Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
1.13.2010
Executive Order - Classified National Security Information
[...and the Presidential Memorandum for the implementation of the above Executive Order...]
[References...]
- Presidential Action, Executive Order
- Presidential Action, Memorandum
1.04.2010
Top 10 ET/UFO stories of 2009
http://www.examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m1d3-Barack-Obama-not-disclosing-extraterrestrial-presence-is-top-ETUFO-story-of-2009
by Alfred Lambremont Webre, Seattle Exopolitics Examiner
Read more...
by Alfred Lambremont Webre, Seattle Exopolitics Examiner
10 – Latin American UFO activity.
9 – Chinese scientists film UFO at Purple Mountain Observatory and will take 1 year to analyze data.
8 - NASA Oct. 9, 2009 moon bombing violated space law & could have caused conflict with lunar ET/UFO civilizations.
7 – ET/UFO researcher Gary McKinnon’s continued battle against extradition to the U.S.
6 – The Vatican opens a window to extraterrestrial life.
5 – U.K. Ministry of Defense closes its UFO desk after 50 years.
4 – Norway light spiral/Moscow pyramid and Obama Nobel Prize connection?
3 - Denver ET ballot initiative places next step in extraterrestrial disclosure on August 2010 vote.
2 – Time travel and teleportation are confirmed by independent whistleblowers.
1 - Barack Obama not disclosing extraterrestrial presence.
Read more...
12.14.2009
PRG Update - December 13, 2009
Paradigm Research Group
Million Fax on Washington
www.faxonwashington.org
There has been some confusion about the MFW. Is it over? Not at all. The MFW will continue until Disclosure takes place. New publicity for this effort is being planned and will get underway strongly at the first of the new year. Thousands more letters, faxes and emails will be on their way to the White House press corps care of the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA).
Why the emphasis on the White House Correspondents Association? Two reasons: 1) a decision to ask the tough and appropriate questions by as few as two or three White House reporters could end the truth embargo in a matter of weeks, and 2) the White House itself gets a huge amount of correspondence. The WHCA gets a tiny fraction by comparison. Therefore, a WHCA focused campaign will stand out and be much more difficult to hide.
Why hasn't the White House or the WHCA acknowledged this correspondence? Simple. If they did, it would open the door for the press to ask to see the letters. The content of this correspondence would then set off a new round of questions - the very questions that need to be asked.
So they have to act as if nothing is happening and hope the MFW goes away. That is not going to happen.
Recent Events of Note
Over a span of just a few days several matters manifested of some exopolitical significance. They are as follows:
Gary McKinnon - The indicted UK computer intruder has reached the very last days of his appeal process and now looks to be extradited to the United States to stand trial. PRG will be somewhat shocked if this happens, but, alas, these are interesting times and not much that governments do makes a great deal of sense anymore.
Whether or not it is in the best interest of McKinnon, if he is extradited it is going to create a huge media storm with considerable reference to the UFO/ET issues as well as the truth embargo. This will include numerous media spots for UFO/ET researchers and activists, lots of new YouTube videos and considerable print coverage, all of which PRG will assiduously archive.
In short, the extradition of Gary McKinnon will be one huge headache for the anti-Disclosure elements within the U.S. government.
Barack Obama - On December 1 at the United States Military Academy President Obama announced an escalation (surge) to the war in Afghanistan including the addition of 30,000 troops. As of this announcement the President took ownership of this war. Quite soon, if not already, the President will also have his name on the 62-year old UFO/ET truth embargo. Certainly this will be the case as of January 20 and the end of his first year in office. Consequently, PRG now sees a slightly greater likelihood that Disclosure will come initially from another first-world nation. With that in mind..........
British Ministry of Defence Closes Down the UK UFO Desk - the UK MOD made an almost casual but rather striking announcement it has closed down its UFO desk as of December 1, 2009. Significantly, the MOD indicated it would continue to release more government UFO files. The full statement can be read at: http://tinyurl.com/btezh3
This stance may seem paradoxical, but PRG sees a straightforward logic to this maneuver. First and foremost it reflects the fact that the United Kingdom, above all other nations, is most tied to U.S. policies on all levels. This is reinforced under the leadership of Gordon Brown, but may attenuate should David Cameron become prime minister. Only time will tell how well the people of the UK are served by this tethering.
That said, closing down the MOD UFO Desk sends the message the UK will not act ahead of the United States as regards Disclosure.
However, the continued release of UK UFO files will keep pressure on the U.S. to act on Disclosure.
*********
Therefore, we must look elsewhere for a break in the dam that might occur outside of the United States. As stated previously, PRG believes Russia is quite taken with the enormous political legacy to be achieved with the initial announcement of an extraterrestrial presence. The same goes for China. Both nations have called for a global currency to replace the supremacy of the dollar and have hinted at other measures which could dilute the U.S. dollar's value. France is another candidate for initial Disclosure.
A greatly devalued U.S. dollar coupled with a failure to end the truth embargo it began in the late 1940's might well signal the end of the United States as the defining superpower in geopolitics. A once great and proud nation will have "jumped the shark" and be staring a legacy of lies, repeated wars and financial decline in the face under a president whose approval ratings might sink lower than those of George W. Bush. A domestic political tragedy may be taking place before our eyes.
But let it be clear Disclosure is much bigger and much more important than the fate of any single nation. It will happen, and there is no power on Earth that can stop it. The Disclosure advocacy movement will continue to grow. Anyone advising the President of the United States otherwise is miscalculating on a grand scale.
Whatever the pressures upon the new President to extend and expand the wars in the Middle East, the matter of Disclosure should not be connected to these policies. More importantly a case can be made that without Disclosure the world will continue to experience war after war after war - for profit, for status, for land, for "national interest", for religion, for food, for water, for the hell of it - war without end.
For the same reason Truth is the first casualty of war, it is also its remedy.
_________________________________
Paradigm Research Group
4938 Hampden Lane, #161, Bethesda, MD 20814
PRG@paradigmresearchgroup.org 202-215-8344
www.paradigmresearchgroup.org
12.10.2009
Obama Nobel Lecture Draft Leaked
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/12/obama-nobel-lecture-draft-leaked/
TOP SECRET: The speech Barack Obama won’t deliver
As dictated to Daniel Simpson
EMBARGOED UNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2009
(Check against delivery)
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Dear Friends around the world, My fellow Americans.
I stand here today humbled, more than ever, by the task before us, grateful for the honour you’ve bestowed, and mindful of the sacrifices we must make to do it justice.
Twenty Americans before me have lent their names to this most eminent of prizes, among them three presidents, two sitting. Though challenged by the upheavals of fractious eras, their skill and vision hewed faithfully to the spirit of our forebears, who travelled across an ocean to seek sanctuary, and declared all who made their home there to have been created equal. Where possible, they worked to stem those tides in humankind that would drown us in the storms of violent conflict. And so we recall these efforts, and their fruits, praising Theodore Roosevelt for brokering peace, not chiding him for wielding his trademark stick to subjugate Cuba and the Philippines.
Others were inspired by a higher calling, rising above themselves to speak truths we shirk from hearing. Of these transformative figures, none was more righteous, more perspicacious, than Dr Martin Luther King, who accepted this award 45 years ago. I was surprised to be asked to follow him, and shared with you my doubts that I deserved to be doing so. But I’ve come here on the understanding that this ceremony is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century, and for America to lead.
Putting America first should not require us to put the lives of other peoples second. When our nation became mired in Vietnam, sacrificing millions to its quest to contain Communism, Dr King called us “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. A year to the day after speaking those words, he was murdered.
As I was raised in his shadow, whirlpools of destructive logic sucked Americans ever deeper into worldwide battles. From Vietnam, the fog of war spread. We laid waste to Cambodia from the skies, before Pol Pot’s brutal forces tilled its killing fields. And for the sake of defeating the Soviet Union, we armed Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, spawning a terrorist menace that defined the first decade of this century.
I do not seek to defend these actions here, or those of an earlier September 11th, when a coup hatched in Washington robbed Chile of its elected president, because he was a Marxist. Thousands “disappeared” under the market-friendly despot we supported, like so many other enemies of freedom, before and since, from the Congo to Cairo, Central Asia to Latin America, always in the name of a greater good. Ours. Whatever thwarts those who might challenge us, we can live with.
We armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran, ignoring his use of poison gas while it suited us. But once he’d threatened our interests by invading Kuwait, this became grounds for deposing him, though the weapons we claimed to fear no longer existed. As the last head of the Federal Reserve said, “it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Whether we control it, or prevent others from doing so, this is why we care about the Middle East. Since the British Empire fell, we’ve guarded what our State Department called “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” As every Iranian schoolchild knows, but Americans rarely recall, we once overthrew their government, to ensure it kept pumping oil to our satisfaction. So hated was the regime we installed in Tehran, and so vicious its secret police, that we helped to foment an Islamic Revolution. And so we conjured enemies anew.
Rather than remain trapped in the past, I want to move forward. We are not alone to blame for the world’s problems; and for all that’s wrong with America, much is right. But our delusions make us a menace to ourselves, and even the civilised order we say we’re defending. Americans aren’t alone in being hypocrites. Nor are we by any measure the worst. Our reference points for wickedness are the tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler. However, when senior Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, it was the American chief prosecutor who said: “While this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”
For much of this past American century, as in others bestridden by Empires that came before ours, the morals guiding relations between states have been those of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. To quote the murderer Raskolnikov: “he who can spit on what is greatest will be their lawgiver, and he who does the most will be rightest of all.” It’s ugly, so we prefer to cover it up and tell ourselves stories, most often about our benevolence, or “the shining city upon a hill” we call our homeland.
When the Spanish-American war brought us to primacy, Mark Twain surveyed our impact on the Pacific. “We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors,” he observed. “And so, by these Providences of God – and the phrase is the government’s, not mine – we are a World Power.”
But without our cherished myths, or the lies that led us into Iraq and Vietnam, there’d be fewer conflicts. No one welcomes war, and Americans aren’t by nature belligerent people. Even our “Greatest Generation”, among them my grandfather, was reluctant to join World War II until Pearl Harbour. And their fight in the name of a larger freedom has served us since as a rallying call.
There’s always an axis of evil that needs vanquishing. And as Hermann Goering chillingly warned: “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.” It’s easy, he explained: “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
I don’t need to remind you that we were attacked, on American soil, eight years ago. At that moment we faced a fateful choice: whether to seek justice, or debase it. The armchair warriors won. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died, in the name of avenging three thousand of our own. We don’t even count how many we’ve killed.
I’ve said before I don’t oppose all wars. I supported the pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance. But can we do that by killing more innocents? Where would we need to send troops? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Somalia? And how many corpses might convince a hostile horde to change its thinking? Before we rained destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans firebombed dozens of Japanese cities. Up to half a million were slain, and millions more lost their homes before surrender was so much as discussed.
As I said at the start of the decade, let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and shutting down the financial networks that support terrorism. It’s work for policemen, not soldiers; our armed forces should defend us, not attack. War by the one percent doctrine of pre-emption is aggression.
To repeat, I’m not here to look backwards. We’re here to remember the urgency of now. This is no time to indulge in the narcissism of self-flagellation, or to take the tranquilising drug of mass denial. A nation that believes its hype is heading for disaster. Now is the time to rise from the valley of hubris, to walk the sunlit path of accepting limits. Now is the time to obey the same rules we impose. Now is the time to admit that our actions have consequences, that we’ve been al Qaeda’s top recruiter.
Our pursuit of “full spectrum dominance”, our ambition “to hold unquestioned power”, has not made the world any safer. We started a nuclear arms race, and doused it in gasoline. We helped Pakistan get the bomb, and looked away while it ran a weapons hypermarket. Now we’re helping India break the rules, just as Israel has for decades while it stockpiled warheads. Exactly how many isn’t clear, because Israel denies access to foreign inspectors.
Iran is the only oil-rich state in the Middle East that’s beyond our influence. Together with Israel, we keep threatening to attack it. But while we talk up “the Iranian threat”, our intelligence agencies say Iran halted its weapons programme years ago, and wants nothing more than the option to reactivate it. The idea it could wipe Israel off the map is absurd. The Israeli nuclear arsenal guarantees that. Israel’s prime minister calls Iran an “apocalyptic cult” that “glorifies blood and death, including its own”. But for years the two countries were allies, and Israel accepted the rhetoric was mostly for show. Its priorities only changed when Iran became the region’s number two power. And that only happened when we invaded Iraq, and installed a pro-Iranian government.
So what do we do now to solve these problems? Bombing Iran would not bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons. It also wouldn’t make Israel more secure. I rule it out categorically, and withdraw all plans for a nuclear first strike on Iranian bunkers. Destructive power can only be tempered by restraint.
There’s no longer a technological difference between the process that generates fuel and the process for building bombs. Once you can enrich uranium for reactors, it just takes time and investment to enrich it for missiles. If we’re serious about disarmament, we also need to restrict enrichment by everyone, outsourcing it to an international agency. This alone makes nuclear power no answer to climate change.
It’s no less misguided to pretend we can clean up coal. Plans to bury carbon dioxide are unproven, and they won’t work any time soon. The global demand for energy will be hard to meet without making radical changes. If we carry on insisting that “the American way of life is not negotiable”, we can hardly expect others to think differently. But we all have to, immediately, or there won’t be a future to get rich in. If everyone consumed like Americans, we’d need another half dozen planets. And if the one we live on heats up as scientists forecast, much of it will be uninhabitable this century. Ice caps and glaciers will melt, seas will rise, and crops will fail. Billions of people will struggle to find food and water, and the world will be full of refugees.
We’re almost past the point of no return. Long-term targets are irrelevant. The gases we’ve emitted already will heat up the atmosphere for a century. Unless we stop adding to them quickly, we’re committing ourselves to a runaway warming process, unlike any this Earth has seen for millions of years. Faced with that prospect, and the deadlocked talks on a climate treaty, there’s no alternative left but to act unilaterally.
I’ve signed up to a British initiative called 10:10, and promised to reduce my personal emissions by ten percent in 2010. I’m also committing to bolder executive action. I pledge the United States will cut output of carbon dioxide, and other heat-trapping gases, by a tenth next year from current levels. The year after, we’ll cut another tenth, and again, and again, for ten straight years, until we’re free of fossil fuels by 2020.
To achieve this, we need to transform our economy, on a scale unseen since the start of World War II. Converting our factories to rearmament was what finally dragged us out of the Great Depression. To support our transition to a less destructive paradigm, America will turn itself over to sustainable energy. Trillions of dollars will be spent on a new Manhattan Project; only this one won’t build an atom bomb. Instead it will share clean technology through the United Nations. There can be no solution to climate change that doesn’t include such partners as India and China. Even if they burn coal, we should stop, and help them cut their carbon output however we can.
Domestically, we won’t just scrap subsidies for fossil fuels. We plan to nationalise and liquidate our oil companies, and switch the nation’s cars to electric power. They’ll be charged from a network of wind and solar farms, hooked up to a direct-current smart grid. And we will pay for this by ceasing to arm the world.
America spends almost as much on weapons as every other nation combined. The Pentagon gets more money today than at any time since World War II. And our exports dwarf those of our rivals, creating the opponents of tomorrow. As President Eisenhower warned: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.”
It is time to start changing priorities. Next year, we will cut military spending in half, and shrink it as we scale back our presence. Over the coming decade, this will free up trillions of dollars. So far we’ve been tentative, scrapping a few costly weapons while increasing the total we spend. But an overhaul of energy policy will enable us to shut down bases overseas. No longer will we need hundreds of foreign outposts to protect resources, or the shipping lanes and pipelines that ferry them. We can leave that work to regional powers, and resume our rightful place in our own backyard.
Every last soldier will leave Iraq next year, and our bases there will be bulldozed. We will also withdraw at once from Afghanistan. A generation ago, Mikhail Gorbachev said he wanted to do the same, but he first raised troop levels above 100,000. As a result, 1985 was the deadliest year of the Soviet occupation. We will not repeat the same mistake. I’m reversing last week’s announcement of escalation, and our draw down will begin from tomorrow. We can’t just arm warlords and pay off the Taliban. All the money and blood we spill achieves nothing. We can only destabilise Pakistan, and the government there won’t help us do that. The only constructive way forward is to face our impotence.
We cannot provide security without peace, and we cannot impose that by will, or force of arms.
We cannot build abstractions like good governance. We can only pay reparations and send aid. Afghans have to shape their own future.
We cannot defend against terrorism by bombing civilians. And even the most surgical air strikes can’t stop terrorists plotting in Europe, or training in Florida.
We cannot privatise war by funnelling taxpayer dollars to mercenary contractors.
Our suicide pact with militarism has to end before it bankrupts us, strategically, financially and morally. We cannot keep stalking the world creating new enemies.
No, we cannot.
Half a century ago, Eisenhower warned us what was happening. To win World War II, he said, we created “a permanent arms industry of vast proportions”, and “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals.”
This is a challenge we’ve ducked until today. And make no mistake: it will not be easy. The military-industrial complex has no fixed address. Arms companies spread production nationwide, so Congressmen and women defend their business, for fear lost jobs will cost them votes. Other lobbies complicate things further, like those pressing Israel’s case in Washington. To underline our resolve to curb the arms trade, all military assistance to Israel will be scrapped, and no sales allowed until it retreats within its 1967 borders, and dismantles illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
Capitalism has been at war with democracy, and winning. We’ve blown trillions in the banking casino, privatising its gains and socialising the cost. Not for nothing is Goldman Sachs called “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” For a more sustainable world, we have to dismantle the structures that shape it.
I can’t achieve that alone. We all have obligations to prevent our national priorities being perverted, as Martin Luther King understood. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programmes of social uplift,” he said, “is approaching spiritual death.”
The day after Dr King was killed, Robert F. Kennedy spoke of “another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions, indifference and inaction and slow decay.”
In words as relevant now as then, Kennedy said we “tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilisation alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they require.”
Weeks later, he was assassinated too, campaigning for the presidency, and an early retreat from Vietnam. Instead, the war dragged on, and Cambodia was mercilessly bombed. For that, and other crimes, a previous winner of this prize should face prosecution. But if Henry Kissinger stands trial some day, he shouldn’t be alone in the dock. Cases can be made against presidents too, and I plead no special immunity ahead of time. I should be held to account like anyone else.
The press should never become the president’s men, and the public need to organise against him, to force his hand like Martin Luther King, to collectively make change we can believe in. Together we’ll enact these commitments. In themselves, they won’t end violence, they won’t end lawlessness and they won’t end disorder either. But they’d warrant the faith you’ve placed in my work, and they’d leave our children a legacy of justice. And for that small measure alone, we can be thankful.
God bless us all. Thank you.
[Source: dissidentvoice.org]
As dictated to Daniel Simpson
EMBARGOED UNTIL DECEMBER 10, 2009
(Check against delivery)
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Excellencies, Distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Dear Friends around the world, My fellow Americans.
I stand here today humbled, more than ever, by the task before us, grateful for the honour you’ve bestowed, and mindful of the sacrifices we must make to do it justice.
Twenty Americans before me have lent their names to this most eminent of prizes, among them three presidents, two sitting. Though challenged by the upheavals of fractious eras, their skill and vision hewed faithfully to the spirit of our forebears, who travelled across an ocean to seek sanctuary, and declared all who made their home there to have been created equal. Where possible, they worked to stem those tides in humankind that would drown us in the storms of violent conflict. And so we recall these efforts, and their fruits, praising Theodore Roosevelt for brokering peace, not chiding him for wielding his trademark stick to subjugate Cuba and the Philippines.
Others were inspired by a higher calling, rising above themselves to speak truths we shirk from hearing. Of these transformative figures, none was more righteous, more perspicacious, than Dr Martin Luther King, who accepted this award 45 years ago. I was surprised to be asked to follow him, and shared with you my doubts that I deserved to be doing so. But I’ve come here on the understanding that this ceremony is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century, and for America to lead.
Putting America first should not require us to put the lives of other peoples second. When our nation became mired in Vietnam, sacrificing millions to its quest to contain Communism, Dr King called us “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. A year to the day after speaking those words, he was murdered.
As I was raised in his shadow, whirlpools of destructive logic sucked Americans ever deeper into worldwide battles. From Vietnam, the fog of war spread. We laid waste to Cambodia from the skies, before Pol Pot’s brutal forces tilled its killing fields. And for the sake of defeating the Soviet Union, we armed Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, spawning a terrorist menace that defined the first decade of this century.
I do not seek to defend these actions here, or those of an earlier September 11th, when a coup hatched in Washington robbed Chile of its elected president, because he was a Marxist. Thousands “disappeared” under the market-friendly despot we supported, like so many other enemies of freedom, before and since, from the Congo to Cairo, Central Asia to Latin America, always in the name of a greater good. Ours. Whatever thwarts those who might challenge us, we can live with.
We armed Saddam Hussein to fight the Islamic Republic of Iran, ignoring his use of poison gas while it suited us. But once he’d threatened our interests by invading Kuwait, this became grounds for deposing him, though the weapons we claimed to fear no longer existed. As the last head of the Federal Reserve said, “it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Whether we control it, or prevent others from doing so, this is why we care about the Middle East. Since the British Empire fell, we’ve guarded what our State Department called “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” As every Iranian schoolchild knows, but Americans rarely recall, we once overthrew their government, to ensure it kept pumping oil to our satisfaction. So hated was the regime we installed in Tehran, and so vicious its secret police, that we helped to foment an Islamic Revolution. And so we conjured enemies anew.
Rather than remain trapped in the past, I want to move forward. We are not alone to blame for the world’s problems; and for all that’s wrong with America, much is right. But our delusions make us a menace to ourselves, and even the civilised order we say we’re defending. Americans aren’t alone in being hypocrites. Nor are we by any measure the worst. Our reference points for wickedness are the tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler. However, when senior Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, it was the American chief prosecutor who said: “While this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”
For much of this past American century, as in others bestridden by Empires that came before ours, the morals guiding relations between states have been those of Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. To quote the murderer Raskolnikov: “he who can spit on what is greatest will be their lawgiver, and he who does the most will be rightest of all.” It’s ugly, so we prefer to cover it up and tell ourselves stories, most often about our benevolence, or “the shining city upon a hill” we call our homeland.
When the Spanish-American war brought us to primacy, Mark Twain surveyed our impact on the Pacific. “We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors,” he observed. “And so, by these Providences of God – and the phrase is the government’s, not mine – we are a World Power.”
But without our cherished myths, or the lies that led us into Iraq and Vietnam, there’d be fewer conflicts. No one welcomes war, and Americans aren’t by nature belligerent people. Even our “Greatest Generation”, among them my grandfather, was reluctant to join World War II until Pearl Harbour. And their fight in the name of a larger freedom has served us since as a rallying call.
There’s always an axis of evil that needs vanquishing. And as Hermann Goering chillingly warned: “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.” It’s easy, he explained: “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
I don’t need to remind you that we were attacked, on American soil, eight years ago. At that moment we faced a fateful choice: whether to seek justice, or debase it. The armchair warriors won. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died, in the name of avenging three thousand of our own. We don’t even count how many we’ve killed.
I’ve said before I don’t oppose all wars. I supported the pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance. But can we do that by killing more innocents? Where would we need to send troops? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Somalia? And how many corpses might convince a hostile horde to change its thinking? Before we rained destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Americans firebombed dozens of Japanese cities. Up to half a million were slain, and millions more lost their homes before surrender was so much as discussed.
As I said at the start of the decade, let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and shutting down the financial networks that support terrorism. It’s work for policemen, not soldiers; our armed forces should defend us, not attack. War by the one percent doctrine of pre-emption is aggression.
To repeat, I’m not here to look backwards. We’re here to remember the urgency of now. This is no time to indulge in the narcissism of self-flagellation, or to take the tranquilising drug of mass denial. A nation that believes its hype is heading for disaster. Now is the time to rise from the valley of hubris, to walk the sunlit path of accepting limits. Now is the time to obey the same rules we impose. Now is the time to admit that our actions have consequences, that we’ve been al Qaeda’s top recruiter.
Our pursuit of “full spectrum dominance”, our ambition “to hold unquestioned power”, has not made the world any safer. We started a nuclear arms race, and doused it in gasoline. We helped Pakistan get the bomb, and looked away while it ran a weapons hypermarket. Now we’re helping India break the rules, just as Israel has for decades while it stockpiled warheads. Exactly how many isn’t clear, because Israel denies access to foreign inspectors.
Iran is the only oil-rich state in the Middle East that’s beyond our influence. Together with Israel, we keep threatening to attack it. But while we talk up “the Iranian threat”, our intelligence agencies say Iran halted its weapons programme years ago, and wants nothing more than the option to reactivate it. The idea it could wipe Israel off the map is absurd. The Israeli nuclear arsenal guarantees that. Israel’s prime minister calls Iran an “apocalyptic cult” that “glorifies blood and death, including its own”. But for years the two countries were allies, and Israel accepted the rhetoric was mostly for show. Its priorities only changed when Iran became the region’s number two power. And that only happened when we invaded Iraq, and installed a pro-Iranian government.
So what do we do now to solve these problems? Bombing Iran would not bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons. It also wouldn’t make Israel more secure. I rule it out categorically, and withdraw all plans for a nuclear first strike on Iranian bunkers. Destructive power can only be tempered by restraint.
There’s no longer a technological difference between the process that generates fuel and the process for building bombs. Once you can enrich uranium for reactors, it just takes time and investment to enrich it for missiles. If we’re serious about disarmament, we also need to restrict enrichment by everyone, outsourcing it to an international agency. This alone makes nuclear power no answer to climate change.
It’s no less misguided to pretend we can clean up coal. Plans to bury carbon dioxide are unproven, and they won’t work any time soon. The global demand for energy will be hard to meet without making radical changes. If we carry on insisting that “the American way of life is not negotiable”, we can hardly expect others to think differently. But we all have to, immediately, or there won’t be a future to get rich in. If everyone consumed like Americans, we’d need another half dozen planets. And if the one we live on heats up as scientists forecast, much of it will be uninhabitable this century. Ice caps and glaciers will melt, seas will rise, and crops will fail. Billions of people will struggle to find food and water, and the world will be full of refugees.
We’re almost past the point of no return. Long-term targets are irrelevant. The gases we’ve emitted already will heat up the atmosphere for a century. Unless we stop adding to them quickly, we’re committing ourselves to a runaway warming process, unlike any this Earth has seen for millions of years. Faced with that prospect, and the deadlocked talks on a climate treaty, there’s no alternative left but to act unilaterally.
I’ve signed up to a British initiative called 10:10, and promised to reduce my personal emissions by ten percent in 2010. I’m also committing to bolder executive action. I pledge the United States will cut output of carbon dioxide, and other heat-trapping gases, by a tenth next year from current levels. The year after, we’ll cut another tenth, and again, and again, for ten straight years, until we’re free of fossil fuels by 2020.
To achieve this, we need to transform our economy, on a scale unseen since the start of World War II. Converting our factories to rearmament was what finally dragged us out of the Great Depression. To support our transition to a less destructive paradigm, America will turn itself over to sustainable energy. Trillions of dollars will be spent on a new Manhattan Project; only this one won’t build an atom bomb. Instead it will share clean technology through the United Nations. There can be no solution to climate change that doesn’t include such partners as India and China. Even if they burn coal, we should stop, and help them cut their carbon output however we can.
Domestically, we won’t just scrap subsidies for fossil fuels. We plan to nationalise and liquidate our oil companies, and switch the nation’s cars to electric power. They’ll be charged from a network of wind and solar farms, hooked up to a direct-current smart grid. And we will pay for this by ceasing to arm the world.
America spends almost as much on weapons as every other nation combined. The Pentagon gets more money today than at any time since World War II. And our exports dwarf those of our rivals, creating the opponents of tomorrow. As President Eisenhower warned: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed.”
It is time to start changing priorities. Next year, we will cut military spending in half, and shrink it as we scale back our presence. Over the coming decade, this will free up trillions of dollars. So far we’ve been tentative, scrapping a few costly weapons while increasing the total we spend. But an overhaul of energy policy will enable us to shut down bases overseas. No longer will we need hundreds of foreign outposts to protect resources, or the shipping lanes and pipelines that ferry them. We can leave that work to regional powers, and resume our rightful place in our own backyard.
Every last soldier will leave Iraq next year, and our bases there will be bulldozed. We will also withdraw at once from Afghanistan. A generation ago, Mikhail Gorbachev said he wanted to do the same, but he first raised troop levels above 100,000. As a result, 1985 was the deadliest year of the Soviet occupation. We will not repeat the same mistake. I’m reversing last week’s announcement of escalation, and our draw down will begin from tomorrow. We can’t just arm warlords and pay off the Taliban. All the money and blood we spill achieves nothing. We can only destabilise Pakistan, and the government there won’t help us do that. The only constructive way forward is to face our impotence.
We cannot provide security without peace, and we cannot impose that by will, or force of arms.
We cannot build abstractions like good governance. We can only pay reparations and send aid. Afghans have to shape their own future.
We cannot defend against terrorism by bombing civilians. And even the most surgical air strikes can’t stop terrorists plotting in Europe, or training in Florida.
We cannot privatise war by funnelling taxpayer dollars to mercenary contractors.
Our suicide pact with militarism has to end before it bankrupts us, strategically, financially and morally. We cannot keep stalking the world creating new enemies.
No, we cannot.
Half a century ago, Eisenhower warned us what was happening. To win World War II, he said, we created “a permanent arms industry of vast proportions”, and “only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals.”
This is a challenge we’ve ducked until today. And make no mistake: it will not be easy. The military-industrial complex has no fixed address. Arms companies spread production nationwide, so Congressmen and women defend their business, for fear lost jobs will cost them votes. Other lobbies complicate things further, like those pressing Israel’s case in Washington. To underline our resolve to curb the arms trade, all military assistance to Israel will be scrapped, and no sales allowed until it retreats within its 1967 borders, and dismantles illegal settlements on Palestinian land.
Capitalism has been at war with democracy, and winning. We’ve blown trillions in the banking casino, privatising its gains and socialising the cost. Not for nothing is Goldman Sachs called “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.” For a more sustainable world, we have to dismantle the structures that shape it.
I can’t achieve that alone. We all have obligations to prevent our national priorities being perverted, as Martin Luther King understood. “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programmes of social uplift,” he said, “is approaching spiritual death.”
The day after Dr King was killed, Robert F. Kennedy spoke of “another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions, indifference and inaction and slow decay.”
In words as relevant now as then, Kennedy said we “tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilisation alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they require.”
Weeks later, he was assassinated too, campaigning for the presidency, and an early retreat from Vietnam. Instead, the war dragged on, and Cambodia was mercilessly bombed. For that, and other crimes, a previous winner of this prize should face prosecution. But if Henry Kissinger stands trial some day, he shouldn’t be alone in the dock. Cases can be made against presidents too, and I plead no special immunity ahead of time. I should be held to account like anyone else.
The press should never become the president’s men, and the public need to organise against him, to force his hand like Martin Luther King, to collectively make change we can believe in. Together we’ll enact these commitments. In themselves, they won’t end violence, they won’t end lawlessness and they won’t end disorder either. But they’d warrant the faith you’ve placed in my work, and they’d leave our children a legacy of justice. And for that small measure alone, we can be thankful.
God bless us all. Thank you.
11.30.2009
7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told
[This post is about 'storytelling'...]
[Source: www.politico.com]
- He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money.
- Too much Leonard Nimoy.
- That’s the Chicago Way.
- He’s a pushover.
- He sees America as another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.
- President Pelosi.
- He’s in love with the man in the mirror.
[Source: www.politico.com]
11.05.2009
Secret copyright treaty leaks
http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-6197-0-32-32--.html
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), a secret[!!!] copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:
Read more...- That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
- That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
- That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
- Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral trade agreement which is claimed by its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works." The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit physical goods, as well as "internet distribution and information technology".
In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the European Union. The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.
Negotiations were originally anticipated to conclude by the end of 2008, however in November 2008 the European Commission stated that negotiations were likely to continue in 2009. The next (sixth) round of negotiation is scheduled for South Korea in November 2009. At the fifth round of negotiations, in Morocco in July 2009, participants indicated their intention was to conclude the agreement "as soon as possible in 2010". According to New Zealand, ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and "the goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."
Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty, and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Learn more...
In October 2007 the United States, the European Community, Switzerland and Japan announced that they would negotiate ACTA. Furthermore the following countries have joined the negotiations: Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Canada and the European Union. The ACTA negotiations have been conducted in secrecy until on 22 May 2008 a discussion paper about the proposed agreement was uploaded to Wikileaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations quickly followed.
Negotiations were originally anticipated to conclude by the end of 2008, however in November 2008 the European Commission stated that negotiations were likely to continue in 2009. The next (sixth) round of negotiation is scheduled for South Korea in November 2009. At the fifth round of negotiations, in Morocco in July 2009, participants indicated their intention was to conclude the agreement "as soon as possible in 2010". According to New Zealand, ACTA would "establish a new international legal framework" and "the goal of ACTA is to set a new, higher benchmark for intellectual property rights enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary basis."
Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EC, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty, and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.
11.04.2009
'Senator' Barack Obama & Swine Flu - 10.06.2005
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2005/2005-10-06-04.asp
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=db48cf3c-83e9-41d1-b2c8-67bc6f6cd38f)
[Left to right: H. Reid, T. Harkin, B. Obama & E. Kennedy]
Washington, DC, 10.06.2005
A group of Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday[10.05.2005] to help America prepare for and protect against a possible avian flu pandemic. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid joined together with Senator Barack Obama, Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Dick Durbin in introducing the “Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act” to provide a comprehensive approach to prepare and protect Americans from this potentially devastating virus.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is concerned about a bird flu pandemic [this was back in 2005].
Read more...A group of Senate Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday[10.05.2005] to help America prepare for and protect against a possible avian flu pandemic. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid joined together with Senator Barack Obama, Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Tom Harkin, and Senator Dick Durbin in introducing the “Pandemic Preparedness and Response Act” to provide a comprehensive approach to prepare and protect Americans from this potentially devastating virus.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is concerned about a bird flu pandemic [this was back in 2005].
“We must face the reality that, in this age, when you can get
on a plane in Bangkok and arrive in Chicago just hours later,
this is not a problem isolated half a world away,
but one that could impact us right here at home.
It is imperative that we act quickly and take the necessary steps
to close the preparedness gap we face in dealing with
what could be a deadly and devastating flu pandemic.”
· Sen(D) Barack Obama (2005) ·
10.25.2009
10.22.2009
La Casa Blanca declara la guerra a la cadena conservadora Fox
· La Administración de Obama anuncia que tratará al canal como «un oponente».
· La TV de Murdoch ha aumentado el 20% la audiencia gracias a la disputa.
http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=655156
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=4931d4bf-9da4-4097-a67c-558650c98da2)
· La TV de Murdoch ha aumentado el 20% la audiencia gracias a la disputa.
http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=655156
Por si no tenían bastante con los frentes abiertos en Irak y Afganistán, ahora la Casa Blanca acaba de iniciar otra guerra, esta vez con la cadena de televisión Fox News, propiedad del magnate de los medios de comunicación Rupert Murdoch, dueño del Wall Street Journal y el New York Post, entro otros periódicos. Entre el cruce de acusaciones de los últimos días, la cadena ha denunciado que Barack Obama no les concederá entrevistas hasta el próximo año.
[...]
Fue su directora de Comunicación, Anita Dunn, quien la semana pasada lanzó la primera piedra durante una entrevista a la cadena CNN, en la que acusó al canal de Murdoch de actuar como si fuera «el departamento de propaganda del Partido Republicano». Unos días más tarde, en declaraciones al New York Times, añadía que a partir de ahora la Fox será considerada como «un oponente más». Se da la circunstancia, lógica por otra parte, de que la Fox era la cadena preferida del Gobierno durante los ochos años de mandato de George Bush.
[...]
Ya hace un mes, al calor del debate sobre la reforma sanitaria, el líder estadounidense llegó a ofrecer entrevistas en un mismo día a cinco canales, pero dejó fuera a la televisión de Murdoch. Pero, además, el equipo de comunicación de la Casa Blanca ha puesto en marcha un blog para desmentir lo que llaman «las mentiras de la Fox».
La que fuera portavoz de la Casa Blanca durante la Administración Bush, Dana Perino, ha asegurado que la decisión del Gobierno de declarar la guerra a la Fox es una actuación «propia de dictadores de países en desarrollo». [A esto se le llama, «Un burro hablando de orejas»]
Leer más...[...]
Fue su directora de Comunicación, Anita Dunn, quien la semana pasada lanzó la primera piedra durante una entrevista a la cadena CNN, en la que acusó al canal de Murdoch de actuar como si fuera «el departamento de propaganda del Partido Republicano». Unos días más tarde, en declaraciones al New York Times, añadía que a partir de ahora la Fox será considerada como «un oponente más». Se da la circunstancia, lógica por otra parte, de que la Fox era la cadena preferida del Gobierno durante los ochos años de mandato de George Bush.
[...]
Ya hace un mes, al calor del debate sobre la reforma sanitaria, el líder estadounidense llegó a ofrecer entrevistas en un mismo día a cinco canales, pero dejó fuera a la televisión de Murdoch. Pero, además, el equipo de comunicación de la Casa Blanca ha puesto en marcha un blog para desmentir lo que llaman «las mentiras de la Fox».
La que fuera portavoz de la Casa Blanca durante la Administración Bush, Dana Perino, ha asegurado que la decisión del Gobierno de declarar la guerra a la Fox es una actuación «propia de dictadores de países en desarrollo». [A esto se le llama, «Un burro hablando de orejas»]
10.21.2009
10.20.2009
Barack Obama must act now on urgent UFO and Alien issues
http://www.allnewsweb.com/page9199694.php
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=f1095f5f-b155-42ca-8e3d-c065f023c20e)
by Michael Cohen
The better part of year has passed since Barack Obama was voted into office with a clear mandate for change given to him by a disillusioned electorate. Issues such as healthcare, poverty, corporate responsibility and education were discussed as key areas where action was needed. Less discussed, at least publicly, was the issue that might have even more catastrophic repercussions -if neglected: UFO and extraterrestrial affairs.
Sadly, fifty years have now passed since Roscoe Hillenkoetter, an admiral and former chief of the CIA, stated in a 1960 article in the New York Times,
"It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings. Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. Citizens are led to believe UFOs are nonsense. To hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel."
Many years have also passed since the UK's former Chief of Defence, Admiral Hill-Norton publicly stated,
"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background —a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee— why I think there is a cover-up of the facts about UFOs. Governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. I’ve said so in print. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space."
And yet we still wait. This doesn’t stop some brave souls willing to face official ‘ridicule’ from trying. Paul Hellyer, a past Canadian Minister of Defence, is one such individual.
"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough."
Concerned citizens lament the fact that the government hides its substantial knowledge on UFO and extraterrestrial matters, while concealing the technology they might have extracted from aliens. While evidence for alien visitation is irrefutable, the government continues the denial. Meanwhile the President is briefed in secret by scientists from NASA and the Pentagon on extraterrestrial developments and political alliances.
This presents a serious risk for Planet Earth. It has been confirmed that world leaders are aware that we might either stand at the edge of first contact or outright destruction. Aliens from this galaxy and others, such as Andromeda, have communicated to world leaders that we are to be told of their existence or otherwise possibly be completely destroyed. Excuses about upsetting power-structures and causing panic are reputedly no longer to be tolerated: Yet America’s political establishment continues to buy time and hide their frantic activity on this front from ordinary citizens.
As a parent myself, I[MC] fear, as do so many others, that my grandchildren will not get the opportunity to experience full lives due to decisions being made now by short-sighted politicians. There is no excuse whatsoever for concealing the reality of visiting alien beings or UFO events any longer.
Barack Obama, this is your chance to effect real change that will positively alter human existence forever. The people voted you in for this.
[Source: www.allnewsweb.com]The better part of year has passed since Barack Obama was voted into office with a clear mandate for change given to him by a disillusioned electorate. Issues such as healthcare, poverty, corporate responsibility and education were discussed as key areas where action was needed. Less discussed, at least publicly, was the issue that might have even more catastrophic repercussions -if neglected: UFO and extraterrestrial affairs.
Sadly, fifty years have now passed since Roscoe Hillenkoetter, an admiral and former chief of the CIA, stated in a 1960 article in the New York Times,
"It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings. Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. Citizens are led to believe UFOs are nonsense. To hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel."
Many years have also passed since the UK's former Chief of Defence, Admiral Hill-Norton publicly stated,
"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background —a former Chief of the Defence Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee— why I think there is a cover-up of the facts about UFOs. Governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. I’ve said so in print. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space."
And yet we still wait. This doesn’t stop some brave souls willing to face official ‘ridicule’ from trying. Paul Hellyer, a past Canadian Minister of Defence, is one such individual.
"We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough."
Concerned citizens lament the fact that the government hides its substantial knowledge on UFO and extraterrestrial matters, while concealing the technology they might have extracted from aliens. While evidence for alien visitation is irrefutable, the government continues the denial. Meanwhile the President is briefed in secret by scientists from NASA and the Pentagon on extraterrestrial developments and political alliances.
This presents a serious risk for Planet Earth. It has been confirmed that world leaders are aware that we might either stand at the edge of first contact or outright destruction. Aliens from this galaxy and others, such as Andromeda, have communicated to world leaders that we are to be told of their existence or otherwise possibly be completely destroyed. Excuses about upsetting power-structures and causing panic are reputedly no longer to be tolerated: Yet America’s political establishment continues to buy time and hide their frantic activity on this front from ordinary citizens.
As a parent myself, I[MC] fear, as do so many others, that my grandchildren will not get the opportunity to experience full lives due to decisions being made now by short-sighted politicians. There is no excuse whatsoever for concealing the reality of visiting alien beings or UFO events any longer.
Barack Obama, this is your chance to effect real change that will positively alter human existence forever. The people voted you in for this.
10.14.2009
Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15622
by Michel Chossudovsky
When war becomes peace,
When concepts and realities are turned upside down,
When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.
When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,
When the killing of civilians is upheld as "collateral damage",
When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as "insurgents" or "terrorists".
When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self defense.
When advanced torture and "interrogation" techniques are routinely used to "protect peacekeeping operations",
When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population",
When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as "national defense",
When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,
When the Lie becomes the Truth.
Please, read more...
When war becomes peace,
When concepts and realities are turned upside down,
When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.
When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,
When the killing of civilians is upheld as "collateral damage",
When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as "insurgents" or "terrorists".
When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self defense.
When advanced torture and "interrogation" techniques are routinely used to "protect peacekeeping operations",
When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population",
When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as "national defense",
When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,
When the Lie becomes the Truth.
10.06.2009
Obama Versus Blogosphere
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/09/dear-president-obama-blogs-fact-check.html
Problems with the mainstream reporting:
In fact, many of the world's top PhD economics professors and financial advisors have their own blogs...
The same is true in every other field: politics, science, history, international relations, etc.
So what is "news"? What the largest newspapers choose to cover? Or what various leading experts are saying - and oftentimes heatedly debating one against the other?
As blogger Michael Rivero pointed out years ago, mainstream newspapers aren't losing readers because of the Internet as an abstract new medium. They are losing readers because they have become nothing but official stenographers for the powers-that-be, and people have lost all faith in them.
Indeed, only 5% of the pundits discussing various government bailout plans on cable news shows are real economists. Why not hear what real economists and financial experts say?
[Source: www.washingtonsblog.com]
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=0a1cc127-09ba-47da-9e89-e16cdf7768f8)
[Media monopolization since the 1980s]
"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding."
· Barack Obama ·
Problems with the mainstream reporting:
- Widespread self-censorship by journalists.
- Censorship from editors and producers.
- Pro-war bias.
- Government censorship.
- And, of course, money.
In fact, many of the world's top PhD economics professors and financial advisors have their own blogs...
The same is true in every other field: politics, science, history, international relations, etc.
So what is "news"? What the largest newspapers choose to cover? Or what various leading experts are saying - and oftentimes heatedly debating one against the other?
As blogger Michael Rivero pointed out years ago, mainstream newspapers aren't losing readers because of the Internet as an abstract new medium. They are losing readers because they have become nothing but official stenographers for the powers-that-be, and people have lost all faith in them.
Indeed, only 5% of the pundits discussing various government bailout plans on cable news shows are real economists. Why not hear what real economists and financial experts say?
"In reality, the best blogs offer far more fact-checking and
context than the mainstream media."
· Washington's Blog ·
9.07.2009
Could George W. Bush end up behind bars?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/mann.george.w.bush/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=67acce95-366c-43ee-a3f2-b73264dd974b)
Could George W. Bush or some of his top aides end up behind bars?
It's extremely unlikely, but the Obama administration is taking its first steps along a path that could lead in that direction, with the investigation of Central Intelligence Agency interrogators involved in the war on terror.
"You don't know where these things are going to end up," former CIA agent Peter Brookes told me. "They could go to very high levels in the government."
[...]
Republicans immediately criticized the new investigation and even some Democrats said it would be unpopular.
"This is not very good politically for the administration," said Democratic strategist James Carville.
[...]
The American Civil Liberties Union, an activist organization that campaigns against prisoner abuse, says "any investigation that truly follows the facts where they lead would inevitably lead to prosecutions of high government officials."
Does it sound far-fetched [now]?
One Bush administration legal advisor, Jack Goldsmith, says his colleagues were acutely conscious that the president or his advisors could someday be investigated for the steps they took or approved after 9/11.
Read more...It's extremely unlikely, but the Obama administration is taking its first steps along a path that could lead in that direction, with the investigation of Central Intelligence Agency interrogators involved in the war on terror.
"You don't know where these things are going to end up," former CIA agent Peter Brookes told me. "They could go to very high levels in the government."
[...]
Republicans immediately criticized the new investigation and even some Democrats said it would be unpopular.
"This is not very good politically for the administration," said Democratic strategist James Carville.
[...]
The American Civil Liberties Union, an activist organization that campaigns against prisoner abuse, says "any investigation that truly follows the facts where they lead would inevitably lead to prosecutions of high government officials."
Does it sound far-fetched [now]?
One Bush administration legal advisor, Jack Goldsmith, says his colleagues were acutely conscious that the president or his advisors could someday be investigated for the steps they took or approved after 9/11.
8.30.2009
Las bases militares gringas...
"USA tiene alrededor de 740 bases militares en todo el mundo,
esas bases no tienen por objeto combatir el narcotráfico o el terrorismo,
sino defender los intereses imperiales de Estados Unidos."
esas bases no tienen por objeto combatir el narcotráfico o el terrorismo,
sino defender los intereses imperiales de Estados Unidos."
· Antonio Caballero ·
Y esos intereses no pasan por los pretextos aducidos para la instalación de las bases, como fingen creer quienes las defienden : la ayuda a los gobiernos locales para combatir el terrorismo, y la ayuda para combatir el narcotráfico.
La ayuda contra el terrorismo -o sea, en el caso colombiano, la intervención en la guerra interna contra la subversión de las Farc- estaba explícitamente excluida del Plan Colombia tal como se firmó en tiempos de Andrés Pastrana y Bill Clinton. Sólo empezó a operar, bajo George Bush (y Pastrana : y creo recordar que sin consulta al Congreso), tras los ataques contra las Torres Gemelas de Manhattan, en 2001, cuando el gobierno norteamericano proclamó la "cruzada global contra el terrorismo" : con el resultado, visible para quien quiera verlo, de que el terrorismo se ha multiplicado en el mundo. Pues en todas partes las guerras internas se agravan cuando los Estados Unidos deciden "ayudar" : hasta en Irlanda.
En cuanto al narcotráfico, no está en los intereses de los Estados Unidos el acabar con él. Siempre han dicho, por lo demás, que sólo pretenden reducirlo a la mitad (con el consiguiente efecto de encarecer la droga, mejorando así el negocio de las mafias que la controlan) ; pero ni eso han conseguido. Donde llegan las tropas gringas se dispara el consumo de droga. Y en cuanto a la producción, ¿se ha visto -por ejemplo- que la de opio haya disminuido en Afganistán desde que el gobierno de Bush les declaró la guerra (que sigue) a los talibanes ? Al revés : se ha multiplicado. No sobra recordar que el consumo masivo de drogas es una invención norteamericana, que data de los tiempos de la guerra del Vietnam. Y, de pasada, que el negocio de la droga comenzó en Colombia -en los tiempos bucólicos y casi incruentos de la bonanza marimbera de los guajiros y los samarios- de la mano de los pilotos gringos veteranos del Vietnam que hicieron los primeros embarques. Y, por otra parte, treinta años de experiencia enseñan -o deberían enseñar a quien no esté voluntariamente ciego- que la guerra contra la droga es un completo fracaso, y ha agravado el problema en lugar de resolverlo.
Los que afirman, con aparente seriedad, que esa batalla se está ganando en Colombia, ¿es que no miran en torno ? ¿Es que el elefante de la droga se mueve sigilosamente "a sus espaldas", como decía Ernesto Samper cuando descubrió que había ganado la Presidencia comprando las elecciones con dinero del cartel de Cali ? Álvaro Uribe, al pedirles a sus parlamentarios que le votaran sus proyectos "antes de ir a la cárcel", reconoció tácitamente que también él le debía su presidencia a la droga : a los votos que los narcoparamilitares les pusieron a los candidatos del uribismo, y por supuesto a Uribe mismo, en las regiones rurales. Cualquiera que quiera ver ve que la droga sigue siendo el eje de la economía y la política colombianas. ¿O es que de verdad cree alguien que sólo las Farc la manejan ? No, también las Farc. Y en cuanto a los que dicen, también con aparente seriedad, que gracias a la ayuda gringa (de la base de Manta en el Ecuador) se han podido hacer grandes incautaciones de droga que salía de Colombia rumbo a los Estados Unidos, en esas aguas territoriales colombianas cuyo control les debió Samper a los norteamericanos para que no se lo llevaran preso por narcotraficante, como habían hecho con el panameño Manuel Antonio Noriega ¿es que no se les ha ocurrido que sería más fácil -o por lo menos igual de difícil- hacer esas incautaciones en aguas norteamericanas, a la entrada, y desde bases en territorio norteamericano ? Porque la droga sale de aquí : pero entra allá.
No : las bases militares estadounidenses -alrededor de 740 en todo el mundo- no tienen por objeto ayudar a perseguir el terrorismo ni ayudar a combatir el narcotráfico (al margen de que cuando lo hacen agrandan el problema). Tienen por objeto, desde la de Diego García en el océano Índico o la de Rota en España hasta la de Palmerola en Honduras y la de Palanquero en Colombia, defender los intereses imperiales de los Estados Unidos. Y esta defensa ha requerido numerosas invasiones a países latinoamericanos y aún más numerosos golpes militares (el más reciente es el de Honduras, hace un mes), como deberían saber los que defienden las bases, a la vez que niegan que sean bases.
Y si se engañan ellos mismos creyendo que el imperio es su amigo, que recuerden la suerte corrida por quienes se creían amigos del imperio : Mobutu del Congo, el Sha de Irán. Hasta Saddam Hussein de Irak se creyó su amigo cuando le dieron armas para que le hiciera la guerra a la Revolución Islámica de su vecino Irán : una guerra que a los dos países les costó millones de muertos.
Tiene razón Hugo Chávez cuando teme que las bases en Colombia tengan algo que ver con su Revolución Bolivariana. Lo laman paranoico. Es sólo realista.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=99b264f5-f23b-475b-8305-d0c72f360906)
7.28.2009
Obama Forces Smash Israeli Spy Ring Responsible For 9/11 & $18 Trillion Theft
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1257.htm
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=9723710a-75d1-4541-94ee-e09111038151)
by Sorcha Faal
FSB reports circulating in the Kremlin today[July 24, 2009] are reporting that forces loyal to President Barack Obama have begun their long awaited crackdown on the vast Israeli spy network operating in the United States that American Intelligence Officials have long blamed for the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks upon their country and the massive theft of over $18 Trillion.
According to these reports, and which have been confirmed by Western news sources, US Federal Police Forces have arrested the leader of this vast Israeli spy ring who they have identified as Rabbi Saul J. Kassin[above], and who is the 87-year-old leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the United States.
Please, read more...FSB reports circulating in the Kremlin today[July 24, 2009] are reporting that forces loyal to President Barack Obama have begun their long awaited crackdown on the vast Israeli spy network operating in the United States that American Intelligence Officials have long blamed for the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks upon their country and the massive theft of over $18 Trillion.
According to these reports, and which have been confirmed by Western news sources, US Federal Police Forces have arrested the leader of this vast Israeli spy ring who they have identified as Rabbi Saul J. Kassin[above], and who is the 87-year-old leader of the Sephardic Jewish community in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
