10 Facts That Prove The Bin Laden Fable Is a Contrived Hoax

Good comment here. I have to sadly say that I am just amazed at how the Australian public swallowed this bold faced lie.

• Good old Obama was getting fried really badly about his legitimacy again, and the phony birth certificate was not standing up to scrutiny
• Obama's ratings were slipping. Maybe we need a war! Or maybe just some good news on the "War On Terror"!
• So the USA invaded a sovereign state to conduct this masquerade, and nobody had a problem with that! (would they if it was Australia?)

Wake up Australia!!!

Steve B
=====

Merely a week after President Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden, there is literally a deluge of evidence that clearly indicates the whole episode has been manufactured for political gain and to return Americans to a state of post-9/11 intellectual castration so that they can be easily manipulated in the run up to the 2012 election. Here are ten facts that prove the Bin Laden fable is a contrived hoax….
1) Before last Sunday’s raid, every intelligence analyst, geopolitical commentator or head of state worth their salt was on record as stating that Osama Bin Laden was already dead, and that he probably died many years ago, from veteran CIA officer Robert Baer, to former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, to former FBI head of counterterrorism Dale Watson. In addition, back in 2002 Alex Jones was told directly by two separate high level sources that Bin Laden was already dead and that his death would be announced at the most politically opportune moment. Top US government insider Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik, a man who held numerous different influential positions under five different Presidents, serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under the Nixon, Ford and Carter, told the Alex Jones Show last week that Bin Laden died of marfan syndrome shortly after he was visited by CIA physicians at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001.
2) The official narrative of how the raid unfolded completely collapsed within days of its announcement. First there had been a 40 minute shootout, then there was no shootout and just one man was armed, first Bin Laden was armed then he was not, first Bin Laden used his wife as a human shield and then he did not. First the compound was described as a “$1 million dollar mansion” then it turned out to be a rubbish-strewn dilapidated compound that was worth less than a quarter of that. Almost every single aspect of the official narrative has changed since Obama first described the raid last Sunday as the White House struggles to keep its story straight.
3) The alleged body of Bin Laden was hastily dumped in the sea to prevent any proper procedure of identification. The White House claimed this was in accordance with normal Islamic burial rituals, however numerous Muslim scholars all over the globe disputed this claim, pointing out that Muslims can only be buried at sea if they die at sea. While the White House claimed that Bin Laden’s death on May 1st was proven by DNA and facial recognition evidence, such proof was never released for public scrutiny and the Obama administration refused to release photos of Bin Laden’s dead body, suggesting a cover-up.
4) Despite the fact that the White House released “situation room” photos which purported to show Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and the rest of Obama’s security staff watching the raid which killed Bin Laden live, it was later admitted by CIA director Leon Panetta that Obama could not have seen the raid because the live feed was cut off before the Navy SEALS entered the compound. The photos were described by many as having “historical significance,” forming a “captivating” record of Obama’s greatest success and being the “defining moment” of his Presidency. One image showed Hillary Clinton with her hand over her mouth as if witnessing an anxious or crucial moment in the raid. Media reports at the time claimed that the photos represented the moment when “The leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye.” However, the photos were staged as a PR stunt for public consumption, nobody in the photos ever saw Bin Laden killed live, nor did they see the Navy SEALS even enter the compound.
5) As even mainstream journalists began to cast suspicion on the official narrative behind the raid, the media reported that Al-Qaeda itself had confirmed every detail of Obama’s address the the nation. However, the conduit for such a claim was in fact an organization called SITE, which is a notorious Pentagon propaganda front run by the daughter of an Israeli spy that has been caught on numerous occasions releasing fake cartoonish “Al-Qaeda” videos at the most politically expedient times for both the Bush and Obama administrations. The SITE organization is nothing more than a contractor for the U.S. government, receiving some $500,000 a year annually from Uncle Sam, and yet the corporate media instantly swallowed and regurgitated the claim that “Al-Qaeda” had confirmed the official story after SITE directed them to an anonymous posting on an Islamic website.
6) Almost every single neighbor that lived near the alleged Bin Laden compound in Abbottabad that was interviewed by news reporters said with absolute certainty that they had never seen Bin Laden and that they knew of no evidence whatsoever to suggest he lived there. Since the town is a staging ground for the Pakistani military, which has a training facility situated virtually a stone’s throw away from the alleged Bin Laden compound, residents were required to show ID when they moved into the area. Pakistani troops and anti-terror police in the town refused to confirm that Bin Laden had lived in the house. Barack Obama himself admitted to 60 Minutes that the White House was only 55/45 sure that Osama lived there before the raid and this uncertainty prompted concerns that the US Navy SEALS sent in could have targeted a “prince from Dubai” or some other individual that was not Bin Laden.
7) The videos released by the White House this past weekend which purport to show Osama Bin Laden making Al-Qaeda tapes in October-November 2010 are almost identical to footage first released by Pentagon front group SITE nearly four years ago. Remember, a May 2010 Washington Post story reported how the CIA had admitted to making fake Bin Laden videos. Despite the White House’s insistence that the footage of Bin Laden is recent, he looks younger and healthier than tapes released almost a decade ago, having apparently dyed his beard black. A separate video that purports to show Bin Laden in his compound flicking through satellite TV channels depicts a much older looking man with a gray beard. Analysts have pointed out that the man has different shaped ears to real Osama pictures from back in 2001. A doctor has also pointed out the fact that the man in the tapes released Saturday has no problem moving his left arm, whereas video from 2001 clearly illustrates how Bin Laden was unable to move his left upper extremity because of a permanent injury probably related to damage to the peripheral nerves. Why the cameraman would film the back of Bin Laden’s head as he watches television is also dubious. Residents in the town of Abbottabad claim the man in the “television” video is not Osama, with one individual claiming that the man labeled by the White House as being Bin Laden is actually his neighbor, a man named Akhbar Han.
8: Despite the fact that numerous neo-cons came out on the days after the alleged raid to erroneously assert that torturing terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay led to the discovery of Bin Laden, Osama himself, the supposed world’s most wanted terrorist and a treasure trove of terror information, despite the fact that he was unarmed, was not taken in for questioning, he was instantly shot in the head according to the official narrative.
9) The US government has been caught on several occasions within the past decade staging military operations for the purposes of generating contrived, pro-war sentiment amongst the American public. Both the “rescue” of Jessica Lynch and the death of Pat Tillman were complete fables, scripted and staged at complete odds with the truth and unleashed on Americans as part of a psychological warfare offensive to elicit support for the war on terror, almost identical to what we’re seeing now with the Bin Laden sideshow. Given the fact that the US government has been caught red-handed scripting tales of pure fiction in order to justify the war on terror, notably in the cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, why on earth should we believe them now?
10) Despite the fact that Obama announced last Sunday on live television that the world was now “safer” because Bin Laden was dead, his administration, with the aid of the fearmongering mass media, instantly seized upon the situation to terrify Americans into being afraid of imminent “reprisal” terror attacks inside the United States, later claiming that Bin Laden had formulated an “aspirational rather than operational” plan to derail US trains that travel over 500mph, although no trains in the US can actually travel at such speeds. This led “terror experts” to salivate over how TSA agents were now needed in shopping malls to stick their hands down Americans’ pants, while New York Senator Chuckie Schumer called for the no fly list to be expanded to trains and subways. Obama hurried to ground zero for a photo op as he desperately tried to use the Bin Laden hoax to whip up phony patriotism as a means of boosting his flagging poll numbers. Others, like Democrat Bill Richardson, exploited the situation to try and push through policies that had no connection to Bin Laden or terrorism at all, like cap and trade. The haste with which the whole Bin Laden fable was exploited for political points scoring and as a psychological ploy to return Americans to a post-9/11 state of intellectual castration was painfully transparent, clearly suggesting that the entire farce was planned well in advance to achieve precisely those goals in the run up to 2012.
Article written by Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 9, 2011

While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment

Oh boy, we have laws and precedents regarding property and home invasion in Australia. There is an implied right of access to your front door only, which can be rescinded by the owner by way of signage or verbal instruction to an unwanted party, including police. Yes, that's right, INCLUDING POLICE.

This is well founded and tested in Australian law, but it seems the same right has been shot down in the good old USA...

Dear Americans, open your arms to the police state...

Steve B
=====

Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In a precedent described by dissenting justices as “breathtaking” and “unnecessarily broad,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.
“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.
Dissenting Justices Brent E. Dickson and Robert D. Rucker made it clear that the ruling represented a total rejection of rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
“In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” Dickson wrote.
“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,” added Rucker. “There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”
The ruling was made under the justification that resisting a police officer had the potential to escalate and cause violence against the officer, meaning that the God-like status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.
In a separate case, on Monday the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the police can now also bust down a door and enter your property without a warrant if they smell marijuana or hear sounds that are suggestive of destruction of evidence. The case revolved around the warrantless search of an apartment in Kentucky, Lexington.
“Where, as here, the police did not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates No prescription cialis the Fourth Amendment, warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the majority.
Of course, the fact that police officers have been known to habitually lie in order to justify illegally entering a property and violating the Fourth Amendment (which is apparently now null and void anyway), was not considered.
These two cases merely scratch the surface of America’s descent into an authoritarian tyranny, which has noticeably deepened over the last few weeks. Describing the United States as a “police state” is no longer a glib or alarmist use of rhetoric, because by every measurable tenet and in every context, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are now being completely ignored by government or simply abolished altogether.
The fact that Supreme Courts are now attacking the very Constitution they are supposed to uphold is proof that America has been hijacked by rogue criminal elements who are busy dismantling everything that once made the country a beacon of liberty for the world.
The debate is officially over. America has now entered the annuls of history as an authoritarian police state on a par with Soviet Russia, and as that virus spreads throughout all levels of society it will ultimately lead the United States to the same fate – the only question remaining is how messy the collapse will be, how many people will be incarcerated, and how many people the government will murder in the process.
Article written by Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 17, 2011
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Bill Clinton Calls For Internet ‘Ministry of Truth’

Mr Bill “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” Clinton, a man who knowingly lied to the nation on live television at the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, has called for the creation of an Internet ‘ministry of truth’ style organization that would be run by the federal government or the UN to address “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet.”


Couching the idea in the kind of doublespeak rhetoric that would make George Orwell roll in his grave, Clinton said that the agency would have to be “independent” and “transparent,” but that it would be created and run by the federal government – a complete oxymoron.
The former president said that the organization “Would have to be an independent federal agency that no president could countermand or anything else because people wouldn’t think you were just censoring the news and giving a different falsehood out.”
No matter how many fluffy, friendly and democratic words he attaches to the proposal, Clinton is basically calling for the creation of a state-run media outlet in the mold of Communist China. He says it should operate like, “National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors.”
In other words, as his wife Hillary bemoaned recently, the US military-industrial complex is “losing the information war” to independent media outlets and something needs to be done to redress the balance because too many people are stumbling across that habitual irritant to the power elite – the truth.
Despite admitting that the organization would have “no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet,” Clinton said that such an agency was necessary to counter “misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet,” reports Politico.
This is Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration” on steroids. Harvard law professor Sunstein, Obama’s information czar, has demanded websites be mandated by law to link to opposing information or that prescription cialis generic pop ups containing government propaganda be forcibly included on political blogs.
In a 2008 article published in the Journal of Political Philosophy, Sunstein outlined a plan for the government to stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and Kamagra attempt to undermine” those groups.
On page 14 of Sunstein’s January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” he proposed that “under imaginable conditions” the government “might ban conspiracy theorizing” and could “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”
Sunstein’s definition of “conspiracy theories” includes ideas shared by the majority of American people, such as the notion that the JFK assassination occurred as part of a wider plot, as well as the belief that the threat of global warming has been hyped by governments and global institutions. Both of these ideas would be examples of thought crime under Sunstein’s regime.
Bill Clinton’s call for a government-run ministry of truth is a brazen attempt to implement Sunstein’s dangerous anti-free speech agenda.
During Hillary’s call for the empire to strike back in the information war, she made particular reference to Russia Today as well as media platforms, and the fact that they were “winning” because they actually dared to act like “real news” organizations, asking questions of authority and investigating stories, and not like the US mainstream press, which acts as nothing more than an obedient, supine clearinghouse for government propaganda.
Russia Today, which regularly provides a voice to the likes of Alex Jones, Max Keiser, Wayne Madsen, Paul Craig Roberts and Webster Tarpley, has played an instrumental role in filling the gaps left by the castrated US corporate media by reporting on real news issues and actually having the temerity to question talking points put out by the White House – this is what the Clintons both want to see neutralized with a new ministry of truth run by the feds.
Indeed, when Russia Today attempted to put up promotional billboards in US airports encouraging viewers to think about both sides of a story, the ads were summarily banned.
That’s exactly why the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton are demanding a more aggressive psychological warfare assault on the American people – they want to create an unthinking mass that instantly accepts what they are told by government as the absolute truth, despite the fact that the US government itself has proven itself to be the pre-eminent global leader in lies and deceit, while all dissenting voices will be crushed under Cass Sunstein’s thought crime information blockade.
FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton: ‘We Are Losing The Infowar’
FLASHBACK: Obama Czar Wants Mandatory Government Propaganda On Political Websites
FLASHBACK: Obama Information Czar Calls For Banning Free Speech
FLASHBACK: Obama Information Czar Outlined Plan For Government To Infiltrate Conspiracy Groups
Article written by Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 19, 2011

Truth Hurts, Lies Kill. The Real Truth Behind the Phony Wars by Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to one human race.(Kofi Annan) Thousands of Americans and over 1.5 Million Muslims have been murdered so far and Millions more have been injured and dying. Reality of the Phony wars in the name of Democracy, Freedom, terrorism. NOW The Oil Thirsty Liars, their secret agenda and their crimes are being exposed; Corrupt Politicians, Profiteers, Cooperative greedy culture, world domination by any means possible; Barbarism, false flagging, accusing others of having Weapons of Mass Destructon while allowing criminal Zionist state like Israel to keep building then lying and denying. No, No, NO, no more of this crap. People are waking up from the mass hypnotism by the Criminal Media companies ( CNN, Fox, Sky, BBC, ABC and other main stream Zionist Pleasers and Guardians of the Murderers, Real Terrorists, Liars and thugs.
Just in the Shadow of False flag (9/11) They Murdered over 1.5 million Muslims and Thousands of Americans so far and still counting. Enogh is enogh !!! Stop the Barbarism in the name of American People for the benefit of your own Greed, oil, Israeli or Zionists' wishes or any other henious criminal agendas.
We Are Not Stupids And Irresponsible Anymore !!!
"We have an obligation to every last victim to this illegal aggression because all of this carnage has been done in our names. Rise up Against the Real Terrorists and Organized Criminals for the survival of Humanity.!!!
www.liberatethis.com

Former Head Of CIA Bin Laden Unit: “Main Recruitment Sergeant For Al Qaida Is Barack Obama”

Counterterrorism expert says ‘war on terror’ is based entirely on fabrications

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
May 30, 2011
Ex CIA intelligence officer turned whistleblower and activist, Michael Scheuer, has launched a blistering attack on the political establishment, over its handing of the so called war on terror, asserting that the entire rationale behind it is based on outright lies and deception.
Mr Scheuer, who was speaking at the popular Hay Festival in the UK said that the politicians including the US President and the British Prime Minister have “not a clue about what’s going down in the western world”.
”We are being attacked in the west and we will continue to be attacked in the west as long as we are in Afghanistan, as long as we support the Israelis, as long as we protect the Saudi police state.” Scheuer said.
”They can’t cope with the fact that it’s nothing to do with the way we live. It doesn’t have anything to do with elections or democracy or liberty,” the counterterrorism expert added.
Scheuer, who headed up the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden tracking station between 1996 and 1999, asserted that ”The main recruitment sergeant for al Qaida is Barack Obama, ” adding that “his speech on May 19 was a declaration of cultural war on Islam.”
Last week, Scheuer penned a scathing commentary piece on the Obama middle east speech, describing the president as a “Neoconservative crusader” who has ” out-Bushed Bush and the Neoconservatives by a country mile, calling for U.S.-dictated (and enforced?) regime change in Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, and Yemen.”
”We hear the President, we hear your Prime Minister, talking about thugs and gangsters. We are still in the starting blocks in this war.” Scheuer told the UK audience this past weekend.
When asked what Obama should do regarding the war on terror by a member of the audience, Scheuer replied ”I would ask him to tell the truth.”
”He, the first Mr Bush, then Mr Clinton and the second Mr Bush have assiduously lied to the American people for 20 years and as a result have made the relations in the United States between Muslims and other people much more difficult.” Scheuer said.
Scheuer explained that the so called “cultural war” against the West is a fabrication, created by Western elites in order to justify the West’s interventionist policy in the middle east and beyond.
”They have identified the motivation of our enemy as a war against liberty, as a war against gender equality,” Scheuer urged.
“There is almost no Muslim out there who is an insane character who is going to blow himself up because my daughters go to university. There is no discussion by bin Laden of this cultural war that is supposed to be waged against us.” he added.
”A president who was a statesman and a politician might say something like ‘I’m sorry we’ve been kinda lying to you for 30 years and why we are being attacked is until recently we were supporting fascism across the Middle East’.”
Scheuer added that the twisted assertion that a cultural war is being waged by muslims on the West is a complete Orwellian style reversal of reality.
”In the rhetoric of our enemies there is very little, if anything, about attacking us for how we live or how we think or how we act in our own country.”, Scheuer said.
”It is about intervention, it is about being in the Arab Peninsula and it has nothing to do with these cultural things. We are the ones that are arranging the cultural war against them.”
He added: ”The American relationship with Israel, in my mind, is a useless and unnecessary relationship. As long as we are playing a role we are the recruiting sergeant for the people that are going to kill us.”
“Look at where al-Qaeda is today compared with 9/11. Back then it was overwhelmingly in Afghanistan.” Scheuer said.
“Now they have part of Afghanistan, a big part of Pakistan and they are in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Africa and Palestine and moving into Lebanon. Their position is much better now than it was.”
Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (AD)

“CHEERLEADERS” FOR TYRANNY
Scheuer also sounded off on the corporate media’s portrayal of the uprisings in the Egypt and Libya, calling the Western allies “cheerleaders”.
“I think the whole thing is very juvenile.” Scheuer said. “In Egypt we have moved from a military-backed tyranny to a military tyranny. In Libya, that’s just France, Britain and America pounding another country for its oil.”
“You don’t go from what was in Egypt to democracy on the basis of tweets and Facebook, especially when the people who rely on them are not in the core of maturity.”
Scheuer recently took the establishment media to school in the form of exposing how two airhead CNN presenters were “carrying the water for Mr. Obama” regarding reporting on the situation on the ground in Libya.
Watch the video:

When asked about bin Laden, Scheuer took the opportunity to describe how the US passed up the chance to eliminate him before 9/11, but declined to do so because President Clinton did not want to jeopardize a multi-billion dollar arms deal.
Scheuer stated that the US had “a clear opportunity” to kill or capture Bin Laden in 1999, when the terror figurehead was “still on a learning curve and very predictable”. According to Scheuer, the CIA learned that Bin Laden was present at a hunting party run by Arab princes in late February or early March.
“The Americans warned the princes to get out of the way, but then Clinton’s administration learned that one of those at the party was in the process of finalizing a multi-billion dollar deal to buy US fighter planes.” Scheuer noted.
“The government decided that it was more important to sell our planes than to get Bin Laden,” he said.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

End Time News: 6.2 Magnitude Earthquake hits Philippines

UK Today News: The Seismological Institute of the Philippines reported today that an Earthquake of Magnitude 6.2 struck the west of Manila, Philippines.

Reports say that many buildings felt the shock of the Manila earthquake which forced all employees to run out of the buildings into the streets. As for now its no damage or casualties are reported.

The earthquake is reported to be about 10km under the sea.

The epicenter was located 86 miles (139 km) from the capital, Manila, Philippines. , and was about 72 kilometers (45 miles) deep.

The world has seen a number of earthquakes taking place ever since 2010 began – the most destructive being the Haiti earthquake in Jan 2010 and the Chile earthquake in Feb 2010.

Clinton Announces al-Qaeda as Legitimate Government of Libya

On Friday, the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and members of more than 30 other nations meet in Istanbul, Turkey, and announced they have granted al-Qaeda and the so-called rebels in Libya full diplomatic recognition.

“I am announcing today that, until an interim authority is in place, the United States will recognize the TNC as the legitimate governing authority for Libya,’’ said Clinton.
The TNC, or Transitional National Council, is dominated by the the Haribi tribe of northeastern Libya. Both Abdel Mustafa Jalil and Abdel Fatah Younis – routinely paraded around by the corporate media as Libya’s new leaders – are from the Haribi tribe. A 2007 West Point study concluded that the tribe is rife with al-Qaeda and actively killed U.S. troops in Iraq. See Webster Tarpley on this, here.
Peter Dale Scott has also written about the rebels, specifically the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and its connection to the CIA and its war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The LIFG was created by British and U.S. intelligence to assassinate Gaddafi.
According to Yoichi Shimatsu, writing for New American Media, the LIFG is “the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network.”
Naturally, you hear nothing about al-Qaeda and the rebels from the New York Times or the crown jewel of Operation Mockingbird, the Washington Post.
Instead, the corporate media insists Gaddafi and al-Qaeda will wage a holy war against the United States.
Clinton announced yesterday that the United States has recognized as the legitimate government of Libya a CIA created terrorist group it has waged a fake war against for almost a decade.
The U.S. has also legitimatized summary kidnapping, summary exeuction and rape by the so-called rebels.
Clinton’s announcement is reminiscent of the U.S. recognition of another CIA fabricated group, the Taliban.
Of course, the Taliban eventually became the enemy. It was planned that way because war against manufactured enemies is forever the same way it was in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four. In the book, the Ministry of Peace explains that war is perpetual.
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Article written by Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
July 16, 2011

Secret Societies: The Bilderberg Group

Overthrow of a sovereign state to loot riches? Yet again!!! Who's next? Remember Libya.

He who owns the media, shapes the perceptions of the population. He who controls mass media for the western world can easily fabricate lies big enough to delude whole populations. Ever seen Wag The Dog? It is kind of pertinent :)


Steve B
=====

Remember Libya article from Global Research


This weekend, headlines in mainstream media were broadly proclaiming statements such as "Gadhafi regime not legitimate, world leaders say" or "US, other Western nations declare Gadhafi regime no longer legitimate."
According to MSNBC, "In a final statement following a meeting of the so-called Contact Group on Libya, the nations said: The "Gadhafi regime no longer has any legitimate authority in Libya," and Gadhafi and certain members of his family must go."

But Western powers and certainly Western media are working overtime to suppress the fact that Libyans themselves do not share this view of their leader. For better or worse, the people have spoken, and how are Libyans showing their support? To NATO? Certainly not:

As Brian Becker said, the question of being "pro-Gadhafi" or "anti-Gadhafi" is irrelevant when it comes to supporting Libya and Libyans, and to understanding that what these NATO missions are accomplishing is the personification of cruelty, injustice and ultimate greed:

"Humanitarian war" is an oxymoron of the utmost proportions. Western military and imperial powers need to stop playing their high-stakes PR game of "monkey-in-the-middle", pitting themselves as self-appointed "saviours" to the Libyan people against their heavily propagandized version of Gadhafi as the universal "evil-doer". And we need to stop playing into this game. We need to turn off our televisions with their flashy news stories, rife with disinformation and lies, and look at what is really happening.

More and more people across the globe are starting to see through the lies and are turning to independent media sources (like Global Research) for their information. So you would like to know what is really happening in Libya? Here is what has slipped through the ample cracks of mainstream media:

The truth behind the U.S./NATO war on Libya from ANSWER Coalition on Vimeo.

Turning the lens back on the Western world, this week US President Obama stated, "I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security, veterans and disability] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue [of raising the government's debt ceiling] because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” (Interview released by CBS 12/07/2011).

Empty coffers? And yet under NATO's cynically-named "Operation Unified Protector", we know that "more than 15,000 sorties have been directed against the Libyan People... since the beginning of the NATO operation" (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 14, 2011). Clearly this comes at a very high cost to taxpayers being forced to support inflated defense funds, and an even higher cost to Libyans being killed day after day during this unjust military campaign.

So while the nation with the empty coffers which “cannot guarantee” that it can support its own people is busy making dangerous and costly judgements against the world in the pursuit of oil, wealth and empire, perhaps we need to be asking the rest of the world whether they consider the US/Obama regime legitimate? If not, would that justify bringing NATO's "humanitarian medicine" back home?

Libyans were never given the choice to answer these questions for themselves, and now they are paying a heavy price. So when we ask, "remember Libya?", it is a reminder that there is much more to the story than what is presented in mainstream news, which is funded by adminstrations, lobby groups and corporations interested only in presenting their side of the story.

For news that independent, free of ties to all corporate, private, foundation and government funding, we encourage you to keep visiting Global Research, sharing the articles - which will always be available free of charge - with friends and colleagues, and to consider making a donation or starting a membership to support us in bringing you the truth. Every amount makes a difference and contributes directly to our operations.

Thank you for helping us make true free media possible.

-The Global Research Team

source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25668

Congress To Vote On Declaration Of World War 3 — An Endless War With No Borders, No Clear Enemies

The United States Congress is set to vote on legislation that authorizes the official start of World War 3.

The legislation authorizes the President of the United States to take unilateral military action against all nations, organizations, and persons, both domestically and abroad, who are alleged to be currently or who have in the past supported or engaged in hostilities or who have provided aid in support of hostilities against the United States or any of its coalition allies.
The legislation removes the requirement of congressional approval for the use of military force and instead gives the President totalitarian dictatorial authority to engage in any and all military actions for an indefinite period of time.
It even gives the President the authority to launch attacks against American Citizens inside the United States with no congressional oversight whatsoever.

Just to recap, because that was a mouthful:

• Endless War – The war will continue until all hostilities are terminated, which will never happen.
• No Borders – The president will have the full authority to launch military strikes against any country, organization or person, including against U.S citizens on U.S soil.
• Unilateral Military Action – Full authority to invade any nation at any time with no congressional approval required.
• No Clearly Defined Enemy – The US can declare or allege anyone a terrorist or allege they are or have been supporting “hostilities” against the US and attack at will.
• Authorization To Invade Several Countries – The president would have full authority to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, along with several other nations in Africa and the Middle East and even Russia and China under the legislation all of which are “know” to have supported and aided hostilities against the United States.

The Hill writes:

House Dems protest GOP’s plans for permanent war against terror

Nearly three dozen House Democrats are calling on Republicans to withdraw a section of the 2012 defense authorization bill that they say would effectively declare a state of permanent war against unnamed Taliban and al Qaeda operatives.
A Tuesday letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and 32 other Democrats argues that affirming continued war against terrorist forces goes too far, giving too much authority to the president without debate in Congress.
Their letter cites language in the authorization bill that incorporates the Detainee Security Act, which affirms continued armed conflict against terrorists overseas.
“By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations and nations ‘associated’ with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the president near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval,” Democrats wrote. “Such authority must not be ceded to the president without careful deliberation from Congress.”
The specific language in the bill is found in section 1034 of H.R. 1540, which affirms that the U.S. is “engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” It also affirms that the president has the authority to detain “certain belligerents” until the armed conflict is over.
“Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces still pose a grave threat to U.S. national security,” the bill says. “The Authorization for Use of Military Force necessarily includes the authority to address the continuing and evolving threat posed by these groups.”

The America Civil Liberties Union writes:

New Authorization of Worldwide War Without End?

Congress may soon vote on a new declaration of worldwide war without end, and without clear enemies. A “sleeper provision” deep inside defense bills pending before Congress could become the single biggest hand-over of unchecked war authority from Congress to the executive branch in modern American history.
President Obama has not sought new war authority. In fact, his administration has made clear that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism.
But Congress is considering monumental new legislation that would grant the president – and all presidents after him – sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere. Unlike previous grants of authority for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the proposed legislation would allow a president to use military force wherever terrorism suspects are present in the world, regardless of whether there has been any harm to U.S. citizens, or any attack on the United States, or any imminent threat of an attack. The legislation is broad enough to permit a president to use military force within the United States and against American citizens. The legislation contains no expiration date, and no criteria to determine when a president’s authority to use military force would end.
Of all of the powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” That is why, in 2002, when Congress was considering whether to authorize war in Iraq, it held fifteen hearings, and passed legislation that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective. Now, Congress is poised to give unchecked authority to the executive branch to use military force worldwide, with profoundly negative consequences for our fundamental democratic system of checks and balances. Once Congress expands the president’s war power, it will be nearly impossible to rein it back in. The ACLU strongly opposes a wholesale turnover of war power from Congress to the president – and all of his successors.

Coalition Memo to the House Committee on Armed Services Regarding a Proposed New Declaration of War

Comparison of 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and Proposed Expanded Authorization

The offending text (Here In The Full Text Of H.R. 1540 – section 1034) uses doublespeak to declare World War 3. Specifically, the text uses the phrase “affirms” “armed conflict” which is the terminology used by congress declare war in every war since World War 2.

Congress affirms that —
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al‐Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

A joint letter regarding the proposed legislation has been sent to congress condemning the proposed legislation.

MEMORANDUM

TO:	All Members of the House Committee on Armed Services
FROM:	American Civil Liberties Union Appeal for Justice Brave New Foundation Center for Constitutional Rights CREDO Action Defending Dissent Foundation High Road for Human Rights Human Rights First International Justice Network Just Foreign Policy Leadership Conference of Women Religious MoveOn.org Muslim Public Affairs Council New Security Action Pax Christi USA Peace Action Physicians for Human Rights Psychologists for Social Responsibility Shalom Center Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society USAction Win Without War
DATE:	May 9th, 2010
RE:	Oppose Section 1034 and Any Similar New Declaration of War or New Authorization for Use of Military Force in the National Defense Authorization Act

The undersigned organizations strongly oppose the new Declaration of War, which is in Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”). We urge you to oppose the provision and any other similar new Declaration of War or new Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) in the NDAA.
While we have written separately, and met with many of you and your military legislative assistants, on our concerns with other provisions of the Chairman’s mark, we are writing on this new Declaration of War specifically because it is a provision that has received almost no review, despite its likely tremendous effect on almost every facet of United States national security policy. At minimum, Congress should hold hearings andfollow regular order before even considering such sweeping legislation.
This monumental legislation–with a large-scale and practically irrevocable delegation of war power from Congress to the President–could commit the United States to a worldwide war without clear enemies, without any geographical boundaries (the use of military force within the United States could be permitted), and without any boundary relating to time or specific objective to be achieved. Unlike the AUMF that authorized the Afghanistan War and the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, the proposed new Declaration of War does not cite any specific harm, such as the 9/11 attacks, or specific threat of harm to the United States. It appears to be stating that the United States is at war wherever terrorism suspects reside, regardless of whether there is any danger to the United States.
Under the guise of a “reaffirmation” of authority, Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA would give the President unchecked authority–and if the section constitutes a declared “war,”¹ possibly the unchecked duty² –to use military force worldwide against or within any country in which terrorism suspects reside. The proposed new Declaration of War would be without precedent in the scope of war authority or duties transferred by Congress to the President:

• The President would be able to use this authority–or might be required to use this authority–regardless of whether there has been any harm to United States citizens, or any attack on the United States or any imminent threat of any attack. There is not even any requirement of any threat whatsoever to the national security of the United States.
• There is no geographical limitation–the new Declaration of War has no specification of countries against which military force could be used, and no specification of countries where U.S. armed forces could be deployed with or without the permission of the host country. Military force could even be used within the United States and against American citizens.
• There is no specific objective for the new Declaration of War, which means that there is no clear criteria after which the President’s authority to use military force would expire. Although the proposed new Declaration of War lists “al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces” as the “threat,” there is no definition for any of these entities, which historically have been amorphous, with shifting names, memberships, and organizational relationships.
• If Congress broadly turns over to the President the power that Article I of the Constitution provides to Congress to declare war, it very likely will never get the power back. The broad terms of the proposed new Declaration of War could last for decades.
• Whether Congress realizes it or not, the proposed new Declaration of War would authorize the President to use the United States military against countries such as Somalia, Iran, or Yemen, or send the American military into any of the scores of countries where suspected terrorists reside, which include not only nearly all Middle East, African, and Asian countries, but also European countries and Canada–and of course, the United States itself. Under the expansive terms used for organizations in the proposed new Declaration of War, targets could include suspects having no connection to the 9/11 attacks or to any other specific harm or threat to the United States. The President would have the power to go to war almost anywhere, at any time, and based on the presence of suspects who do not have to pose any threat to the national security of the United States.
• If Section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA constitutes a declaration of war–which Congress has not declared since 1942–the declaration would trigger various exemptions from federal statutes and even broader authority for the President to control more aspects of both government and private businesses. The March 17, 2011 report from the Congressional Research Service, “Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications,” lists all of the statutory provisions, ranging from exemptions from budgetary limitations to new government claims over oil and mineral resources, that are triggered by a declaration of war.
• Of course, if Congress believes that there is a significant new threat to the national security of the United States that requires significant military force as a response, it can declare war or enact a new AUMF, but Congress should, at minimum, follow what it did in 2002 with the AUMF for the Iraq War, where it held fifteen hearings on the proposed war and passed an AUMF that cited specific harms, set limits, and defined a clear objective that, if met, would effectively terminate the AUMF. A specific declaration of war or a specific AUMF would better preserve the system of checks and balances and make an endless, worldwide war less likely.

To be clear, President Obama has not sought enactment of the proposed new Declaration of War. To the contrary, his Administration has made clear its position that it believes it already has all of the authority that it needs to fight terrorism. But if the proposed new Declaration of War becomes law, President Obama and all of his successors, until and unless a future Congress and future President repeal it, will have the sweeping new power to make war almost anywhere and everywhere.
Of all of the powers that Article I of the Constitution assigns to Congress, no power is more fundamental or important than the power “to declare War.” We urge you to use this power carefully, and to oppose this wholesale turnover of war power, without any checks–and without even holding a single hearing. Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we would be pleased to meet with you or your staff to discuss our concerns further.
¹ The most critical sentence of section 1034 of the Chairman’s mark for the NDAA is “Congress affirms that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad.” If “affirms” is replaced with the synonym “declares” and “armed conflict” is replaced with the synonym “war,” the result is “Congress declares that the United States is in a war with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces . . . “, which is very similar to the declaration of war clauses of the eleven declarations of war made by Congress, from the War of 1812 through World War II. Since 1942, Congress has passed several authorizations for use of military force, but has not made any declarations of war.
² Although the question of whether a declaration of war imposes a duty on the President to carry out the war has only rarely come up in court decisions, at least one federal court, in comparing the legal consequences of a declaration of war with an authorization for use of military force, stated, “If war existed why empower the President to apprehend foreign enemies? War itself placed that duty upon him as a necessary and inherent incident of military command.” Gray v. United States, 21 Ct. Cl. 340, 373 (1886) (emphasis added).

The bill has many other shocking elements as well, such as the requirement that all arrests related to terrorism be treated as military arrests (section 4), thus circumventing the constitution. Furthermore, legislation introduce under the McCain bill would make it illegal for military prisoners in US overseas torture prisons to be returned to US Facilities.
Indeed, the moment we all feared has come before us as the Congress meddles giving the President absolute power over the military, including the authority to launch military strikes within the United States against U.S. Citizens. With the assassination of Osama Bin Laden on Pakistan soil many of were naïve in believing that the War on Terror would come to an end.
Instead,  the reported success of the raid is being used as a crutch to push through new legislation in the defense bills up for vote before congress which literally authorize World War 3, which will be declared as an endless war with no defined enemies and no borders. Short of committing genocide the termination of the hostilities will never come and as such the war will never come to end.
We have already learned that officials falsified reports that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq for the “prize” of oil. If a whole government of top officials can not be trusted then surely a single president cannot be trusted either.

We have seen the U.S Government turn Nazi and buy and burn every copy of a book that had evidence of a 9/11 coverup. The Department of Justice has already published a memo calling constitutionalists and survivalist as potential terrorists.
Is it not bad enough that the U.S courts have already legalized the abduction of U.S Citizens along with their indefinite detention and torture in overseas prison camps? Or that the U.S Government openly admits to gunning down, kidnapping and torturing American college students?
Under the definition of the legislation, the President could authorize the military to attack the ACLU building because they have supported the “terrorists” by arguing for their civil rights.
It will not be long before they are assassinating activists. The have already labeled conspiracy theories as “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence” and have even specifically called The Intel Hub, which routinely publishes my articles, as an echo chamber pushing out these “dangerous thoughts that could lead to violence”.
Uncle Sam openly admits to turning its multi-billion dollar espionage network against U.S Citizens which has produced such great fruits as innocent activists exercising their first amendment rights being placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI and DHS.
Seriously, this is so out of control and it is only a time that the World War 3 is being fought against you and me. Just remember as long as we are in a state of war your civil liberties and constitutional rights are pretty much null and void, only enforceable if the Government allows you to have them. Even then, they can declare you as a terrorist, enemy combatant or a threat to national security to revoke your constitutional rights anyway. Then they can play the national security card when they are asked to explain their allegations.
All around this is rotten and the first step to getting our rights back is to end the perpetual wars.
Contact your congressman and tell them No Way To this egregious bill!

---

Update – Here is some corporate media coverage of this story, since some people like to see it in the mainstream media to believe it.
Salon:

Critics: GOP bill a declaration of constant war

House Republicans want to reaffirm war against al-Qaida, the Taliban — and anyone else — with controversial bill

Republican chair of the Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, R-Calif., revealed The National Defense Authorization Act on Monday, which includes a bill renewing an act passed just days after 9/11, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). AUMF gave then-President George W. Bush carte blanche to hunt down the 9/11 perpetrators and their allies. The renewed bill, however, makes no reference to the 9/11 attackers and some critics have called it “the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II,” since it makes no reference to the capturing of parties guilty of a specific act. Indeed, the section of The National Defense Authorization Act under question here is called the Declaration of War.
According to POLITICO:

The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.

The argument from proponents of the Republican-backed bill is that, in the decade since AUMF was enacted, terror groups with no connection to 9/11 have come into the picture. Critics say such terror suspects should be dealt with using law enforcement and that we should not be affirming a commitment to war without specific aims or boundaries. The bill would also give the president the ability to attack an individual, group, or nation without Congressional approval.

The Daily Paul:

ALERT: Congress is About to Vote on Worldwide War Authority

The time is now to restore respect for the Constitution. Tell Congress that a blank check on war isn’t just unnecessary — it’s truly dangerous.
They have to be kidding. Congress is about to vote on worldwide war authority. This was long on the Bush administration’s wish list. Now, a few top congressional insiders see an opportunity to sneak it in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This expanded war authority would give the president — any president — the power to use military force, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.

ACLU Petition

Oppose New Worldwide War Authority

A few top congressional insiders are aiming to sneak new worldwide war authority in to a “must pass” piece of legislation: the Defense Authorization bill.
This new war authority would give the president — any president — the power to unilaterally take our country to war wherever, whenever and however he or she sees fit. It would essentially declare a worldwide war without end.
It is shocking that Congress is entertaining such legislation at a time when many are looking to see an end to escalating conflict and abuses of power in the name of fighting terrorism.
Take action! Tell your representative to oppose new worldwide war authority.

Politico:

GOP seeks to redefine war on terror

A little over a week after the United States finally succeeded in its long-sought goal of killing Osama bin Laden, Congress is set to engage in a debate over whether to extend the war on terror indefinitely or leave in place legislation that could eventually wind it down.
Enacted over a lone dissenting vote just three days after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” or AUMF, authorized President George W. Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those involved in the 9/11 attacks as well as anyone who harbored the perpetrators.
…
The new language drops any reference to 9/11 and “affirms” a state of “armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces.” The measure also explicitly gives the president the right to take prisoners “until the termination of hostilities” – something the courts have found to be implicit in the current version of the AUMF, though the new proposal could be seen to extend that power.
…
But critics say the Republican-sponsored measure amounts to the first full-scale declaration of war by the U.S. since World War II – at a moment when counter-terrorism efforts are succeeding, the U.S. is withdrawing from Iraq, and about to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan. And, they say, it gives Obama and any successor carte blanche to attack any individual or any nation without further approval from Congress.

The Wall Street Journal.

Defense Bill Would ‘Affirm’ War With al Qaeda

Even though Osama bin Laden is dead, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.) wants to remind Washington: The war on terror ain’t over.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Howard McKeon (R., Calif.) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
And with that in mind, Rep. McKeon, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, is pushing for Congress to renew the 2001 authorization to use military force against terrorists.
The chairman on Monday revealed his version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2012, and his mark of the bill includes a provision that “would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces.”
Critics say provisions in the bill are tantamount to a congressional declaration of war that could give the president broad new powers over private business and government spending.
One provision seeks to bolster the Authorization for Military Force, passed by Congress in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which the Bush and Obama administration have used as legal authority to conduct military and intelligence operations in Afghanistan and other countries where al Qaeda affiliates have sprung up.
The American Civil Liberties Union and more than a dozen mostly left leaning groups wrote a letter to members of the House Armed Services Committee to oppose the “reaffirmation” saying that it essentially declares war and gives broad powers to the president that normally belong to Congress.
[...]

TAKE ACTION NOW!

Now sign the ACLU Petition and share this post to get the word out so we can stop this before it happens.

Source: Alexander Higgins - May 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm - Permalink - Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

THE CLIMATE FRAUD IS EXPOSED! : NEW BOOK debunking Climate Change Science in detail!

From their web site...


THE CLIMATE FRAUD IS EXPOSED!


You have arrived at the place where insightful minds speak freely on the greatest science fraud of all time: man-made global warming.


We proudly present the world’s first full volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory-that junk science construct that props up the discredited international religion that blames you for harming the planet.

In a world’s first, ‘Slaying the Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ brings together some of the planet’s most powerful critics to expose the fraud that you always instinctively knew existed.

Read more at http://slayingtheskydragon.com

Opals form in weeks; Creation-science seminars across Oz

Thanks to a friend who passed this on to me...

Steve B

=======

You may be interested in some of these items : 

 * Opals form in weeks

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/opals-in-weeks/

 * Creation-science seminars rolling across Australia

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/creation-science-seminars/

 * Continent-wide sediment transport during global Flood

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/continent-wide-sediment-transport/

 * Panel discussion on creation, evolution and the age of the earth

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/panel-discussion/ 

If you wish to subscribe: http://biblicalgeology.net/lists/?p=subscribe

Senator Barnaby Joyce: Another Green-Labor-Independent unfolding disaster

The great trilogy of policy disasters of the Labor party are:

- the live cattle trade, getting a 0 out of 10 for diplomacy and a 0 out of 10 for economics

- the carbon tax, getting a 0 out of 10 for public relations, and a 0 out of 10 for democracy and 2 out of 10 for cost of living.

- and the one that is actually the closest at home for me, the Murray Darling Basin, which gets 0 out of 10 for economics, a 0 out of 10 for regional development, a 2 out of 10 for consultation and a 2 out of 10 for our future food security.

The latest revelations on the fiasco that is the Labor party's Murray-Darling Basin policy is the release today of the Environment and Behaviour Consultants report on the socioeconomic impacts of the Basin.

The report shows that the towns that will be hit the hardest are small and heavily reliant on food production, and the resulting multiplier effects this production provides.

These are the small towns that Sarah Hanson-Young wants to shut down, when she calls for 7600 GL to be taken away from water use in the Basin. If it was up to Sarah Hanson-Young the only place that Banjo Paterson could have written about would have been Nimbin.

The Green-Labor-Independent alliance seems intent on destroying the fabric that the vast majority of Australians take as their heritage. Yes we live on the coast but our soul is our centre. We are logically and sentimentally very attached to the work of the people who feed us, Clothe us and provide the vast majority of our export income to sustain our nation.

This report on the Murray-Darling Basin should clearly have numerous columns in our nation's newspapers tomorrow. It's just that another Green-Labor-Independent fiasco is shading it out.

Craig Knowles has said that it was all terrible in the past but now things have changed. But what actually has changed? The current Labor government approach risks making the same mistakes again.

The MDBA is not increasing its consultation, rather it’s shutting it down. The Victorian Minister last week revealed that the MDBA is planning to only hold meetings with invited 'industry leaders' after the draft plan is released.

The Government refuses to amend the legislation; in fact they refuse to even consider amending the legislation, which led us to this problem in the first place. This is despite the findings of a recent Senate inquiry into the Water Act.

The government is continuing with the purchase of non-strategic water buybacks. This is despite a recent House of Representatives inquiry, which included Labor members, backing the Coalition's election policy of making water purchases more strategic.

Labor's approach to the Murray-Darling is a peacock policy, looks marvellous, sounds ordinary but its capacity to fly is highly questionable.

source: Senator Barnaby Joyce
Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water
Leader of The Nationals in the Senate
LNP Senator for Queensland


14th July 2011
More Information – Matthew Canavan 0458 709 433

Australian Green Party Leader admits Global Warming is Really all about World Government

Dees Illustration

Activist Post

The Australian Green Party has now assumed the balance of power in the Australian Senate, allowing them great potential power in policy making. The Greens, founded in 1992, are traced back to the 1970’s Club of Rome era United Tasmanian Group, the world’s first “green” party. Their moniker is self-explanatory, the basis of their charter being ecology and the environmental movement.

Green Party principles state that global warming, er, climate change is the greatest threat to humanity with only ten to fifteen years remaining to provide a solution. “Australia is ideally placed to lead the world in this challenge and the Greens are committed to Australia taking that lead.”[1] They also want to limit CO2 and eliminate coal use, despite the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant. Furthermore, they want to establish a “low-carbon economy” and force nations to sign binding environmental treaties restructuring the whole of society, economy and politics. They state “climate change will result in the displacement of people, creating environmental refugees and intensifying the threat of regional and global conflict.”[2].

In actuality, climate change policy will result in great displacement, mass impoverishment and genocide. Much has been said by real scientists on these issues such as the Sky Dragon Slayers, Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts and thousands of others. The policy documents from the Club of Rome and the United Nations to Ecoscience detail their true agenda, in their own words. Historian and economist Webster Tarpley recently gave a lecture dissecting this documentation revealing their agenda of deindustrialization, mass involuntary sterilization, global depopulation and the establishment of what they call a “planetary regime” or what Senator Brown calls a “world parliament.”[3] India is already giving away cars in exchange for male and female sterilization.[4]

Senator Brown: World Government is Real, No Conspiracy Theory
Australian Green leader, Senator Bob Brown, recently unveiled his hope for a “world parliament.” [5] Corporate commentators and spineless journalists proclaim the idea of a world parliament is something now to be treated seriously, not laughed at.[6] Authors and researchers discussing long laid out plans for world parliament and critical of the movement, consistently having been right on the money, have been laughed at for so long and called derogatory terms. Now we are to stop laughing and take it serious, for the time of world government is nigh.

Senator Brown believes we are inevitably moving toward a world community or “global, uh, parliamentary...governance” while deriding conspiracy talk. One will notice how all politicians who make public mention of this agenda always stutter before they proclaim “global, uh, governance.” On a personal note, I was given similar treatment. In university, one of my professors (a psychologist) had summoned my classmate and me for coffee. Strange, but we realized he had been secretly evaluating our sanity due to the matters we were discussing in class. Upon complaining to the university head, we were given a final lecture by the latter. He derided conspiracy talk and such. However, he then went on to state that there was nothing wrong with or believing in a “world state”, that it would be here in five, ten or fifteen years. Hence, the tactic is to label any critic as crazy. The fact that there can be no debate as to the viability of world government de facto demonstrates its undemocratic nature. It does not matter that the majority do not want it, they will get it.

Ad

Though Senator Brown’s party voted against invading Iraq and Afghanistan, he goes on to state that “if we can invade Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of democracy, surely we can peacefully get behind moves to have a global governance.”[7] He adds a cherry on top by furthering that the Tobin Tax would end poverty. He is right, there is a pattern. The Iraq war was an outright lie, where the Bush Administration fabricated evidence and put into force war plans long drawn up. Afghanistan saw them go after a non-existing boogeyman, even on their own payroll, to fulfill Sir Halford Mackinder’s and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s plan to dominate the Heartland and cull the world’s heroin profits. In similar vein, global warming, I mean, climate change is based on fabricated intelligence and ulterior motives.

Walter Russell Mead writes in a recent essay, that a Global Green Carbon Treaty (GGCT) "is less a treaty than a constitution for global government. The green plan is a plan for a global constitution because the treaty will regulate economic production in every country on earth."[8]

Australia could be providing model climate framework just as the European Union laid the foundational model for regional integration, with its “extensive experience at the regional level” that is being drawn upon to integrate Africa, the Americas, the Middle East and Asia via “the Pan-African Parliament, the Mercosur Parliament and there is also the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe that includes 56 states and stretches from Vancouver to Vladivostok.”[9] Australia is attempting to spearhead the establishment of the carbon tax and other climate policy even as the EU Carbon Climate Exchange collapses, just as it did in Chicago.[10]

If anyone still doubts the genocidal nature of climate change policy, consider their idea to massacre one million camels.[11] What will happen to the millions of Central Asian herders whose animals are their lifeblood when the world parliament comes for their camels?

Notes:

[1] "Climate Change and Energy." The Greens. <http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-and-energy>.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Tarpley, Webster G. "The Elite's Plan for Global Extermination." YouTube. 26 Apr. 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Eo2YTQUr8>.

[4] "India: Rajasthan in 'cars for Sterilisation' Drive." BBC. 1 July 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13982031>.

[5] "Australia Should Support Efforts for a Global Parliament: Green Party Leader." Campaign for a UN Parliament. 30 June 2011. <http://en.unpacampaign.org/news/567.php>.

[6] Carr, Andrew. "Why Not a World Parliament?" The Interpreter | Lowy Institute for International Policy. 30 June 2011. <http://lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/06/30/Why-not-a-world-parliament.aspx>.

[7] Ibid. 
[8] Mead, Walter Russell. "The Failure of Al Gore: Part Deux." The American Interest Blog Directory. 27 June 2011. <http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/27/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-deux>.

[9] See note 5.

[10] Maher, Sid. "As EU Carbon Price Slumps, Labor Offers 'battler Buffer' | The Australian." The Australian. 28 June 2011. <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/as-eu-carbon-price-slumps-labor-offers-battler-buffer/story-fn59niix-1226083059624>.

[11] "Aussies May Kill 1.2 Million Camels to Reduce Greenhouse Gase." The Raw Story. 9 June 2011.  <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/06/09/aussies-eye-camel-slaughter-as-means-of-reducing-pollution>.

This article first appeared at Global Governance Archive, an information war desk which seeks to aid researchers both new and old in sifting through the most important material on everything from economy to the architecture of global government which is now being built. 

 

source: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/australian-green-party-leader-admits.html