Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Follow The Alexander Higgins Blog on Twitter Alexander Higgins Alexander Higgins Blog The Latest Buzz, Analysis, and News Without the Snooze! * Home * Headlines * Authors * About * Subscribe, Friend or Follow * Advertise * Headlines * Member Submitted * Projects * The Alexander Higgins Show * Uncategorized * Web Development Email Subscription Comments Posts Head Of CIA – Reports Obama Watched Bin Laden Die Are Lies, Admits NO LIVE VIDEO FOOTAGE of Assassination Raid

By Alexander Higgins:


The head of the CIA admitted yesterday that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events, basically proving several days of news reports were lies.

For days now several officials inside the US Government and several corporate media outlets have reported that President Obama and other US officials watched live video footage of the Osama Bin Laden assassination raid inside the situation room at the White House.
Several Sources and News Organizations Reported Obama Watched Live Video Of The Bin Laden Raid From The White House Situation Room
Several Sources and News Organizations Reported Obama Watched Live Video Of The Bin Laden Raid From The White House Situation Room
Obama Watched Bin Laden Die On Live Video As Shoot-out beamed to White House
Obama Watched Bin Laden Die On Live Video As Shoot-out beamed to White House
Obama Watched Him Die
Obama Watched Him Die

All of those stories — LIES! CIA Chief Admits There Was NO Live Video Footage Of Osama Bin Laden Compound Raid

The head of the CIA who was responsible for delivering the live video feed to the White House situation room admitted in a PBS interview there was no live footage of the raid.
The Head Of The CIA Admitted yesterday there was no video footage of the raid
The Head Of The CIA Admitted yesterday there was no video footage of the raid
Yes, the  stories we have been hearing for days, lies. The dramatic media reports, told over and over again in graphic detail to make it sink into our heads that Bin Laden has finally been killed, nothing more than sick imagination of those writing the script for this massive propaganda piece.
That’s correct, newspeak right out of a chapter of Orwell’s  1984. All lies planted into our high by a lying federal government.  Obama and all of the other officials who told all of our corporate media outlets they watch live video of Osama Bin Laden being assassinated, an intriguing story that never happened.

Osama bin Laden dead: Blackout during raid on bin Laden compound

The head of the CIA admitted yesterday that there was no live video footage of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound as further doubts emerged about the US version of events.

By Steven Swinford 10:25PM BST 04 May 2011
Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.
A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound.
In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.
“We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”
Mr Panetta also told the network that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill bin Laden rather than the president.
[...]
“To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything. It was a firefight going up that compound. And by the time they got to the third floor and found bin Laden, I think it – this was all split-second action on the part of the Seals.”
The President only knew the mission was successful after the Navy Seals commander heard the word “Geronimo” on the radio, a code word from commandos reporting that they had killed bin Laden.
[...]
[...] According to Pakistani authorities one of bin Laden’s daughter’s, who was present during the raid, claimed that her father was captured alive before he was killed.
There was also growing doubt about the US claims that Pakistan’s intelligence agencies involved in the raid.
Lieutenant General Asad Durrani, former head of the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, said it was “inconceivable” that his government was unaware of the US raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.
He claimed his country was forced to deny any knowledge of the raid to avoid a domestic backlash.  [...]
[...]
Lieutenant General Durrani, however, said that the denial was a “political” maneuver by the intelligence services to avoid claims that they were working too closely with the US.
[...]
Source:Telegraph
So, the story about watching a live feed in this photo was a total lie, and this photo…

Was staged!



Bottom line here is either this entire raid never happened, they didn’t kill Osama Bin Laden, or the US Seals killed Osama and the other alleged “terrorists” at the scene in some manner so hideous that politicians and bureaucrats in this photo are afraid will come out and be tied to them. For example, not one wants to be party to having a building full of “alleged terrorists” surrendering and then taking them down stairs in front of a group of woman and children were they were executed on the order of the President or some other high level official in the room.
Yet this is exactly the scenario that Bin Laden’s 12-year-old daughter, who was in the Bin Laden compound during the raid, has told news reporters happened. She says the US Navy Seals captured Osama Bin Laden alive and then later executed him in front of his entire family. Looking at the photos of the other dead “terrorists” on the scene it appears every one of dead men was bleeding from the back of their heads like they were forced onto their knees and shot execution style.
Most in the CT crowd think this never even happened in the first place and it is all one big psych op because OBL was killed years ago.
The idea that this never happened makes some sense here as well. Why would all of the officials in the photo above allow newspapers to run stories for days stating they were watching a live video feed when they never were? Why?
See Also:

Obama's Osama magic continues; 1984 constant war; lies and American stupidity

Monday, April 6, 2009

Obama - Yes We Can = Thank You Satan

Have you ever heard of back masking? Do you know who created back masking? It was Alister Crowley.


Saturday, January 31, 2009

African FMs demand UN probe Israel over Gaza

First Published 2009-01-30


A third of those killed by Israeli soldiers were children

African FMs demand UN probe Israel over Gaza

Africa's ministers urged Israel to lift embargo it imposed on Palestinians in Gaza Strip.

ADDIS ABABA - Africa's foreign ministers on Thursday demanded a UN investigation into what they described as war crimes committed by Israel during its recent military operation against the Gaza Strip.
The officials were in Addis Ababa for a three-day meeting ahead of the 53-member African Union's heads of state summit scheduled to kick off over the weekend.
"(We) call on the Security Council to carry out an investigation into the serious violation of human rights and war crimes observed during the aggression and the use of banned weapons in order that the perpetrators are prosecuted and punished," a statement said.
The AU's Executive Council "is deeply dismayed and shocked by the recent air, ground and sea aggression launched by the Israeli forces which cost the lives of more than a thousand people and accounted for thousands of wounded."
Top UN officials have also pressed for an investigation, specifically into Israeli attacks on UN schools and headquarters in the Gaza Strip.
Israeli officials have pledged to probe these attacks along with some other alleged violations, including the use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated areas.
On January 12, the 47-member UN Human Rights Council voted by a large majority to set up a probe into "grave" human rights violations by Israeli forces against Palestinians.
While welcoming a UN resolution that calls for a ceasefire between the foes, Africa's ministers urged Israel to "lift the embargo it has imposed on (Palestinians) and open without delay all the border crossings to allow for the free movement of goods and persons and most importantly humanitarian aid".
More than 1,300 Palestinians, nearly a third of them children, were killed and 5,300 wounded by the 22-day Israeli military onslaught.
Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed during the same period.

Saturday, January 24, 2009

READER'S REPLY, HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT TAKE TO KNOW 'WE' BEEN DECEIVED AGAIN ?

Striderus:

Thanks for all your efforts towards Truth and Freedom.

Thanks for your consideration of the following, and feel free to post if you choose, keep my name and email private.

Would be very much interested in RMN Agents and Readers responses to the following:

Sometime last week, before the Obama Oath oblation abomination, I read on David Icke’s website http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/

the following:

Credo Mutwa on Barack Obama

My [i.e., David Icke] great friend, the Zulu shaman, or sanusi, Credo Mutwa, has written a poem to express his thoughts on what he sees as the true nature of Barack Obama and the agenda for Africa and the world that he represents.

An actor walks upon the floodlit stage of life wearing a mask of an angel beneath a demon's gown. Pretence smiles upon the crowded hall of life holding out hope as bright as it is false. Son of a woman in whose veins flows the blood of ancient Ireland and dark Africa’s plains. You are Obama, nick-named the standing king You are Barack, oh, son born to deceive The suffering hoards of Africa look up to you, See a black saviour where nought but a Judas strides. An entrapper of nations, bringer of dismal war Behind the robes and the nylon wings of hope Oh, may those who look upon you, see you as you are. May those who hope in you behold you as you be A prince deceitful to bring down Africa’s shrines A siren who leads Africa’s ships onto rocks of obliteration. Your rule my lord will not be one of peace Your reign my king will not be one of smiles Even as we speak in caves both dark and dank Enraged fanatics plot your dark demise They will put around your head a bloodwet martyr’s crown. Oh black Kennedy following the one before May God forgive thee and thy fiery spouse As you walk in silence from the stage of life Barack Obama, blessed son, Oh standing king.

Ok, still with me? That was something of a bone-chilling message, which give me a mental image of OBAMA as great, dark demon with the face of an angel.

Then on Friday I read this post: YOUTUBE LINK TO OBAMA FIRST OATH REVERSALS
Posted By: Guarded_Optimist
Date: Friday, 23 January 2009, 1:19 a.m. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=139973

But before I read that post I saw a youtube video about the speech reversal of the inaugural oath.

Obama takes the oath - why Roberts flubs his line http://www.youtube.com/17Stormy17

Obama - Yes We Can = Thank You Satan http://www.youtube.com/watchv=jqALdkTArqs&feature=channel_page

I have been very uncomfortable all along with Obama, seeing all his darkness without light.

The videos confirmed to me Obama is a servant of Satan, is a spawn of evil just like Bush 1 & 2, and both the Clintons.

All I can say is…

Dear God Help Us and Deliver Us from all evil.

T


Thank you reader T

I don't have to step in sh*t 4+ times to know that it IS still sh*t when I can see and smell it the very first time ...

To those that still believe in the Creator as the Supreme Force by any name, you all better wake up and open your mouths and put your feet to action because the dark souled ones have NOT been defeated by a long shot... NAY !

You/'WE' have been deceived Again !

If 'WE' must show our birth certificate for anything we do while dealing with gobbers in government.....!

WHERE IS HIS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE ?????!!!!

CAP & TRADE FOR DUMMIES or HOW WALL STREET WILL MAKE MONEY FROM OBAMA'S NEW PLAN

Posted By: Susoni <Send E-Mail>
Date: Saturday, 24 January 2009, 11:10 p.m.

It's always about money, isn't it.

Obama's plan to implement a cap & trade program is supposed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80%. It could also sink the badly battered U.S. economy into a deeper depression. For consumers, cap and trade will mean more expensive gasoline and electricity. These energy costs will be very hard upon the poor and elderly. The same poor that Obama has promised a tax break to. I guess we know what they will spend it on, heat!

Obama is also quick to announce millions of 'green' jobs that could be created by this new movement. What he, and his entourage, fail to mention is that millions of jobs will also be lost . Some factories will close up, mainly in the manufacturing sector. Others will be shipped overseas. This new cap & trade system will raise manufacturing costs, and developing nations won't have these same restrictions. America will see further outsourcing of factories and factory jobs to those nations with lower energy costs. It's simple economics.

Of course Obama knows this. So does Hillary and every one of them.

What is Cap and trade?

A cap and trade system is a method for managing pollution, at least it's suppose to be. I think it's Wall Streets latest way to make and sell credit.

Under a cap and trade system, the government sets a cap on how much pollution will be allowed. Each company will be issued credits, depending on how large they are. Some, in highly toxic manufacturing, will get more. If a company comes in below it's 'cap' it can 'trade' (just like stocks on Wall Street) those credits with other companies that might need more. The companies that need 'more' credits will pass that cost on to the consumer.

The chemical giant DuPont, received a 900% return for selling, trading and bargaining credits. This is one of the reasons why economists refer to cap and trade schemes as creating a carbon cartel. The credits can be dealt with like commodities.

On the link below you'll find a story of how a factory, in India, used this cap & trade system to earn $600 million in emission credits. They spent only $3 million to install new 'green' equipment. What a profit!

As this man says, "Carbon trading is excellent for the fraudster, good for the robber baron, ineffective for the environment, bad for the economy as a whole and disastrous for the poor. No wonder Enron liked it."

Susoni
****************************************

Cap And Trade: A System Made For Fraudsters

(snip)by Iain Murray
May 1, 2007
Ever since Enron decided that carbon trading would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative," informed observers have been wary of the idea.

Yet the idea of creating a new commodity by capping emissions of greenhouse gases and issuing tradable permits to produce the emissions has gained ground as hysteria over effects of global warming has grown.

Now, two separate investigations have demonstrated why carbon caps and trading are bad ideas, and why they were so attractive to Enron.

(SNIP)

Fraud Revealed

The poorest fifth of the population suffers worst, losing about 3% of its take-home household income. The richest fifth, on the other hand, increase its take-home pay. Only if there is some carbon welfare bureaucracy to administer rebate payments do lower-income families benefit, but that almost triples the cost to the economy as a whole.

All of this, moreover, is the effect of a very modest cut in emissions in the year 2010, certainly not enough to have any impact on warming temperatures. Some sectors of the economy would likely be hit extremely hard — like the 80,000 people who depend on coal mining for their living.

Link:

http://cei.org/gencon/019,05895.cfm

Friday, January 23, 2009

Henry Kissinger: The world must forge a new order or retreat to chaos

Not since JFK has there been such a reservoir of expectations
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
As the new US administration prepares to take office amid grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.
That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United States. While American political judgments have often proved controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States' management of it is widespread.
At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance or American failings. Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time, each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered only by common action.
Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being. It will fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.
The nadir of the international financial system coincides with simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of the world and been made accessible via instantaneous communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.
The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up between the economic and the political organisation of the world. The economic world has been globalised. Its institutions have a global reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global market. The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend. Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their political institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not considerations of world order. Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-driven point.
So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place, so far without achieving more than stemming incipient panic. International order will not come about either in the political or economic field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient themselves.
In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonised in only one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory system with the same reach as that of the economic world; or by shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of regional units. A new Bretton Woods kind of global agreement is by far the preferable outcome.
America's role in this enterprise will be decisive. Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has characterised too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance of American designs, including our domestic preferences. The result was a certain inherent unilateralism – the standard complaint of European critics – or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by conforming to American prescriptions.
Not since the inauguration of president John F Kennedy half a century ago has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United States.
The extraordinary impact of the President-elect on the imagination of humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order. But it defines an opportunity, not a policy. The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a strategy reinforced by the realisation that the new issues like proliferation, energy and climate change permit no national or regional solution.
The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its initial popularity. The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system. China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying American debt; America helped the modernisation of the Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.
Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasising infrastructure development and domestic consumption. It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may fall temporarily below the 7.5 per cent that Chinese experts define as the line that challenges political stability.
What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the ASEAN-plus-three concept. At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the prospects of global order. Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term consequences.
The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the postwar period – except that the challenges now are more political and economic than military.
The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final solution expressible in programmes with specific time limits not infrequently geared to our political process. We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance. An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a moment of crisis into a vision of hope.
The author was National Security Adviser, 1969-75 and US Secretary of State, 1973-77.

Obama is changing nothing with the secret prison systems.

Obama is going to be worse than Bush. Americans; and the World, will wish bush was back after Obama.

Obamas mentor was none other than Brzezinski.

Lets look at the New York Times article on this subject. Its very telling.

We know that supposedly the entire camp structure and facilities World Wide are shutting down, however:

Habeas Corpus, what is it?

"Habeas corpus formed a part of the American legal system from colonial times, and it was the only specific right incorporated in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Habeas corpus has been suspended a number of times, most notably by Abraham Lincoln during the early days of the Civil War.

Habeas corpus became a subject of renewed controversy after the Sept. 11th attacks. When the Bush administration created a system of military tribunals for dealing with terrorism subjects in 2002, it asserted that "illegal non-combatants'' fell outside of the Geneva Conventions and were not entitled to habeas corpus. That view was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. Congress, then controlled by Republicans, responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. Instead, such challenges were to be governed by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which allowed detainees to appeal decisions of the military tribunals to the District of Columbia Circuit, but only under circumscribed procedures, including a presumption that the evidence before the military tribunal was accurate and complete.

In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/habeas_corpus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Notice that the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 stated "have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts."

Now lets look at what Obama is going to due as was found in the New York Times article. Notice their use of double speak throughout.

"They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."

The CIA will not be allowed to use coercive interrogation methods, but the same ones that the Military uses when interrogating TERRORISM suspects. This entire circumstance was 'how the military was interrogating' terrorist suspects was it not?

"They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured."

So, at any time Obama can reinstate the same operation that they are supposedly closing. Is this not the same power still in effect that Bush had? Not to mention that the entire reason for the operations to begin with; Osama bin laden and Al- CIAta, have not only not been investigated, but spoken off by Bush as "not important any longer", should really indicate to most people that it never was important to find Al CIAta, nor will it be, because if so, they wont have the PATSY any longer to blame things on, for they did create Al Qaeda for that exact purpose.

"A government official said Mr. Obama’s order on the C.I.A. would still allow its officers abroad to temporarily detain terrorism suspects and transfer them to other agencies, but would no longer allow the agency to carry out long-term detentions."

What agencies? And until that is known for sure, then nothing has changed.


"Mr. Obama had suggested in the campaign that, in place of military commissions, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts."

No, there is no similar under the Constitution. "perhaps, in the existing military justice system" is not an option. They are not in the Military; or are they? This action would be the same as now, against their Rights. This is not a War, no matter what Bush has said. They are not Military Combatants as the Supreme Court has pointed out "In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=2&hp

You see, they SHOULD be allowed Redress in Federal Courts, having cases 'against' the United States Government. This would open a way up as well to PROSECUTE Bush, but its not going to happen under Obama. We are already seeing him protect his 'cabinet' affiliates as well as his own ass on many issues that he was in support of in his years in the Senate.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

NO, WE DON'T HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT

By: Devvy
January 22, 2009

© 2008 - NewsWithViews.com

“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*

The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice. (Click here). The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.

The A-list stars from Hollywood were out in full regalia to celebrate history: the first African American president. Barack Hussein Obama aka and so forth, is the first mulatto to run for president, but he is not the 44th president. He is an usurper who has committed a horrible fraud on our nation. Someone or a number of people knew years ago that his citizenship would become an issue and began greasing the skids to pull off this fraud.

In 2004, the impostor president unlawfully ran for the U.S. Senate. Allegedly, with help from ACORN and the massive vote fraud we see every election, he won a seat in the U.S. Senate under a law that does not exist. That election was November 2004.

One year later, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis gets her paper published in the Kent University Law Review on line. Herlihy claims in her paper that the citizenship requirement of the U.S. Constitution has been called "stupid and discriminating." Of course, she never tells us who makes this claim. Please note that a partner at the same law firm was one Bruce I. Ettelson, who apparently had a working relationship on finance committees for Obama and buffoon, Sen. Richard Durbin. Herlihy's paper, which shows "author approved editing" as November 23, 2005, is titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizenship Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle." You can read the paper here.

In February 2008, Democrats (and one Republican) began pushing legislation on the issue of citizenship:

"...on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

"Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find....

"Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election?"

Somewhere along the way, the issue of Obama's father being a Kenyan national and under British rule (British Neutrality Act of 1948) surfaced while the new Messiah was being groomed to steal the White House. Obama is a lawyer and has spent a great deal of time around other high power lawyers. Someone along the way said, uh, we have a problem. Beginning not too long after Obama became a U.S. Senator, the thorny problem of the U.S. Constitution had to be dealt with and out comes a paper by his lawyer friend, Herlihy, which opens up the discussion. Next comes the smoke screen legislation which was really to "qualify" Obama. Of course, it didn't work, so with the help of the useful fools in the dominant media and cable news networks like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, the issue was covered up and/or ridiculed as nothing more than sore losers or conspiracy nuts.

There is a conspiracy and a cover up here, just as there is regarding all the documents and records Obama is hiding from the American people.

We know that Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., met in private with Obama on January 14, 2009. A gross conflict of interest since Roberts is deciding current cases before the court where Obama is either the defendant or the target of the litigation. Roberts' role in the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president was a sobering moment. It made me sick to my soul. The very next day, January 21, 2009, Phil Berg's second case which was heard in secrecy by the almighty Supreme Court last Friday was denied.

The next case to be heard in conference (private) is tomorrow: Lightfoot v Bowen. Dr. Orly Taitz is counsel on that one. Orly also filed a new lawsuit on Monday, January 19, 2009, in response to an Executive Order issued by George Bush, on January 16, 2009. You can read that lawsuit here; it explains the basis of the lawsuit in relationship to Bush's EO. Summons were issued; Federal District Judge David O Carter was assigned. The Case Number is: SACV09-00082DOC. Orly beat the clock with Obama's Chief of Staff, who has such a shady background (Madsen is a die hard progressive Democrat), one wonders how he could get any security clearance at all:

"White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel dispatched a memo yesterday afternoon to federal agencies and departments, directing them to stop pending rules until the new administration has time to conduct a "legal and policy review" of each one. The directive has become a first-day tradition among presidents, dating to Ronald Reagan in 1981, helping incoming administrations put their own philosophical stamp on the regulatory work that is a subtle but potent tool of presidential power. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did the same thing."

The United States Justice Foundation has issued a subpoena duces tecum for Obama's academic and housing records from Occidental College for their lawsuit representing Alan Keyes, et al v Bowen, Obama, Biden, et al. You can view the documents here. Someone asked what will happen if Occidental comes back and says they have no records for Barack Hussein Obama? That immediately raises a red flag and the good folks at the USJF can file a new subpoena for Barry Soetoro, or petition the judge to force this guy in the White House to disclose his legal name so these lawful subpoenas can be served and processed.

There is a new petition to impeach Obama; you can view it here. I wouldn't bother signing it. God bless these folks for wanting to see justice done, but I don't believe this petition will have any impact. First, the incompetent mad woman running the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, will never let such a petition get past her skirt. And, second, while I am not a lawyer, the high crimes and misdemeanors cited, i.e., the fraud committed by Obama, was perpetrated before he was unlawfully sworn into office. Dr. Edwin Vieira explained this in a column last October: "Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4)."

Furthermore, Dr. Edwin Vieira points out in a column last December, even should all these constitutionally based lawsuits fail with the U.S. Supreme Court, the lawsuits will continue over any legislation signed by the usurper president.

Obama has pulled off this gigantic hoax. For now. Judging by my email and many columns posted the last two days, Americans are discouraged, outraged and just plain old-fashioned whizzed off. Many are saying the Constitution is dead. Edwin addressed that in a column, March 14, 2006:

"On the other side, if "the Constitution is dead", then to what authority can patriots appeal against the depredations of malign public officials and a corrupted electorate? Without the Constitution, patriots are mere dreamers or rebels whom the Establishment can condemn as crackpots or criminals. In short, if common Americans concede that "the Constitution is dead", they will surrender the high ground, the initiative, and even their own best weapon, and put themselves at their enemies' mercy. Moreover, if "the Constitution is dead", how and with what should or could patriots attempt to replace the present political apparatus that oppresses them?"

Those who birthed this republic did not cut and run even when they were bloodied and crawling on their hands and knees. We shall do no less. The pain will be great, but so was the pain of Nathan Hale when he was hung at age 21. Last April, I stood at his home up in Connecticut. It was very quiet and no one was around. I stood there thinking about the patriots of that time. I've been to Bull Run, Valley Forge, the homes of Jefferson, Andy Jackson, Madison, Washington and Gen. Robert E. Lee. Obama has been made powerful by those working to destroy this country. As the impostor president's power has grown, so too has his arrogance which will be his undoing. The day of reckoning for Obama the Impostor President will come.

What about the masses who responded to the prod and voted for Obama? It's being reported that nearly two million people showed up for the coronation two days ago. It would have been convenient to have stands along the way to fit these people for their chains of bondage. I hope you can take time over the weekend to read a document I covered on my radio show as the coronation parties were in full swing. What made millions swoon, weep, raise their hands to the heavens, declare Obama the next Messiah and go over the edge for a nobody with a closed past - besides the color of his skin?

As I told my listening audience, I am not a conspiracy freak. Frequently, I get very angry email from patriots for debunking some popular theories that don't hold water. A couple of months ago, I read this paper and as I read the 67 pages, it all came together. Untold numbers of us couldn't figure out this "Obama phenomenon" and what was causing it....until I read this explanation about conversational hypnosis. Not only did I read it, I spent six hours running down the foot notes and studying Erickson's method used and accepted in the field of psycho-analysis.

Finally, it all made sense. As a lay person not trained and with little prior understanding on this issue, all I could keep wondering is are these people all mad, desperate or did they all take the same pill? No, Obama simply used a technique of hypnosis on mass crowds and turned them into little better than melting butter. A master orator without an original thought in his head, he used his voice and hands to mesmerize.

I learned a great deal from this document. At some point the stupefaction will wear off and millions of people, except for too many black Americans who voted for one half of Obama's race (most of them forget Obama's mother was Caucasian), will begin to wonder why they voted for Obama as he blunders along and the economy worsens. Except, of course, those blinded by skin color. An incredible statement was made by a low IQ minion of Obama's which sends an ugly message:

"...while watching ABC News coverage of the inauguration with my wife over lunch, hosts Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer were joined by Donna Brazile, a Democratic African-American author, educator and political activist, who gave a humorous account of her snatching the complementary fleece blanket she found abandoned in Barack Obama’s chair after the swearing-in ceremony. Apparently she wanted a souvenir of the momentous occasion and when the opportunity arose, she took it.

"As they all laughed about it, Gibson responded playfully to her candid admission by saying: “We're going to check with the legal staff and find out if that's a felony or a misdemeanor.” Brazile then gave a stern look into the camera and said: “We have a black president – it's neither.”

Read this document:

Obama's use of hypnotic technique during his speeches

You can decide for yourself. I'm certain those who support Obama will poo-poo it away. They've got too much riding on his campaign promises. These very same people haven't done a minute of research on Obama's background, his proven communist ties and Marxist beliefs. Obama's faithful will not see or hear his slick lies because the thought of betrayal is simply too much to handle. As Judge Andrew Napolitano so accurately named his book, A Nation of Sheep, can you hear the baaa-baaa still echoing from the Washington Mall?

Obama is sworn in for second time

Barack Obama has been sworn in as US president for the second time in two days, because one word was given out of order during Tuesday's ceremony.

The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, administered the oath again at the White House.

The decision to repeat the oath was taken out of an abundance of caution, an official said.

But Mr Obama joked: "We decided it was so much fun...." before adding: "We're going to do it very slowly."

In contrast to the first oath-taking, Mr Obama did not swear on a Bible and his wife Michelle was not at his side.

And instead of an audience of millions, only a few close aides saw the second attempt, with even journalists excluded from the Map Room of the White House.

Tuesday's stumble went largely unnoticed at the time.

In the oath, as set out in the US Constitution, the new incumbent swears to "faithfully execute the office of president of the United States".

But as Chief Justice Roberts read out the oath for Mr Obama to repeat, he moved the word "faithfully" to the end of the phrase.

Mr Obama, apparently noticing the error, hesitated. Mr Roberts repeated the phrase correctly, but Mr Obama went with the incorrect formula.

"We believe the oath of office was administered effectively and that the president was sworn in appropriately," said White House counsel Greg Craig.

"Out of the abundance of caution, because there was one word out of sequence, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath a second time."

Two other presidents, Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur, have had to repeat the oath because of similar problems.

And Chief Justice William Taft introduced a new word into the oath when he swore in President Herbert Hoover in 1929, promising to "preserve, maintain and defend the Constitution", instead of "preserve, protect and defend".

Obama Appoints Top Notch CFR, Bilderberg Members

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 22, 2009


Brussels


Obama announces the appointment of CFR-Bilderberg members George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke at the State Department.

From Reuters:

In a flurry of diplomatic activity in his first week in office, U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday named special envoys for the Middle East and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.

Newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Obama had chosen George Mitchell, a former senator and seasoned international trouble-shooter, as an envoy who will try to jump-start moribund Arab-Israeli peace talks.

Obama tapped former ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and related issues.

George Mitchell is not simply a CFR member — he is a former director of the globalist organization.

Mitchell “got his start in Federal politics when appointed by President Jimmy Carter (CFR member),” writes Tom Kovach. “Mitchell is chairman of the second-largest law firm in the world, DLA Piper. You know, the firm that recently put a full-service, ‘multicultural’ office in Dubai. You know, the port city in a country that tried to buy American port operations with oil money. Mitchell’s law firm has a ’strategic alliance’ with a consulting group owned by former US Secretary of Defense William Cohen (CFR member), which did PR work on behalf of DP World, the Dubai company that tried to buy the ports.” DLA Piper represents more than half of the top 250 Fortune 500 clients and nearly half of the FTSE 350 or their subsidiaries.

Mitchell sits on the steering committee of the American Friends of Bilderberg along with such luminaries as Conrad Black, Henry Kissinger, and David Rockefeller,





Alex Jones confronts globalist minion Richard Holbrooke at the Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa.


Ditto Richard Holbrooke. He is on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations. A dedicated Clintonite and former ambassador to the United Nations, Holbrooke brokered the Dayton Peace Accords, the “peace agreement” that partitioned and reduced Bosnia to a NATO and IMF client state, a model of bankster privatization. Holbrooke’s “peace plan” was only realized after massive NATO bombardment of Bosnian Serb territory.

Holbrooke is a consummate insider and global elite operative. Along with Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, and Paul Allaire, Holbrooke directs the American Friends of Bilderberg, an organization that takes money from Exxon, Arco, IBM, and other transnational corporations and has its meetings funded by the globalist Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment fund.

It looks like the White House is shaping up to become a branch office of the CFR and Bilderbergers, but then this is simply business as usual. For years, the CFR — with its associate memberships in such international units as the Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, and Bildebergers — has infested not only the White House, but the State Department, the NSC, the Pentagon, and much of the federal government.

“CFR membership is also inclusive of West Point Superintendents, Allied Supreme Commanders, Secretaries of Defense, and Military Policy members. Media memberships include Time, New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.,” writes Noah W. Hutchings. “The CFR also exerts influence on United States personnel at the various United Nations agencies, which is natural, because UN goals usually parallel CFR’s goals.”

The American people think they voted for change, but in fact they simply signed off on four or eight more years of globalist rule.

Planning Agency Approves Homeland Security Complex

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; Page B01

After years of battling historic preservationists, the federal government won approval yesterday to build a massive headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security on a 176-acre hilltop site east of the Anacostia River.

The $3.4 billion headquarters would be one of the largest construction projects in the Washington area since the Pentagon was built in the 1940s. Advocates say it would generate economic activity in one of the city's poorer corners and provide a secure workplace for 14,000 Homeland Security employees scattered across the Washington area.

"This is an important step forward for Anacostia and for Washington," said John V. Cogbill III, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, which voted 9 to 1 to approve the master plan for the headquarters, to be built on the grounds of St. Elizabeths Hospital.

Historical preservationists have said the project would ruin a national landmark site with panoramic views of the District, where the first federal psychiatric institution was established in Southeast Washington in 1852. Some questioned whether a high-security facility tucked behind two layers of fencing would produce much of a payoff for the neighborhood.

"The DHS employees might as well be working on the moon for all their presence will benefit the city," testified David Garrison, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said that the personnel would largely commute from the suburbs.

The dissenting vote on the master plan came from a National Park Service representative, who warned that the development could endanger the site's historic landmark status.

If Congress provides funding, construction will begin next year and continue through 2016, according to the plan. Building the complex and renovating existing historical structures would create at least 26,000 jobs, officials said.

"The timing is optimal," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who has championed the project. "Development has dried up in the city, and this is direct government-funded work."

Under the plan, most of the facility would be built on the vacant western campus of St. Elizabeths, property owned by the federal General Services Administration. One large building would be constructed on land leased from the District on the eastern campus, where the D.C. government is hoping to lure offices, restaurants and shops.

Residents of nearby neighborhoods have expressed mixed feelings about the complex. James Bunn, executive director of the Ward 8 Business Council, predicted that Homeland Security's migration would serve as a long-needed catalyst for new retail and housing in the Congress Heights community.

"Those 14,000 employees will need a place to live," he said. "And they'll need somewhere to eat. I can already see a coffee shop or a sit-down restaurant. It's a win-win situation for the ward."

But Linda Jackson, executive director of the East of the River Community Development Corp., questioned whether Homeland Security employees would leave their self-contained campus along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and frequent nearby businesses.

Obama & The Coming Darkness

OBAMA MET WITH HIS WARLORDS on January 21, 2009, his very first day of his puppet-presidency. On the table for discussion was the “eventual” pull out of US troops from Iraq and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

The warlords present for the meeting were Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and Central Command head General David Petraeus.

Regarding the Iraqi “pullout,” in the weeks since his election, Obama has changed course on campaign pledges expressing his willingness to be “flexible.” And that “flexibility” is owing to US commanders in Iraq insisting that there is “no way troops can be pulled out” at the rate of two combat brigades per month so as to meet Obama’s pledge of a 16 month withdrawal timeline.

Regarding the war in Afghanistan, Petraeus called for 30,000 more troops, including four combat brigades and a Stryker patrol, to arrive in Afghanistan over the next year. Obama stated that he wants to accelerate that deployment.

In his inauguration speech, Obama said that America is suffering from “a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable and that the next generation must lower its sights.” Obama almost got it right. America’s decline is now occurring rather than it being a future “inevitable” event. And the next generation must rather “raise its sights” 7,000 miles away, to be sent off to Afghanistan to die or be maimed in a war they neither understand nor believe in.

Obama’s explanation of America’s mission in Afghanistan is to “prevent the Taliban from launching attacks against the United States.” Any fool knows that attacks against the US from the uneven hills of Afghanistan, 7000 miles away, are an impossibility. And besides, the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, have no interest in being part of a second one, and wouldn’t be fighting American soldiers if the US had not started a war against them in the first place 7 years ago.

In Sun Tzu’s ancient classic, The Art Of War, he warned against a protracted war, saying, “There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. If victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and ardor will be dampened.”

The only ones to “benefit” from the Afghan war are the US defense contractors, Wall Street Jewish bankers, and the Warlords in Obama’s administration.

But the ones who will lose in Obama’s protracted and escalated Afghan war, will be the parents of the sons and daughters who will return home in body bags — whose “ardor” will not only be dampened, but extinguished.

___________________________________

For More See: Why Obama Will Fail In Afghanistan Click Here

And: Obama To Lead US To More War, Death, Genocide Click Here

Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears



This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.

We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.

The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.

These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.

US-Egyptian hunt for Iranian ship

US and Egyptian warships were scouring the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea Tuesday, Jan. 20 to waylay an Iranian freighter carrying scores of heavy rockets for delivery to Hamas. DEBKAfile's exclusive sources report they were acting on intelligence that a ship loaded with an estimated 60 tons of arms to replenish Hamas' depleted war stocks had set out from the Iranian Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas on Jan. 17.

The cargo includes 50 Fajr missiles, scores of Grads, armor-piercing missiles and tons of sundry advanced hardware.

http://www.debka.com/index1.php




European Union member states authorised the export of €200 million in arms exports to Israel in 2007, the latest figures from Brussels disclose, with France far and away the Jewish state's biggest European weapons supplier.

According to the EU's 2008 report on arms export licences, published in December for the 2007 calendar year and consolidating the accounts that member states must annually submit, 18 member states authorised a total of 1,018 such licences to Israel worth €199,409,348.

Machine guns: the EU sold €200 million of weapons to Israel in 2007 (Photo: wikipedia)

* Print
* Comment article

France, Germany and Romania were the top three exporters. France issued export licences worth €126 million, Germany authorised €28 million and Romania €17 million, the EUobserver can reveal.

In response to calls from opposition politicians that the UK government halt its arms exports to Israel and push all other EU member states to do the same, a British foreign office spokesperson said: "We do not approve any defence related exports if we judge that there is a risk that they will be used for external aggression or internal repression.

"We routinely refuse export licences where we believe that there is a risk of this. Any application relating to Israel is considered on this basis," the spokesperson continued.

EU arms code of conduct

The EU has maintained an arms export code of conduct since 1998, but it is overseen at the member state level, not in Brussels, so if Mr Brown were to push for such a move, he would have to convince the 26 other member states.

In 2007, €12 million in small arms and ammunition were exported to Israel by Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, Romania and the UK.

Another €23.5 million in "light weapons," meaning those that require two to three people to operate them, such as bombs, torpedoes and explosive devices, were supplied by the Czech Republic, Germany, Romania and Slovenia.

Belgium, France and Romania also sent Israel €18.5 million worth of aircraft and related material. Paris is responsible for €10 million of this sum.

In a fourth, very broad category of armaments in the EU's consolidated report, "electronic equipment" - referring to electronics specifically modified for military use, navigation and guidance equipment, and satellite jamming systems, some €94 million was exported by France (€89 million) and Germany (€5 million).

The rest of the €200 million consists of weapons that fall into other minor categories beyond small arms, light weapons, aircraft and electronics.

Italy, traditionally a major arms exporter, only supplied Israel with €0.5 million in weapons in 2007. Spain, also a leading trader in the sector also sold Tel Aviv just €4.5 million worth of armaments.

Sweden, another major European weapons producer, along with eight other EU member states, delivered nothing to the Jewish state.

Across the EU, only 28 export licences were refused as a result of human rights, internal security or regional stability reasons.

Kaye Stearman, of the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade, told this website: "The UN and impartial observers have regularly documented how Israeli military actions have violated international humanitarian law.

"Although the UK's own Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria is supposed to assess the impact of arms sales on regional peace, security and stability, and the country's human rights record, it seems that this is ignored in the case of Israel."

"Britain must immediately stop selling arms, including arms components, to Israel and also stop buying arms from Israeli companies - arms that have been 'tested' in the laboratories of the occupied territories."

talk about double standards, and thats without mentioning the zionist states nuclear arsenal..

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Solidarity with Gaza: Just the Beginning

The latest Israeli assault on the tiny Strip represents the failure of the siege to weaken Hamas and the Gazan people's resolve. It should come as a wake-up call to the world that placing 1.5 million people in a cage and denying them basic necessities, including food, medical supplies and fuel only takes that fuel from their hands and adds it to the fire, notes Hammam Farah.


The incessant sound of typing over the many laptops around me became the background theme sound of my life for the past two and a half weeks. Since Israel's latest assault on Gaza that began on December 27, my social circle of journalists and activists have besieged ourselves (no pun intended) in a friend's basement to write articles, coordinate with other groups, take interviews, and discuss strategies for raising awareness and taking action.

Already, the bone chilling, cold streets of Toronto have seen several mass demonstrations of solidarity with the people of Gaza and anger at an Israeli government that is increasingly being recognized as one of apartheid and racial exclusion. For our Palestinian people back home, the struggle consists of continued steadfastness and resistance. For us in the Diaspora, it's about education, solidarity, and the promotion of the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli apartheid and its institutions. For both those in Palestine and outside, the long-term goal is the ending of Israeli apartheid, and the immediate goal is breaking the world's silence over the two-year-old inhuman siege on Gaza and its culmination with this massive assault that has so far taken the lives of over a thousand people today.

This latest assault represents the failure of the siege to weaken Hamas and the Gazan people's resolve. It should come as a wake-up call to the world that placing 1.5 million people in a cage and denying them basic necessities, including food, medical supplies and fuel only takes that fuel from their hands and adds it to the fire.

When I phoned my grandmother who lives in Gaza to check on her last week, she said that there used to be a choice between bread and rice, but now there was only bread. The obvious next step is for even bread to disappear and the people left with nothing to eat. She went on to say that the electricity was out and that the water was dirty and had to be boiled to clean. The psychological aspect is even worse. People are left to constantly contemplate whether to stay home or seek shelter elsewhere within the narrow streets of Gaza, which is one of the few, if not the only, territories on earth where civilians are denied the chance to leave and seek refuge during a time of war or bombardment. The decision could determine whether they would live or die. To my increasing frustration, other relatives did not answer their phones because the Israeli intelligence has been calling people to intimidate them into collaborating.

But the suffering only strengthens our will to continue the struggle. Here in Canada, our government will have to answer for its overt support for the massacres. So do our universities. Several university presidents issued a statement in 2007 condemning Britain's University and College Union's motion to discuss the academic boycott of Israel, using the principle of academic freedom as justification. But they have remained silent over the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza and other educational institutions. How dare they have the audacity to believe that condemnation of a non-violent boycott, but silence over the violence of bombs will go unanswered for? They, also, will have to answer to us. And all the student unions that refused or kept delaying the passing of boycott resolutions will now have to make a choice.

For this is just the beginning. It is inspirational to see the thousands of people who came out to the streets in protest and the many who attended a teach-in on Gaza last week. The number of unions who are pledging to boycott Israel is continuing to grow. The number of Jews opposing Israel's apartheid is continuing to grow and even the media has been finally reporting on Jewish condemnation and protest of Israel. And the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia have cut their ties with Israel.

And yet, Israel does not see the harm it has done to its own image. Even during this horrific onslaught on Gaza, the Central Elections Committee of Israel has just banned two of the largest and most popular Palestinian citizen ("Israeli Arab") parties from running in next month's Knesset elections. If this is how Israel plans to fight back the growing allegations of apartheid, then our work is going to be cut out for us much sooner than I predicted.

Many people are getting involved now, including people that were unaware of what's going on, people who were unsure which side to take, people who knew what was going on but didn't know what to do about it, people who supported the Palestinians but did not support the boycott and now do, and people who supported Israel and now don't.

Hammam Farah is a Palestinian Canadian who was born in the Gaza Strip as part of Gaza's small Christian community. He resides in Toronto and is a solidarity activist with the Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid (CAIA), which is spearheading the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign in Canada. He can be reached at hammamf@gmail.com. This article appeared in The Palestine Chronicke

Obama’s First Act: Taxpayer Money To Fund Abortions Of Black Babies

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Obamas First Act: Taxpayer Money To Fund Abortions Of Black Babies 210109top
The sickest irony amidst the euphoria of the inauguration of America’s first black President is that one of Obama’s very first actions in office will be to ensure that millions more black babies are aborted in third world countries, with American taxpayers picking up the tab.
President Obama’s first act of “change” will be to issue an executive order that will lift a ban on using taxpayer money to fund international “family planning” groups who counsel women and perform abortions around the world, but mainly in Africa.
Fresh from his complete disregard of Israel’s barbarian bombardment of Gaza, an onslaught that has killed around 400 children, Obama will ensure that potentially millions more never even get the chance of life in the first place.
Obama will reverse the so-called Mexico City policy, the federal rule prohibiting aid to family planning groups which was instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984. The policy does not apply to abortions carried out in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions. Obama’s executive order will pass almost exactly 36 years to the day since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion.
Abortion groups that will enjoy a fresh injection of American taxpayers’ money will include the Family Guidance Association of Ethiopia and the Planned Parenthood Association of Zambia.
The executive order will also precede a likely decison by Obama to once again release funds for the UNFPA, a United Nations organization that supports China’s policy of forced abortion.
“Obama’s repeal of the abortion aid policy is one of several executive actions that he will take soon after his inauguration today, according to several Obama transition aides. He is also considering lifting Bush administration restrictions on federally funded stem cell research,” reports the Hartford Courant.
Stem cell research has attracted vociferous opposition from anti-abortion groups because many of the treatments in the field use cells from aborted babies. The Catholic Church in Scotland this week called the procedure “immoral and unethical,” especially in light of the fact that stem cells from adult donations can be used instead.
Federally funded global abortions as a method of population control has been an obsession of elites and eugenicists throughout history.
One of the pioneers of family planning and the woman who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain, Marie Stopes, was a racist and an anti-Semite who campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
The feminist also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilisation of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist) , Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Ominously, The Galton Institute website promotes its support and funding initiative for “the practical delivery of family planning facilities, especially in developing countries.” In other words, the same organization that once advocated sterilizing black people to achieve racial purity in the same vein as the Nazis is now bankrolling abortions of black babies in the third world.
With Obama’s executive order to release taxpayer money to fund abortions of black babies in Africa, he is signaling his firm intention to act in the interests of the ancestors of the Hitlerian eugenicist movement who now control the family planning groups.
A lot has been made of the ideals of Martin Luther King in light of the inauguration of the first black President. What would the legendary civil rights campaigner have thought of Obama’s action to ensure funding for the abortion of black babies? Here’s what his niece, Dr. Alveda King had to say about the matter at a conference last August.
“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”
King stated that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
Obama’s first action as President will ensure that those “killing centers” across the world will now be empowered with fresh capital to abort more black babies while the new President grandstands as a messiah for the poor and oppressed black race.
Research related articles:
  1. Obama to Fund Forced Abortions (25.108)
  2. British scientists given permission to treat stroke victims with stem cells from aborted babies (18.094)
  3. Parents’ anger over new range of ’sassy’ high heels… for six-month-old babies (11.942)
  4. Under Proposed Bailout, Feds Could Speculate, Nationalize Any Company or Industry, Or Do Anything Else They Want Using Taxpayer Money (11.887)
  5. Abortion “Without Government Interference” (11.78)
  6. Roubini Says `Panic’ May Force Market Shutdown, Fund Failures (11.261)
  7. Bush: Obama Hasn’t Asked For Rest of TARP Fund Yet (10.308)
  8. Fed Hides Destination Of $2 Trillion In Bailout Money (10.215)
  9. Obama names Robert Gibbs as press secretary (9.919)
  10. Declaring Babies Dead for Organ Harvesting (9.747)
  11. Obama pledges review of White House powers instigated by Bush (9.471)
  12. 14-year-old girls to be taught about their ‘right’ to have an abortion (9.041)