[UFO Moscow - 12.09.2009, night...]
[UFO Moscow - 12.10.2009, morning...]
12.10.2009
H.R. 1507 IN - Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009
To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, relating to disclosures of information protected from prohibited personnel practices, and for other purposes.
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.
'V': el retorno de los visitantes
· "Antes hubiese concluido: un departamento de ovnis cerrado, una tontería menos."
http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20091210/53842248949/v-el-retorno-de-los-visitantes-gran-bretana-culturas-sant-pau-reuters-brasil-tdt-raf.html
por Quim Monzó
Tras más de medio siglo de existencia, el Ministerio de Defensa británico ha clausurado el departamento que investigaba los ovnis que se ven en aquel país. Costaba una pasta injustificable, puesto que, en cincuenta años, no han dado con ninguna evidencia de nada[Seguro, Quim?]. En los últimos tiempos, sólo había ya un oficial, que se encargaba de leer y escuchar los mensajes de los ciudadanos que explicaban que habían visto alguno. Los datos exactos los da un despacho de Reuters:
A partir de ahora, las amenazas extraterrestres serán controladas como cualquier otra amenaza[Lo extraterrestre no tiene por qué ser una amenaza, Quim] aérea: con radares y con los aviones de la RAF.
Es una noticia a la que, antes de octubre, yo apenas hubiese prestado atención. Hubiese concluido:
Pero hace dos meses saltó a la prensa la noticia de que Robert Llimós había visto un platillo volante. El pintor Llimós estaba en Brasil, en Fortaleza, pintando dunas. De pronto vio un platillo que se acercaba e intentaba hipnotizarle. Como sus ocupantes no lo consiguieron, lo escanearon. Finalmente vio a dos seres de ojos grandes y rasgados. Explica Llimós que, hasta ese avistamiento, a él todo eso de los extraterrestres no le interesaba. Mantenía la misma distancia escéptica que mantiene la mayoría de la humanidad, a excepción de Sebastià d'Arbó y algunos otros. Por eso a Llimós le debe de ser fácil entender que la gente dude de sus palabras. A propósito de Llimós, semanas atrás Juan Bufill escribió en el suplemento Cultura/s de este diario:
Eso es exactamente lo que nos pasa a muchos con Llimós. Yo, de alienígenas he oído muchas historias, pero siempre de boca de gente que me la repampinfla. Pero, caray, Llimós es Llimós, un grandísimo pintor y escultor, una persona inteligente. Con Llimós he bebido en más de una ocasión y de dos, en bares y en alguna fiesta, e incluso he comido con él (en el hotel España de la calle Sant Pau, por ejemplo), y no me parece un tarambana. Por tanto, si Llimós dice que ha entrado en contacto con ellos, me lo creo, por mucho que el Ministerio de Defensa británico haya decidido pasar definitivamente.
[Fuente: www.lavanguardia.es]Tras más de medio siglo de existencia, el Ministerio de Defensa británico ha clausurado el departamento que investigaba los ovnis que se ven en aquel país. Costaba una pasta injustificable, puesto que, en cincuenta años, no han dado con ninguna evidencia de nada[Seguro, Quim?]. En los últimos tiempos, sólo había ya un oficial, que se encargaba de leer y escuchar los mensajes de los ciudadanos que explicaban que habían visto alguno. Los datos exactos los da un despacho de Reuters:
"El portavoz del ministerio dijo que no habían encontrado pruebas de amenaza alguna contra Gran Bretaña, ni de la existencia de extraterrestres, a pesar de los miles de avisos de personas que dicen haber visto ovnis, tanto al teléfono directo del ministerio como al correo electrónico. Dijo también que no tienen opinión ninguna sobre la existencia o no de vida extraterrestre".
A partir de ahora, las amenazas extraterrestres serán controladas como cualquier otra amenaza[Lo extraterrestre no tiene por qué ser una amenaza, Quim] aérea: con radares y con los aviones de la RAF.
Es una noticia a la que, antes de octubre, yo apenas hubiese prestado atención. Hubiese concluido:
"Un departamento de ovnis cerrado, una tontería menos."
Pero hace dos meses saltó a la prensa la noticia de que Robert Llimós había visto un platillo volante. El pintor Llimós estaba en Brasil, en Fortaleza, pintando dunas. De pronto vio un platillo que se acercaba e intentaba hipnotizarle. Como sus ocupantes no lo consiguieron, lo escanearon. Finalmente vio a dos seres de ojos grandes y rasgados. Explica Llimós que, hasta ese avistamiento, a él todo eso de los extraterrestres no le interesaba. Mantenía la misma distancia escéptica que mantiene la mayoría de la humanidad, a excepción de Sebastià d'Arbó y algunos otros. Por eso a Llimós le debe de ser fácil entender que la gente dude de sus palabras. A propósito de Llimós, semanas atrás Juan Bufill escribió en el suplemento Cultura/s de este diario:
"Hasta hace unos días no había conocido a nadie que afirmara seriamente haber tenido contacto con alienígenas."
Eso es exactamente lo que nos pasa a muchos con Llimós. Yo, de alienígenas he oído muchas historias, pero siempre de boca de gente que me la repampinfla. Pero, caray, Llimós es Llimós, un grandísimo pintor y escultor, una persona inteligente. Con Llimós he bebido en más de una ocasión y de dos, en bares y en alguna fiesta, e incluso he comido con él (en el hotel España de la calle Sant Pau, por ejemplo), y no me parece un tarambana. Por tanto, si Llimós dice que ha entrado en contacto con ellos, me lo creo, por mucho que el Ministerio de Defensa británico haya decidido pasar definitivamente.
12.09.2009
Desnudando el emperador: de como El País y La Vanguardia atacan de nuevo a Teresa Forcades
http://www.crisiseconomica2010.com/Inicio/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/312/Desnudando-el-emperador-de-como-El-Pais-y-La-Vanguardia-atacan-de-nuevo-a-Teresa-Forcades.aspx
Los grandes medios arremeten de nuevo contra nuestra inteligencia. Nos insultan una vez más. Creo que no se puede definir de una manera distinta lo que están haciendo. El País, La Vanguardia, y los demás que forman parte del mismo convoy, vuelven a mostrar que el tema les preocupa… “El tema” se llama Teresa Forcades. Pero en esta ocasión “el tema” se llama también Congreso de Ciencia y Espíritu.
[...]
Esta vez tenían fácil el ataque. Esta vez es el entorno lo que –según dicen- hace que el mensaje de Teresa pierda validez. Esta vez resulta que Teresa sí es inteligente… pero está mal aconsejada, como decían los padres incompetentes para evitar aceptar que su hijo sabía lo que hacía, cuando actuaba en contra de su voluntad. O sea, Teresa es inteligente pero no ha sabido elegir bien de quién se rodea.
Así se pregunta el prestidigitador de turno, que esta vez se llama Francesc-Marc Álvaro, y que vende sus servicios desinformadores a La Vanguardia, y que concluye así su artículo:
Por su parte, El País ha encargado a Josep Garriga un artículo de diseño: “Forcades, entre ciencia y espíritu”, en alusión al propio título del congreso. Se percataron de que el anterior, “Desmontando a la monja-bulo”, consiguió exactamente lo contrario de lo que se proponía, es decir, dar publicidad a las tesis de Forcades. Les había salido el tiro por la culata. En consecuencia, decidieron refinar el estilo. Pero el ardid periodístico-trilero es el mismo que el empleado por La Vanguardia: invalidar el mensaje de Teresa desviando la atención hacia el entorno y desacreditándolo.
A pesar del pretendido refinamiento, el artículo en El País empieza disparando:
En La Vanguardia, con su artículo “Forcades y lo irracional”, Francesc-Marc Álvaro nos explica lo que hay:
O, sea, esto es lo que hay: UN DISCURSO OFICIAL SOBRE LA GRIPE A Y LAS VACUNAS en el que Forcades “se cuela”. Francesc-Marc Álvaro lo ha entendido bien, y nos lo explica a todos para que también lo entendamos. Nuestro prestidigitador de turno nos aclara que los especialistas son exclusivamente los que apoyan el discurso oficial. Los que se alejan de él, se están colando en una fiesta en la que no han sido invitados.
Lo que nos temíamos… los únicos especialistas verdaderos, los que son invitados a manifestar su criterio en periódicos y televisiones, son los que han sido contratados por el Emperador para confeccionar su traje. Ellos, y los prestidigitadores de la palabra que, con una verborrea que no resiste el menor análisis serio, ni lo merece, llenan cada día las páginas de los periódicos por los que pagamos.
El Emperador está desnudo, y está haciendo el ridículo. Pero los periodistas firmantes de estos artículos o no se han enterado o no se quieren enterar. Ellos siguen apoyando el Discurso Oficial del Emperador: aquel que no sepa apreciar su maravilloso traje es tonto… Supongo que es por eso, porque no quieren parecer tontos, que sofocan, aplastan y ridiculizan las voces que no aprecian un traje que no existe.
Leer más...
[...]
Esta vez tenían fácil el ataque. Esta vez es el entorno lo que –según dicen- hace que el mensaje de Teresa pierda validez. Esta vez resulta que Teresa sí es inteligente… pero está mal aconsejada, como decían los padres incompetentes para evitar aceptar que su hijo sabía lo que hacía, cuando actuaba en contra de su voluntad. O sea, Teresa es inteligente pero no ha sabido elegir bien de quién se rodea.
¿“Sabía Forcades, cuando aceptó hablar en ese foro, que tomaba parte de un festival impresentable de extravagancias y esoterismos a granel? Me extraña que una mujer inteligente y preparada no tuviera en cuenta los efectos negativos que conlleva el insólito contexto donde fue invitada a exponer su criterio”…
Así se pregunta el prestidigitador de turno, que esta vez se llama Francesc-Marc Álvaro, y que vende sus servicios desinformadores a La Vanguardia, y que concluye así su artículo:
“La paradoja desconcertante es que alguien que se hace escuchar con argumentos racionales (médicos) acabe absorbido finalmente por la barraca de feria del irracionalismo más delirante”.
Por su parte, El País ha encargado a Josep Garriga un artículo de diseño: “Forcades, entre ciencia y espíritu”, en alusión al propio título del congreso. Se percataron de que el anterior, “Desmontando a la monja-bulo”, consiguió exactamente lo contrario de lo que se proponía, es decir, dar publicidad a las tesis de Forcades. Les había salido el tiro por la culata. En consecuencia, decidieron refinar el estilo. Pero el ardid periodístico-trilero es el mismo que el empleado por La Vanguardia: invalidar el mensaje de Teresa desviando la atención hacia el entorno y desacreditándolo.
A pesar del pretendido refinamiento, el artículo en El País empieza disparando:
“Barcelona ha reunido este fin de semana a un amplio grupo mundial de amantes de las teorías de la conspiración, místicos estudiosos de la Biblia de la era cuántica y visionarios de espíritus de la naturaleza, maestros ascendidos y extraterrestres”.
En La Vanguardia, con su artículo “Forcades y lo irracional”, Francesc-Marc Álvaro nos explica lo que hay:
“Al impugnar el discurso oficial sobre la gripe A y las vacunas, Forcades usa argumentos racionales, con lo cual se cuela, con conocimiento de causa, en un debate exclusivo de los especialistas y las autoridades públicas”.
O, sea, esto es lo que hay: UN DISCURSO OFICIAL SOBRE LA GRIPE A Y LAS VACUNAS en el que Forcades “se cuela”. Francesc-Marc Álvaro lo ha entendido bien, y nos lo explica a todos para que también lo entendamos. Nuestro prestidigitador de turno nos aclara que los especialistas son exclusivamente los que apoyan el discurso oficial. Los que se alejan de él, se están colando en una fiesta en la que no han sido invitados.
Lo que nos temíamos… los únicos especialistas verdaderos, los que son invitados a manifestar su criterio en periódicos y televisiones, son los que han sido contratados por el Emperador para confeccionar su traje. Ellos, y los prestidigitadores de la palabra que, con una verborrea que no resiste el menor análisis serio, ni lo merece, llenan cada día las páginas de los periódicos por los que pagamos.
El Emperador está desnudo, y está haciendo el ridículo. Pero los periodistas firmantes de estos artículos o no se han enterado o no se quieren enterar. Ellos siguen apoyando el Discurso Oficial del Emperador: aquel que no sepa apreciar su maravilloso traje es tonto… Supongo que es por eso, porque no quieren parecer tontos, que sofocan, aplastan y ridiculizan las voces que no aprecian un traje que no existe.
Mystery as spiral blue light display hovers above Norway
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1234430/Mystery-spiral-blue-light-display-hovers-Norway.html
[Here, the videos...]
A mysterious light display appearing over Norway last night has left thousands of residents in the north of the country baffled.
Witnesses from Trøndelag to Finnmark compared the amazing sight to anything from a Russian rocket to a meteor or a shock wave - although no one appears to have mentioned UFOs yet.
The phenomenon began when what appeared to be a blue light seemed to soar up from behind a mountain. It stopped mid-air, then began to circulate.
Within seconds a giant spiral had covered the entire sky. Then a green-blue beam of light shot out from its centre - lasting for ten to twelve minutes before disappearing completely.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute was flooded with telephone calls after the light storm - which astronomers have said did not appear to have been connected to the aurora, or Northern Lights, so common in that area of the world.
The mystery deepened tonight as Russia denied it had been conducting missile tests in the area.
Fred Hansen, from Bø in Vesterålen, described the sight as 'like a big fireball that went around, with a great light around it again.'
'It spun and exploded in the sky,' Totto Eriksen from Tromsø told VG Nett.
He spotted the lights as he walked his daughter Amalie to school.
He said: 'We saw it from the Inner Harbor in Tromsø. It was absolutely fantastic.
'It almost looked like a rocket that spun around and around and then went diagonally down the heavens.
'It looked like the moon was coming over the mountain, but then came something completely different.'
'It was like a giant spiral - a shooting star that spun around and around. I initially thought it was a projector', added Axel Rose Berg, from Alta.
Read more...Witnesses from Trøndelag to Finnmark compared the amazing sight to anything from a Russian rocket to a meteor or a shock wave - although no one appears to have mentioned UFOs yet.
The phenomenon began when what appeared to be a blue light seemed to soar up from behind a mountain. It stopped mid-air, then began to circulate.
Within seconds a giant spiral had covered the entire sky. Then a green-blue beam of light shot out from its centre - lasting for ten to twelve minutes before disappearing completely.
The Norwegian Meteorological Institute was flooded with telephone calls after the light storm - which astronomers have said did not appear to have been connected to the aurora, or Northern Lights, so common in that area of the world.
The mystery deepened tonight as Russia denied it had been conducting missile tests in the area.
Fred Hansen, from Bø in Vesterålen, described the sight as 'like a big fireball that went around, with a great light around it again.'
'It spun and exploded in the sky,' Totto Eriksen from Tromsø told VG Nett.
He spotted the lights as he walked his daughter Amalie to school.
He said: 'We saw it from the Inner Harbor in Tromsø. It was absolutely fantastic.
'It almost looked like a rocket that spun around and around and then went diagonally down the heavens.
'It looked like the moon was coming over the mountain, but then came something completely different.'
'It was like a giant spiral - a shooting star that spun around and around. I initially thought it was a projector', added Axel Rose Berg, from Alta.
[Here, the videos...]
The NSA... for Kids!
http://www.nsa.gov/kids/home_html.shtml
[NSA & Child Endoctrination...]
[NSA & Child Endoctrination...]
CryptoKids™ America's Future Codemakers & Codebreakers
Hi Kids!
Welcome to the NSA/CSS Kids’ page.
We’re the CryptoKids and we love cryptology.
What’s cryptology? Cryptology is making and breaking codes. It’s so cool[!!!]. We make codes so we can send secret messages to our friends. And we try to figure out what other people are writing about by breaking their codes. It’s a lot of fun[!!!].
On this site, you can learn all about codes and ciphers, play lots of games and activities, and get to know each of us - Crypto Cat™, Decipher Dog™, Rosetta Stone, Slate, Joules, T.Top, and, of course, our leader CSS Sam.
You can also learn about the National Security Agency/Central Security Service - they’re America’s real codemakers and codebreakers. Our Nation’s leaders and warfighters count on the technology and information they get from NSA/CSS to get their jobs done. Without NSA/CSS, they wouldn’t be able to talk to one another without the bad guys listening and they wouldn’t be able to figure out what the bad guys were planning.
We hope you have lots of fun learning about cryptology and NSA/CSS. You might be part of the next generation of America’s codemakers and codebreakers.[!!!!!]
Read more...
Hi Kids!
Welcome to the NSA/CSS Kids’ page.
We’re the CryptoKids and we love cryptology.
What’s cryptology? Cryptology is making and breaking codes. It’s so cool[!!!]. We make codes so we can send secret messages to our friends. And we try to figure out what other people are writing about by breaking their codes. It’s a lot of fun[!!!].
On this site, you can learn all about codes and ciphers, play lots of games and activities, and get to know each of us - Crypto Cat™, Decipher Dog™, Rosetta Stone, Slate, Joules, T.Top, and, of course, our leader CSS Sam.
You can also learn about the National Security Agency/Central Security Service - they’re America’s real codemakers and codebreakers. Our Nation’s leaders and warfighters count on the technology and information they get from NSA/CSS to get their jobs done. Without NSA/CSS, they wouldn’t be able to talk to one another without the bad guys listening and they wouldn’t be able to figure out what the bad guys were planning.
We hope you have lots of fun learning about cryptology and NSA/CSS. You might be part of the next generation of America’s codemakers and codebreakers.[!!!!!]
NSA's "UFO Documents Index"
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ufo/index.shtml
UFO Documents Index - NSA & CSS
[Source: www.nsa.gov]
"The documents listed on this page were located in response to the numerous requests received by NSA on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO). In 1980, NSA was involved in Civil Action No. 80-1562, 'Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency'. Documents related to that ligitation are marked with '*'. 'XXXXX' has been inserted in a title if a portion of the title has been deleted prior to release."
[Interesting to note is the Communications Intelligence (COMINT) reports, that are now declassified (into parts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J), used to have 'Top Secret Umbra' clearance... not even the (US) president had access to these COMINT reports. And now they're declassified??? NSA may have been forced (by who, really? Who can actually 'tell' the NSA what to do?) into declassifying, by the afore mentioned Civil Action No. 80-1562, 'Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency'... or, so the NSA says so. In any case, anything the NSA has to say has to be met with the utmost skepticism... just to be safe.]
UFO Documents Index - NSA & CSS
- * In Camera Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates - Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. NSA (Civil Action No. 80-1562)
- * Communications Intelligence (COMINT) reports
- * Affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates - Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. NSA (Civil Action No. 80-1562)
- "U.F.O. Files: The Untold Story" by Patrick Huyghe
- "Govt.'s Super-Secret Security Agency Warns: Take UFOs Seriously or Be Prepared for Sneak Invasion by Space Aliens" by Thomas L. Muldoon, National Enquirer
- "The U.S. Government and the Iran Case"- IUR Report
- "Report of U.F.O. Crash in '47 Called False by Science Panel"- The New York Times
- "What the U.S. Government Knows About UnidentifiedFlying Objects" by Peter Gersten, Frontiers of Science
- "Is the CIA Stonewalling?" by Richard Hall
- "The Government and UFOs"
- "UFO As Advanced Technology"
- "French Government UFO Study"
- Communications Intelligence (COMINT) report - "XXXXX Unidentified Flying Objects"
- COMNAVSECGRU visual sighting report
- "Report Bibliography" issued by the Defense Documentation Center
- "Now You See It, Now You Don't" by Captain Henry S. Shields, HQ USAFE/INOMP
- Joint Chiefs of Staff report concerning the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976
- Exploitation Report - A Fragment, Metal Recovered in the Republic of the Congo
- Navy report - Country: Cuba, Subject: UFO
- Routing and Transmittal Slip from Louis E. Foster, DIA with a DIA summary sheet and US Defense Attache report on the sighting of a UFO in Iran on 19 September 1976
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Flying Saucers Are a Myth
- Department of State report - Subject: Tunisian Firefall
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Celestial Body Observed over Antarctica
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Political Report for August 1965
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Sighting of Object Possibly Originating from Space Vehicle
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects Reported Over Angola
- Department of State AIRGRAM - Subject: Report of Unidentified Object Which Fell Near Municipio of General Teran, N.L.
- American Embassy Tunis report - Subject: Unidentified Flying Objects
- Report from Air Force Special Security Office - Subject: (Unclassified) UFOB NEAC Area
- General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Steven H. Schiff, House of Representatives - Government Records - Results of a Search for Records Concerning the 1947 Crash Near Roswell, New Mexico
- * Memorandum and Order - Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. National Security Agency (Civil Action No. 80-1562)
- "Communication With Extraterrestrial Intelligence" by Lambros D. Callimahos
- * "UFO Hypothesis and Survival Questions"
- * "UFO's and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data"
- Memorandum for the Record - Subject: Information Request Solicitation
- United States Air Force Fact Sheet 95-03 - "Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book"
- Report of Air Force Research Regarding the "Roswell Incident"
- JANAP 146
- Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne
- Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
An analysis of the text shows deep unease over details. In particular, it is understood to:
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
An analysis of the text shows deep unease over details. In particular, it is understood to:
- Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;
- Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";
- Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;
- Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.
"These organizations, like the Round Table, are made up of inner and outer circles. The inner circle knows the Agenda and works full time to achieve it. The next circle knows much of the Agenda and works to that end in their particular sphere of influence. The next circle is pretty much in the dark about the real Agenda, but is manipulated to make the 'right' decisions in their area of operation without knowing the true reason for them."-David Icke, 'The Biggest Secret'
Rumours that first dark matter particle found
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/rumours-that-first-dark-matter.html
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uvRDgfM2NKutz4k7jF0FofsxtljSb18Lo99fmSY1ge5lmXcSW3RRMlI7t8fI1ts4r_ykUa_YErxmo99w-8tX-g6xF4a3XqTLCuDi95ojzs0hfkEJc8NJK5aEKxz5gAwMSaHgHjkN5-SrIA4CBkyqm3=s0-d)
The physics blogs are abuzz with rumours that a particle of dark matter has finally been found.
If it is true, it is huge news. Dark matter is thought to make up 90 per cent of the universe's mass and what evidence there is for it remains highly controversial. That's why any news of a sighting is seized upon.
The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment is one of several designed to look for the tell-tale signature of dark matter particles passing through. No one is sure what a dark matter particle will look like, though theory gives some pointers.
Most of the experiments have been designed to look for elusive massive particles called WIMPS that barely register as they pass through matter, because the only forces they experience are gravity and the weak nuclear force.
[...]
The gossip mill went into overdrive after a rumour leaked out that the CDMS collaboration has had a paper accepted by the journal Nature. Word is that the paper will appear in the 18 December issue.
We'll have to wait and see if the rumours turn out to be true. Even if not, with NASA's Fermi satellite looking for dark matter in space and the Large Hadron Collider up and running, 2010 could be the year we finally crack the dark matter mystery.
Read more...If it is true, it is huge news. Dark matter is thought to make up 90 per cent of the universe's mass and what evidence there is for it remains highly controversial. That's why any news of a sighting is seized upon.
The Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment is one of several designed to look for the tell-tale signature of dark matter particles passing through. No one is sure what a dark matter particle will look like, though theory gives some pointers.
Most of the experiments have been designed to look for elusive massive particles called WIMPS that barely register as they pass through matter, because the only forces they experience are gravity and the weak nuclear force.
[...]
The gossip mill went into overdrive after a rumour leaked out that the CDMS collaboration has had a paper accepted by the journal Nature. Word is that the paper will appear in the 18 December issue.
We'll have to wait and see if the rumours turn out to be true. Even if not, with NASA's Fermi satellite looking for dark matter in space and the Large Hadron Collider up and running, 2010 could be the year we finally crack the dark matter mystery.
12.08.2009
Ed Grimsley: Star Wars?
Neil & Jake Gould expose actual infrared footage of the Secret Government's Space Fleet, piloted by Non Terrestrial Officers. The technology concerned is antigravity, taken from their UFO crash retrievals or given through technology exchange program with ETs. Financed without congressional oversight and paid for by an unsuspecting American public, these forces are now trying to extradite Gary McKinnon to the USA to ensure his silence; under the guise of his damaging of NASA computers. What are they hiding? Watch as Neil, Jake and Ed Grimsley show you first hand evidence of these craft at 200 miles altitude moving at an alleged 30,000 MPH.
CIA Operated Aerial Spraying Plane Carrying "Mutated" Virus Shot Down in China
http://preventdisease.com/news/09/113009_CIA_operated_H1N1_aerial_spraying_plane_shot_down.shtml
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uc6EJP3Q2mleP6e3wMyV_EsDUI8pz3ELKWOhukZB6jNOsyCY0wN3q8FWTpXV2cnFklSJWCF9b5Rp_pfb_WzAQ_m0I0_7zC96Jyot68xOgHFquPieLMtN-FEVlbnZEW_PlKJ9OLlLK3rm18Lzedcsds=s0-d)
Reports circulating in the Kremlin are stating that a US-government contracted airplane, piloted by American CIA agents and carrying a cargo of a "mutated" swine flu virus -intended for aerial spraying, was shot down at China's Shanghai Pudong airport by a saboteur team of, what are believed to be, Israeli Mossad soldiers; seeking to prevent an American attack upon one of their Central Asian bases, located in the Central Asian Nation of Kyrgyzstan.
[...]
Most interesting to note in these reports, of the victims of this plane shootdown, is that the Indonesian man -currently being treated for his injuries, has 'confessed' to Chinese secret police forces, that he is a technician employed by the United States Navy at their mysterious Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2 (NAMRU-2), located in Indonesia; and that Indonesian Defense Minister, Juwono Sudarsono, had previously called for the closing of, "because its operations were too secretive and were incompatible with Indonesia’s security interests."
Even more interesting to note about this US Navy secret bio-weapons base in Indonesia (the World’s largest Muslim nation), is that it was established in cooperation with the Rockefeller Institute, especially with it being the main center for the American Viral Diseases Program (VDP) they describe as the research of "epidemiologic and laboratory research on viral hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, encephalitis, and rickettsioses" and the head of this institute, David Rockefeller, long calling for a massive reduction in our World’s population.
[...]
The strange thing about these reports and arrests, as well as the forcing down of the planes, is that these aircrafts were carrying "waste disposal" systems that could spray up to 45000kg or 100pounds of aerial type mist from a sophisticated network of nano pipes installed throughout the trailing edges of the wings thereby dispersing whatever was in these tanks through a mist."
[...]
Important to also note in these reports is that the US spray-plane shot down in China was reported to be targeting a secret Israeli base located in the Central Asian Nation of Kyrgyzstan, which many Ashkenazi Jews (Ashkenazi Jews make up approximately 80% of Jews Worldwide) consider their 'spiritual homeland' after their long exile under Soviet Communist rule, and where Russian Intelligence Analysts report the Israelis are nearing the end of their decades-long deciphering of the ancient Epic of Manas manuscript (with close to half a million lines the Epic of Manas is twenty times longer than Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad combined), which they believe contains our World’s oldest warning to our present age and which (coincidentally?) agrees with the ancient Mayan peoples that the year 2012 will see the ending of our present age.
Read more...[...]
Most interesting to note in these reports, of the victims of this plane shootdown, is that the Indonesian man -currently being treated for his injuries, has 'confessed' to Chinese secret police forces, that he is a technician employed by the United States Navy at their mysterious Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2 (NAMRU-2), located in Indonesia; and that Indonesian Defense Minister, Juwono Sudarsono, had previously called for the closing of, "because its operations were too secretive and were incompatible with Indonesia’s security interests."
Even more interesting to note about this US Navy secret bio-weapons base in Indonesia (the World’s largest Muslim nation), is that it was established in cooperation with the Rockefeller Institute, especially with it being the main center for the American Viral Diseases Program (VDP) they describe as the research of "epidemiologic and laboratory research on viral hemorrhagic fevers, influenza, encephalitis, and rickettsioses" and the head of this institute, David Rockefeller, long calling for a massive reduction in our World’s population.
[...]
The strange thing about these reports and arrests, as well as the forcing down of the planes, is that these aircrafts were carrying "waste disposal" systems that could spray up to 45000kg or 100pounds of aerial type mist from a sophisticated network of nano pipes installed throughout the trailing edges of the wings thereby dispersing whatever was in these tanks through a mist."
[...]
Important to also note in these reports is that the US spray-plane shot down in China was reported to be targeting a secret Israeli base located in the Central Asian Nation of Kyrgyzstan, which many Ashkenazi Jews (Ashkenazi Jews make up approximately 80% of Jews Worldwide) consider their 'spiritual homeland' after their long exile under Soviet Communist rule, and where Russian Intelligence Analysts report the Israelis are nearing the end of their decades-long deciphering of the ancient Epic of Manas manuscript (with close to half a million lines the Epic of Manas is twenty times longer than Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad combined), which they believe contains our World’s oldest warning to our present age and which (coincidentally?) agrees with the ancient Mayan peoples that the year 2012 will see the ending of our present age.
12.07.2009
“Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom – Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/breaking-obamas-safe-schools-czar-is-promoting-porn-in-the-classroom-kevin-jennings-and-the-glsen-reading-list/
Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily because he had founded and led GLSEN.
According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.
Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem.
[...]
Let it be clear: This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”
And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We’re perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children. All sorts of books are excluded from school reading lists, for all sorts of reasons. Even many books once considered classics are now considered off-limits due to language or attitudes now deemed inappropriate. And yet, according to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting “my cock sucked and my ass fucked” or about a teenager enjoying the “exquisite bitter taste” of his friend’s semen are not just acceptable, they’re highly recommended. As GLSEN’s own site says, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.” Really? (Note: GLSEN does advise adults to “review content for suitability.”)
[Here's an example of reading material revised by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content...]
Revolutionary Voices -- Pages 171, 172 + 176
According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.
Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.
What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.
We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem.
Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.
[...]
Let it be clear: This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant to this report. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”
And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. We’re perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults; we only start to worry when these books are assigned to children. All sorts of books are excluded from school reading lists, for all sorts of reasons. Even many books once considered classics are now considered off-limits due to language or attitudes now deemed inappropriate. And yet, according to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting “my cock sucked and my ass fucked” or about a teenager enjoying the “exquisite bitter taste” of his friend’s semen are not just acceptable, they’re highly recommended. As GLSEN’s own site says, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.” Really? (Note: GLSEN does advise adults to “review content for suitability.”)
[Here's an example of reading material revised by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content...]
Revolutionary Voices -- Pages 171, 172 + 176
[By the way, the GLSEN is sponsored by these 'gems': Goldman Sachs, CISCO, KPMG, PEPSICO, Citi, National Education Association and IBM. Oh, yeah! Who's your daddy???]
Please, read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
