil, Bio-Chem Warfare, Bush Regime, CFR, China, CIA, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, DHS, Disinformation, Drug Wars, Economy, Education, Environmentalism, Eugenics, Europe, European Union, False Flag, Fascism, FBI, Federal Reserve, Freedom, Freemasonry, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, Gulf Of Mexico, Haiti, Health, History, IMF, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, JFK, Katrina, Law and Justice, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, Mossad, Nature, New World Order, Nuclear Warfare, Obama, Obama Regime, Occult, OK City Bombing, Orwellian, Patriot Act, Pentagon, Planet Earth, Police State, Propaganda, Psychology, Psyops, Revolution, Rockefeller, Rothschilds, Science / Technology, Secret Societies, Skull and Bones, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Terrorism, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, United Nations, War, War Crimes, White House, World Bank, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WTC 1 & 2, WTC 7, WW II, WWI, WWIII
April 9, 2010: Tim Reid / Times Online – April 9, 2010
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to the Guantánamo Bay prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, according to a new document obtained by The Times. The accusations were made by Lawrence Wilkerson, a top aide to Colin Powell, the former Republican Secretary of State, in a signed declaration to support a lawsuit filed by a Guantánamo detainee. It is the first time that such allegations have been made by a senior member of the Bush Administration.
Colonel Wilkerson, who was General Powell’s chief of staff when he ran the State Department, was most critical of Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld. He claimed that the former Vice-President and Defence Secretary knew that the majority of the initial 742 detainees sent to Guantánamo in 2002 were innocent but believed that it was “politically impossible to release them”.
General Powell, who left the Bush Administration in 2005, angry about the misinformation that he unwittingly gave the world when he made the case for the invasion of Iraq at the UN, is understood to have backed Colonel Wilkerson’s declaration.
Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.
He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”.
Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent … If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”
He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.
He added: “I discussed the issue of the Guantánamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantánamo decision making.”
Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld, Colonel Wilkerson said, deemed the incarceration of innocent men acceptable if some genuine militants were captured, leading to a better intelligence picture of Iraq at a time when the Bush Administration was desperate to find a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, “thus justifying the Administration’s plans for war with that country”.
He signed the declaration in support of Adel Hassan Hamad, a Sudanese man who was held at Guantánamo Bay from March 2003 until December 2007. Mr Hamad claims that he was tortured by US agents while in custody and yesterday filed a damages action against a list of American officials.
Defenders of Guantánamo said that detainees began to be released as early as September 2002, nine months after the first prisoners were sent to the jail at the US naval base in Cuba. By the time Mr Bush left office more than 530 detainees had been freed.
A spokesman for Mr Bush said of Colonel Wilkerson’s allegations: “We are not going to have any comment on that.” A former associate to Mr Rumsfeld said that Mr Wilkerson’s assertions were completely untrue.
The associate said the former Defence Secretary had worked harder than anyone to get detainees released and worked assiduously to keep the prison population as small as possible. Mr Cheney’s office did not respond.
There are currently about 180 detainees left in the facility.
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Of course the Bush Administration knew the “prisoners” were innocent, as does the Obama administration. Not only were the WTC buildings in NYC professionally demolished, but KSM was waterboarded 183 times and admitted to blowing up buildings that weren’t even built until after he was incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay’s Camp Delta. And no, KSM did not mastermind 9/11… – SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
April 9, 2010 at 12:02 am
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Big Brother, Bush Regime, Civil Rights, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, Disinformation, Education, False Flag, Fascism, Freedom, Geo-Politics, Government, History, Indefinite Detentions, Iraq, Law and Justice, Middle East, Military, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Pentagon, Propaganda, Psyops, Renditions, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Surveillance, Terrorism, Torture, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, War, War Crimes, White House, World Disasters, World Government, World News
February 25, 2010: Paul Craig Roberts / Infowars – February 25, 2010
The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously. How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.
The paper reports that the architects and engineers have concluded that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology provided “insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction” and are “calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials.”
The newspaper reports that Richard Gage, the spokesperson for the architects and engineers said: “Government officials will be notified that “Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382) is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act. The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial.”
There is now an organization, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. At the main press conference in San Francisco, Eric Lawyer,the head of that organization, announced the firefighters’ support for the architects and engineers’ demands. He reported that no forensic investigation was made of the fires that are alleged to have destroyed the three buildings and that this failure constitutes a crime.
Mandated procedures were not followed, and instead of being preserved and investigated, the crime scene was destroyed. He also reported that there are more than one hundred first responders who heard and experienced explosions and that there is radio, audio and video evidence of explosions.
Also at the press conference, physicist Steven Jones presented the evidence of nano-thermite in the residue of the WTC buildings found by an international panel of scientists led by University of Copenhagen nano-chemist Professor Niels Harrit. Nano-thermite is a high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic capable of instantly melting steel girders.
Before we yell “conspiracy theory,” we should be aware that the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists offer no theory. They provide evidence that challenges the official theory. This evidence is not going to go away. If expressing doubts or reservations about the official story in the 9/11 Commission Report makes a person a conspiracy theory kook, then we have to include both co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission and the Commission’s legal counsel, all of whom have written books in which they clearly state that they were lied to by government officials when they conducted their investigation, or, rather, when they presided over the investigation conducted by executive director Philip Zelikow, a member of President George W. Bush’s transition team and Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and a co-author of Bush Secretary of State Condi “Mushroom Cloud” Rice.
There will always be Americans who will believe whatever the government tells them no matter how many times they know the government has lied to them. Despite expensive wars that threaten Social Security and Medicare, wars based on non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, non-existent Saddam Hussein connections to al Qaida, non-existent Afghan participation in the 9/11 attacks, and the non-existent Iranian nukes that are being hyped as the reason for the next American war of aggression in the Middle East, more than half of the U.S. population still believes the fantastic story that the government has told them about 9/11, a Muslim conspiracy that outwitted the entire Western world.
Moreover, it doesn’t matter to these Americans how often the government changes its story. For example, Americans first heard of Osama bin Laden because the Bush regime pinned the 9/11 attacks on him. Over the years video after video was served up to the gullible American public of bin Laden’s pronouncements. Experts dismissed the videos as fakes, but Americans remained their gullible selves. Then suddenly last year a new 9/11 “mastermind” emerged to take bin Laden’s place, the captive Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the detainee waterboarded 183 times until he confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attack.
In the Middle Ages confessions extracted by torture constituted evidence, but self-incrimination has been a no-no in the U.S. legal system since our founding. But with the Bush regime and the Republican federal judges, whom we were assured would defend the U.S. Constitution, the self-incrimination of Sheik Mohammed stands today as the only evidence the U.S. government has that Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11.
If a person considers the feats attributed to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, they are simply unbelievable. Sheik Mohammed is a more brilliant, capable superhero than V in the fantasy movie, “V for Vendetta.” Sheik Mohammed outwitted all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies along with those of all U.S. allies or puppets, including Israel’s Mossad. No intelligence service on earth, or all of them combined, was a match for Sheik Mohammed.
Sheik Mohammed outwitted the U.S. National Security Council, Dick Cheney, the Pentagon, the State Department, NORAD, the U.S. Air Force, and Air Traffic Control. He caused Airport Security to fail four times in one morning. He caused the state-of-the-art air defenses of the Pentagon to fail, allowing a hijacked airliner, which was off course all morning while the U.S. Air Force, for the first time in history, was unable to get aloft intercepter aircraft, to crash into the Pentagon. Sheik Mohammed was able to perform these feats with unqualified pilots.
Sheik Mohammed, even as a waterboarded detainee, has managed to prevent the FBI from releasing the many confiscated videos that would show, according to the official story, the hijacked airliner hitting the Pentagon. How naive do you have to be to believe that any human, or for that matter Hollywood fantasy character, is this powerful and capable?
If Sheik Mohammed has these superhuman capabilities, how did the incompetent Americans catch him? This guy is a patsy tortured into confession in order to keep the American naifs believing the government’s conspiracy theory.
What is going on here is that the U.S. government has to bring the 9/11 mystery to an end. The government must put on trial and convict a culprit so that it can close the case before it explodes. Anyone waterboarded 183 times would confess to anything.
The U.S. government has responded to the evidence being arrayed against its outlandish 9/11 conspiracy theory by redefining the war on terror from external to internal enemies. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on February 21 that American extremists are now as big a concern as international terrorists. Extremists, of course, are people who get in the way of the government’s agenda, such as the 1,000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The group used to be 100, now it is 1,000. What if it becomes 10,000?
Cass Sunstein, an Obama regime official, has a solution for the 9/11 skeptics: Infiltrate them and provoke them into statements and actions that can be used to discredit or to arrest them. But get rid of them at all cost. Why employ such extreme measures against alleged kooks if they only provide entertainment and laughs? Is the government worried that they are on to something? Instead, why doesn’t the U.S. government simply confront the evidence that is presented and answer it?
If the architects, engineers, firefighters, and scientists are merely kooks, it would be a simple matter to acknowledge their evidence and refute it. Why is it necessary to infiltrate them with police agents and to set them up?
Many Americans would reply that “their” government would never even dream of killing Americans by hijacking airliners and destroying buildings in order to advance a government agenda. But on February 3, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. government can assassinate its own citizens when they are overseas. No arrest, trial, or conviction of a capital crime is necessary. Just straight out murder.
Obviously, if the U.S. government can murder its citizens abroad it can murder them at home, and has done so. For example, 100 Branch Davidians were murdered in Waco, Texas, by the Clinton administration for no legitimate reason. The government just decided to use its power knowing that it could get away with it, which it did.
Americans who think “their” government is some kind of morally pure operation would do well to familiarize themselves with Operation Northwoods. Operation Northwoods was a plot drawn up by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff for the CIA to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and fabricate evidence blaming Castro so that the U.S. could gain domestic and international support for regime change in Cuba. The secret plan was nixed by President John F. Kennedy and was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. It is available online in the National Security Archive. There are numerous online accounts available, including Wikipedia. James Bamford’s book, Body of Secrets, also summarizes the plot:
“Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman [Gen. Lemnitzer] and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.”
Prior to 9/11 the American neoconservatives were explicit that the wars of aggression that they intended to launch in the Middle East required “a new Pearl Harbor.”
For their own good and that of the wider world, Americans need to pay attention to the growing body of experts who are telling them that the government’s account of 9/11 fails their investigation. 9/11 launched the neoconservative plan for U.S. world hegemony.
As I write, the U.S. government is purchasing the agreement of foreign governments that border Russia to accept U.S. missile interceptor bases. The U.S. intends to ring Russia with U.S. missile bases from Poland through central Europe and Kosovo to Georgia, Azerbaijan and central Asia. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke declared on February 20 that al Qaida is moving into former central Asian constituent parts of the Soviet Union, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Holbrooke is soliciting U.S. bases in these former Soviet republics under the guise of the ever-expanding “war on terror.”
The U.S. has already encircled Iran with military bases. The U.S. government intends to neutralize China by seizing control over the Middle East and cutting China off from oil. This plan assumes that Russia and China, nuclear armed states, will be intimidated by U.S. anti-missile defenses and acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and that China will lack oil for its industries and military.
The U.S. government is delusional. Russian military and political leaders have responded to the obvious threat by declaring NATO a direct threat to the security of Russia and by announcing a change in Russian war doctrine to the pre-emptive launch of nuclear weapons. The Chinese are too confident to be bullied by a washed-up American “superpower.”
The morons in Washington are pushing the envelope of nuclear war. The insane drive for American hegemony threatens life on earth. The American people, by accepting the lies and deceptions of “their” government, are facilitating this outcome.
The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Exposing the truth concerning 9/11 is absolutely key to overthrowing this criminal government… – SJH
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
February 25, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, Assassination Teams, Big Brother, Big Oil, Bio-Chem Warfare, Bush Regime, China, CIA, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, COINTELPRO, Communism, Conspiracy, Controlled Demolition, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, Disinformation, Economy, Education, Eugenics, False Flag, Fascism, FBI, Federal Reserve, First Amendment, Free Speech, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, History, Indefinite Detentions, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kennedy's, Law and Justice, Martial Law, Media, Middle East, Military, Mossad, NATO, New World Order, NIST, NORAD, Nuclear Warfare, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Pentagon, Police State, Propaganda, Psyops, Reagan Regime, Renditions, Russia, Science / Technology, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, Taleban, Terrorism, U.S. Constitution, U.S. News, United Nations, War, War Crimes, World Disasters, World Government, World News, WWIII
January 31, 2010: F. William Engdahl / Global Research – January 30, 2010
A President becomes UN Special Envoy to earthquake-stricken Haiti. A born-again neo-conservative US business wheeler-dealer preacher claims Haitians are condemned for making a literal ‘pact with the Devil.’ Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Bolivian, French and Swiss rescue organizations accuse the US military of refusing landing rights to planes bearing necessary medicines and urgently needed potable water to the millions of Haitians stricken, injured and homeless…
Behind the smoke, rubble and unending drama of human tragedy in the hapless Caribbean country, a drama is in full play for control of what geophysicists believe may be one of the world’s richest zones for hydrocarbons-oil and gas outside the Middle East, possibly orders of magnitude greater than that of nearby Venezuela.
Haiti, and the larger island of Hispaniola of which it is a part, has the geological fate that it straddles one of the world’s most active geological zones, where the deepwater plates of three huge structures relentlessly rub against one another—the intersection of the North American, South American and Caribbean tectonic plates. Below the ocean and the waters of the Caribbean, these plates consist of an oceanic crust some 3 to 6 miles thick, floating atop an adjacent mantle. Haiti also lies at the edge of the region known as the Bermuda Triangle, a vast area in the Caribbean subject to bizarre and unexplained disturbances.
This vast mass of underwater plates are in constant motion, rubbing against each other along lines analogous to cracks in a broken porcelain vase that has been reglued. The earth’s tectonic plates typically move at a rate 50 to 100 mm annually in relation to one another, and are the origin of earthquakes and of volcanoes. The regions of convergence of such plates are also areas where vast volumes of oil and gas can be pushed upwards from the Earth’s mantle. The geophysics surrounding the convergence of the three plates that run more or less directly beneath Port-au-Prince make the region prone to earthquakes such as the one that struck Haiti with devastating ferocity on January 12 (2010).
A Relevant Texas Geological Project
Leaving aside the relevant question of how well in advance the Pentagon and US scientists knew the quake was about to occur, and what Pentagon plans were being laid before January 12 (2010), another issue emerges around the events in Haiti that might help explain the bizarre behavior to date of the major ‘rescue’ players—the United States, France and Canada. Aside from being prone to violent earthquakes, Haiti also happens to lie in a zone that, due to the unusual geographical intersection of its three tectonic plates, might well be straddling one of the world’s largest unexplored zones of oil and gas, as well as of valuable rare strategic minerals.
The vast oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and of the region from the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden are at a similar convergence zone of large tectonic plates, as are such oil-rich zones as Indonesia and the waters off the coast of California. In short, in terms of the physics of the earth, precisely such intersections of tectonic masses as run directly beneath Haiti have a remarkable tendency to be the sites of vast treasures of minerals, as well as oil and gas, throughout the world.
Notably, in 2005, a year after the Bush-Cheney Administration de facto deposed the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Baptiste Aristide, a team of geologists from the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas began an ambitious and thorough two-phase mapping of all geological data of the Caribbean Basins. The project is due to be completed in 2011. Directed by Dr. Paul Mann, it is called “Caribbean Basins, Tectonics and Hydrocarbons.” It is all about determining as precisely as possible the relation between tectonic plates in the Caribbean and the potential for hydrocarbons—oil and gas.
Notably, the sponsors of the multi-million dollar research project under Mann are the world’s largest oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, the Anglo-Dutch Shell and BHP Billiton. Curiously enough, the project is the first comprehensive geological mapping of a region that, one would have thought, would have been a priority decades ago for the US oil majors. Given the immense, existing oil production off Mexico, Louisiana, and the entire Caribbean, as well as its proximity to the United States – not to mention the US focus on its own energy security – it is surprising that the region had not been mapped earlier. Now it emerges that major oil companies were at least generally aware of the huge oil potential of the region long ago, but apparently decided to keep it quiet.
Cuba’s Super-Giant Find
Evidence that the US Administration may well have more in mind for Haiti than the improvement of the lot of the devastated Haitian people can be found in nearby waters off Cuba, directly across from Port-au-Prince. In October 2008 a consortium of oil companies led by Spain’s Repsol, together with Cuba’s state oil company, Cubapetroleo, announced discovery of one of the world’s largest oilfields in the deep water off Cuba. It is what oil geologists call a ‘Super-giant’ field. Estimates are that the Cuban field contains as much as 20 billion barrels of oil, making it the twelfth Super-giant oilfield discovered since 1996. The discovery also likely makes Cuba a new high-priority target for Pentagon destabilization and other nasty operations.
No doubt to the dismay of Washington, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev flew to Havana one month after the Cuban giant oil find to sign an agreement with acting-President Raul Castro for Russian oil companies to explore and develop Cuban oil.
Medvedev’s Russia-Cuba oil agreements came only a week after the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to meet the recuperating Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. The Chinese President signed an agreement to modernize Cuban ports and discussed Chinese purchase of Cuban raw materials. No doubt the mammoth new Cuban oil discovery was high on the Chinese agenda with Cuba. On November 5, 2008, just prior to the Chinese President’s trip to Cuba and other Latin American countries, the Chinese government issued their first ever policy paper on the future of China’s relations with Latin America and Caribbean nations, elevating these bilateral relations to a new level of strategic importance. 
The Cuba Super-giant oil find also leaves the advocates of ‘Peak Oil’ theory with more egg on the face. Shortly before the Bush-Blair decision to invade and occupy Iraq, a theory made the rounds of cyberspace, that sometime after 2010, the world would reach an absolute “peak” in world oil production, initiating a period of decline with drastic social and economic implications. Its prominent spokesmen, including retired oil geologist Colin Campbell and Texas oil banker Matt Simmons, claimed that there had not been a single new Super-giant oil discovery since 1976, or thereabouts, and that new fields found over the past two decades had been “tiny” compared with the earlier giant discoveries in Saudi Arabia, Prudhoe Bay, Daquing in China and elsewhere. 
It is critical to note that, more than half a century ago, a group of Russian and Ukrainian geophysicists, working in state secrecy, confirmed that hydrocarbons originated deep in the earth’s mantle under conditions similar to a giant burning cauldron at extreme temperature and pressure. They demonstrated that, contrary to US and accepted Western ‘mainstream’ geology, hydrocarbons were not the result of dead dinosaur detritus concentrated and compressed and somehow transformed into oil and gas millions of years ago, nor of algae or other biological material.
The Russian and Ukrainian geophysicists then proved that the oil or gas produced in the earth’s mantle was pushed upwards along faults or cracks in the earth as close to the surface as pressures permitted. The process was analogous to the production of molten lava in volcanoes. It means that the ability to find oil is limited, relatively speaking, only by the ability to identify deep fissures and complex geological activity conducive to bringing the oil out from deep in the earth. It seems that the waters of the Caribbean, especially those off Cuba and its neighbor Haiti, are just such a region of concentrated hydrocarbons (oil and gas) that have found their way upwards close to the surface, perhaps in a magnitude comparable to a new Saudi Arabia.
Haiti: A New Saudi Arabia?
The remarkable geography of Haiti and Cuba and the discovery of world-class oil reserves in the waters off Cuba lend credence to anecdotal accounts of major oil discoveries in several parts of Haitian territory. It also could explain why two Bush Presidents and now special UN Haiti Envoy Bill Clinton have made Haiti such a priority. As well, it could explain why Washington and its NGOs moved so quickly to remove– twice– the democratically elected President Aristide, whose economic program for Haiti included, among other items, proposals for developing Haitian natural resources for the benefit of the Haitian people.
In March 2004, some months before the University of Texas and American Big Oil launched their ambitious mapping of the hydrocarbon potentials of the Caribbean, a Haitian writer, Dr. Georges Michel, published online an article titled ‘Oil in Haiti.’ In it, Michel wrote,
… .[I]t has been no secret that deep in the earthy bowels of the two states that share the island of Haiti and the surrounding waters that there are significant, still untapped deposits of oil. One knows not why they are still untapped. Since the early twentieth century, the physical and political map of the island of Haiti, erected in 1908 by Messrs. Alexander Poujol and Henry Thomasset, reported a major oil reservoir in Haiti near the source of the Rio Todo El Mondo, Tributary Right Artibonite River, better known today as the River Thomonde. 
According to a June 2008 article by Roberson Alphonse in the Haitian paper, Le Nouvelliste en Haiti, “The signs, (indicators), justifying the explorations of oil (black gold) in Haiti are encouraging. In the middle of the oil shock, some 4 companies want official licenses from the Haitian State to drill for oil.”
At the time, oil prices were climbing above $140 a barrel — on manipulations by various Wall Street banks. Alphonse’s article quoted Dieusuel Anglade, the Haitian State Director of the Office of Mining and Energy, telling the Haitian press: “We’ve received four requests for oil exploration permits…We have had encouraging indicators to justify the pursuit of the exploration of black gold (oil), which had stopped in 1979.”
Alphonse reported the findings from a 1979 geological study in Haiti of 11 exploratory oil wells drilled at the Plaine du Cul-de-sac on the Plateau Central and at L’ile de La Gonaive: “Surface (tentative) indicators for oil were found at the Southern peninsula and on the North coast, explained the engineer Anglade, who strongly believes in the immediate commercial viability of these explorations.”
Journalist Alphonse cites an August 16, 1979 memo by Haitian attorney Francois Lamothe, in which he noted that “five big wells were drilled” down to depths of 9000 feet and that a sample that “underwent a physical-chemical analysis in Munich, Germany” had “revealed tracks of oil.” 
Despite the promising 1979 results in Haiti, Dr. Georges Michel reported that, “the big multinational oil companies operating in Haiti pushed for the discovered deposits not to be exploited.”  Oil exploration in and offshore Haiti ground to a sudden halt as a result.
Similar if less precise reports claiming that Haitian oil reserves could be vastly larger than those of Venezuela have appeared in Haitian websites.  Then in 2010 the financial news site Bloomberg News carried the following:
The Jan. 12 (2010) earthquake was on a fault line that passes near potential gas reserves, said Stephen Pierce, a geologist who worked in the region for 30 years for companies that included the former Mobil Corp. The quake may have cracked rock formations along the fault, allowing gas or oil to temporarily seep toward the surface, he said Monday in a telephone interview. ‘A geologist, callous as it may seem, tracing that fault zone from Port-au-Prince to the border looking for gas and oil seeps, may find a structure that hasn’t been drilled,’ said Pierce, exploration manager at Zion Oil & Gas Inc., a Dallas-based company that’s drilling in Israel. 
In an interview with a Santo Domingo online paper, Leopoldo Espaillat Nanita, former head of the Dominican Petroleum Refinery (REFIDOMSA) stated, “there is a multinational conspiracy to illegally take the mineral resources of the Haitian people.”  Haiti’s minerals include gold, the valuable strategic metal iridium and oil, apparently lots of it.
Aristide’s Development Plans
Marguerite Laurent (‘Ezili Dantò’), president of the Haitian Lawyers’ Leadership Network (HLLN) who served as attorney for the deposed Aristide, notes that when Aristide was President — up until his US-backed ouster during the Bush era in 2004 — he had developed and published in book form his national development plans. These plans included, for the first time, a detailed list of known sites where the resources of Haiti were located. The publication of the plan sparked a national debate over Haitian radio and in the media about the future of the country. Aristide’s plan was to implement a public-private partnership to ensure that the development of Haiti’s oil, gold and other valuable resources would benefit the national economy and the broader population, and not merely the five Haitian oligarchic families and their US backers, the so-called Chimeres or gangsters. 
Since the ouster of Aristide in 2004, Haiti has been an occupied country, with a dubiously-elected President, Rene Preval, a controversial follower of IMF privatization mandates and reportedly tied to the Chimeres or Haitian oligarchs who backed the removal of Aristide. Notably, the US State Department refuses to permit the return of Aristide from South African exile.
Now, in the wake of the devastating earthquake of January 12, the United States military has taken control of Haiti’s four airports and presently has some 20,000 troops in the country. Journalists and international aid organizations have accused the US military of being more concerned with imposing military control, which it prefers to call “security,” than with bringing urgently needed water, food and medicine from the airport sites to the population.
A US military occupation of Haiti under the guise of earthquake disaster ‘relief’ would give Washington and private business interests tied to it a geopolitical prize of the first order. Prior to the January 12 quake, the US Embassy in Port-au-Prince was the fifth largest US embassy in the world, comparable to its embassies in such geopolitically strategic places as Berlin and Beijing. With huge new oil finds off Cuba being exploited by Russian companies, with clear indications that Haiti contains similar vast untapped oil as well as gold, copper, uranium and iridium, with Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela as a neighbor to the south of Haiti, a return of Aristide or any popular leader committed to developing the resources for the people of Haiti, — the poorest nation in the Americas — would constitute a devastating blow to the world’s sole Superpower. The fact that in the aftermath of the earthquake, UN Haiti Special Envoy Bill Clinton joined forces with Aristide foe George W. Bush to create something called the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund ought to give everyone pause.
According to Marguerite Laurent (‘Ezili Dantò’) of the Haitian Lawyers’ Leadership Network, under the guise of emergency relief work, the US, France and Canada are engaged in a balkanization of the island for future mineral control. She reports rumors that Canada wants the North of Haiti where Canadian mining interests are already present. The US wants Port-au-Prince and the island of La Gonaive just offshore – an area identified in Aristide’s development book as having vast oil resources, and which is bitterly contested by France. She further states that China, with UN veto power over the de facto UN-occupied country, may have something to say against such a US-France-Canada carve up of the vast wealth of the nation. 
1 Paul Mann, Caribbean Basins, Tectonic Plates & Hydrocarbons, Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin, accessed in
2 Rory Carroll, Medvedev and Castro meet to rebuild Russia-Cuba relations, London Guardian, November 28, 2008 accessed in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/cuba-russia.
3 Julian Gavaghan, Comrades in arms: When China’s President Hu met a frail Fidel Castro, London Daily Mail, November 19, 2008, accessed in http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087485/Comrades-arms-When-Chinas-President-Hu-met-frail-Fidel-Castro.html.
4 Peoples’ Daily Online, China issues first policy paper on Latin America, Caribbean region, November 5, 2008, accessed in http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6527888.html .
5 Matthew R. Simmons, The World’s Giant Oilfields, Simmons & Co. International, Houston, accessed in http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/giantoilfields.pdf .
6 Anton Kolesnikov, et al, Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions, Nature Geoscience, July 26, 2009.
7 F. William Engdahl, War and Peak Oil—Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer, Global Research, September 26, 2007, accessed in http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6880 .
8 Dr. Georges Michel, Oil in Haiti, English translation from French, Pétrole en Haiti, March 27, 2004, accessed in http://www.margueritelaurent.com/pressclips/oil_sites.html#oil_GeorgesMichelEnglish .
9 Roberson Alphonse, Drill, and then pump the oil of Haiti! 4 oil companies request oil drilling permits, translated from the original French, June 27, 2008, accessed in
11 Ibid. The full text indicated that, “five big wells were drilled at Porto Suel (Maissade) of a depth of 9000 feet, at Bebernal, 9000 feet, at Bois-Carradeux (Ouest), at Dumornay, on the road Route Frare and close to the Chemin de Fer of Saint-Marc. A sample, a ‘carrot’ (oil reservoir) drilled up from the well of Saint-Marc in the Artibonite underwent a physical-chemical analysis in Munich, Germany, at the request of Mr. Broth. ‘The result of the analysis was returned on October 11, 1979 and revealed tracks of oil,’ confided the engineer, Willy Clemens, who had gone to Germany.”
12 Dr. Georges Michel, op. cit.
13 Marguerite Laurent, Haiti is full of oil, say Ginette and Daniel Mathurin, Radio Metropole, Jan 28, 2008, accessed in
14 Jim Polson, Haiti earthquake may have exposed gas, aiding economy, Bloomberg News, January 26, 2010.
15 Espaillat Nanita revela en Haiti existen grandes recursos de oro y otros minerals, Espacinsular.org, 17 November, 2009, accessed in
16 The Aristide development plan was contained in the book published in Haiti in 2000, Investir dans l’Human. Livre Blanc de Fanmi Lavalas sous la Direction de Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Port-au-Prince, Imprimerie Henri Deschamps, 2000. It contained detailed maps, tables, graphics, and a national development plan for 2004 “covering agriculture, environment, commerce and industry, the financial sector, infrastructure, education, culture, health, women’s issues, and issues in the public sector.” In 2004, using NGOs and the UN and a vicious propaganda campaign to vilify Aristide, the Bush administration got rid of the elected President.
17 Cynthia McKinney, Haiti: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux, Global Research, January 19, 2010, accessed in
18 Marguerite Laurent (Ezili Danto), Did mining and oil drilling trigger the Haiti earthquake?, OpEd News.com, January 23, 2010, accessed in
Link to original article below…
Written by Steven John Hibbs
January 31, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Posted in Big Brother, Big Oil, Bush Regime, Caribbean, Central America, China, Civil Rights, Clinton Regime, Communism, Conspiracy, Corruption, Cuba, Deception, Disinformation, Economy, Education, Eugenics, False Flag, Fascism, Federal Reserve, Freedom, Genocide, Geo-Politics, Global Banking, Government, Haiti, History, Law and Justice, Media, Mexico, Middle East, Nature, New World Order, Obama, Obama Regime, Orwellian, Pentagon, Propaganda, Psyops, Russia, Science / Technology, Slavery, Socialism, Sovereignty, U.S. News, Venezuela, War, War Crimes, World Disasters, World Government, World News