Showing posts with label BUSH. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BUSH. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2018
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Friday, January 01, 2016
Jeb Bush: GOP Must Be Inclusive; Can't Insult Its Way To The White House
Updated December 31, 2015 11:55 AM ET
Published December 31, 2015 5:11 AM ET
Listen to the Story
7:11
POLITICS
Jeb Bush Says Voters' Passions For Trump Will Pass
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush talks to Steve Inskeep about his vision for the party and explains his immigration policy. While down in the polls, Bush still has a well-financed campaign.
RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:
Jeb Bush is ending a challenging year. The son of a president and brother of a president started 2015 favored to win the Republican presidential nomination.
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
Bush ends the year looking differently. When campaign reporters spin out scenarios for who could win, they sometimes neglect to mention him.
What has sustained you these last few months?
JEB BUSH: Well, I've got - I'm not going to stand up and pull them out, but I have a little Jesus in my pocket that I carry with me and some rosary beads. And first and foremost, what sustains me is my faith.
INSKEEP: His faith and his belief that he could make a difference.
BUSH: The possibility of becoming president sustains me in ways that it's hard to describe.
INSKEEP: That possibility is at risk, though the former Florida governor still has money and a big goal. He wants to redirect the energies of his party. Bush talked of this in our year-end interview. He is among the Republicans who planned a new tone for this election until Donald Trump arrived. Trump spoke of walls on the border and keeping out Muslims, and many Republicans flocked to him. For Jeb Bush, the first question is - what went wrong?
BUSH: I would argue that Donald Trump is in fact a creature of Barack Obama. But for Barack Obama, Donald Trump's effect would not be nearly as strong as it is. We're living in a divided country right now, and we need political leaders, rather than continuing to divide us as both President Obama and Donald Trump do, to unite us.
INSKEEP: Your party sponsored a report in 2013. It was described as an autopsy of the election loss in 2012. One of your close advisors, I believe, was one of the authors of that report. Among the many recommendations was that the party needed to be more inclusive...
BUSH: ...Yeah...
INSKEEP: ...More welcoming to people of color, and embrace comprehensive immigration reform. What if it turns out that Republican primary voters just are not willing to go there?
BUSH: Well, look, it's - I think the report is accurate for us to win the election. That was the - their point wasn't how are people feeling, you know, in the primary, their mission was how do we win? It's tough being in exile. It's lonely for now near eight years, and to imagine another eight years or four years with Hillary Clinton as president is something that is unfathomable for most Republicans. So the argument that we need to realize our demography as a nation is changing and we need to make our - we're going to have to change our principles. In fact, I think we need to reestablish them because the Conservative movement is a hopeful, optimistic movement at its best.
INSKEEP: Although aren't you in a situation where, granting that no votes have been cast, but based on the polling in 2015, very large numbers of Republican primary voters don't seem to want to be in that spot you'd like them to be in.
BUSH: Well, they want to win though. And if they have a honest appraisal of how we're going to win - we're not going to win by insulting our way to the presidency. You cannot disparage women, people of disabilities, Mexican-Americans, POWs, Muslims. It's not a strategy for victory. It's a strategy to maintain this divisive kind of culture we're in right now.
INSKEEP: One of your rivals, Ted Cruz, made a joke the other day. It was a joke that spoke, I think, to a serious point. He said that the politically correct term for illegal immigrants now was undocumented Democrats, which speaks, I think, to the Republican suspicion that this is all about registering Democrats, ultimately, making citizens of people who are likely to be Democrats. Democrats have the opposite suspicion that Republicans just want to prevent immigrants from voting. How much of the impasse here is really about that question, the question of political power in the future?
BUSH: It's an interesting point. I don't know what percentage of the gridlock can be related to that. The proposal ought to be, for a Conservative, for the people that are here illegally, a path to legal status. Not a path to citizenship, but a path out from the shadows where you pay a fine, where you learn English, where you work, where you don't commit crimes, you don't receive federal government assistance, and over an extended period of time you earn legal status. That's the answer. The answer isn't to joke, as Senator Cruz apparently did. It's to offer a proposal that will solve the problem.
INSKEEP: And if someone says to you, Governor Bush just doesn't want that person to vote, that's why he's objecting to their citizenship...
BUSH: ...I think it's a question of fairness. I think it's a question of fairness. Why should someone - it's called illegal immigration for a reason. People came here illegally. Why should people gain citizenship by coming here illegally? I just - I don't quite understand why that is such a compelling moral argument.
INSKEEP: So let me ask about an implication of that. You have argued that on immigration and so many other issues, that you are far better positioned for a general election than many of your opponents for the Republican nomination. But Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee - and you've made it clear in your remarks you believe she will be - no matter who the Republican nominee is, she will still be able to hammer them on this issue. She'd be able to hammer you and say you're against a pathway to citizenship. Aren't you still going to be vulnerable on this in a general election?
BUSH: No, because I have a proven record as it relates to immigrants and immigration, and a tone and a leadership as governor of Florida that defies whatever the attacks will be. As it relates to my reelection effort - when I ran for it in a purple state, I got 60 percent of the Latino vote. I got more Latino votes than I got non-Latino white votes. And there's a reason for that, because I campaigned and I governed in a way that was inclusive. Hillary can talk all she was about the stuff that she wants to do, but her record of accomplishment is quite narrow. She's passed - she was a senator for eight years, I believe, and she passed - three bills became law that she sponsored. One was renaming a highway, one was naming a monument, and one was naming a post office.
INSKEEP: Are you saying you'd tell her you'd never get a pathway to citizenship anyway?
BUSH: I would tell her that I have a proven record as it relates to - I don't need to be lectured to about my commitment to the immigrant communities because I did it.
INSKEEP: I also want to ask about your family, governor, but in a different way, I think, than you've been asked about it in the past. People ask you - will you be different than your brother, how would you be different than your brother...
BUSH: ...Yeah, I have a lot of that...
INSKEEP: ...Questions like that. This is a different question. I'm thinking about the fact that the Bush name, your last name, is in political terms a brand. So can you define it for us? What is the Bush brand?
BUSH: Well, I think the Bush brand, if there is one - I'm not sure people can be created into - we use branding now kind of in a broader context than maybe we're used to. It would be integrity. It would be having a servant's heart. It would be patriotic, loving the country. And in my case, you know - look, I'm a Conservative, but I believe that conservativism needs to be applied in a hopeful, optimistic way. And I think that's another part of the Bush brand that I hope people will be reminded of, that it's a hopeful, optimistic message, not a divisive one.
INSKEEP: Governor, thanks very much.
BUSH: Yeah, happy New Year.
INSKEEP: Happy New Year to you.
Copyright © 2015 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio.
Source
P.S.
Jeb Bush on his knees in homage to Ratzinger.
.
.Thursday, June 18, 2015
He Was Born Republican Royalty, But 'Jebcito' Is From Miami
JUNE 15, 2015 5:00 AM ET
MARA LIASSON
7:16
Playlist
Former Gov. Jeb Bush (left) serves helpings of paella to guests attending the Miami-Dade Day festivities in 2002, with former state Rep. Gary Siplin (center) and former U.S. Sen. Kendrick Meek.Phil Coale/AP
This story is part of NPR's series Journey Home. We're going to the places presidential candidates call home and finding out what those places tell us about how they see the world.
There are three Republican candidates who ran Spanish-language ads when they announced their presidential intentions — but only one was an Anglo.
Jeb Bush not only speaks fluent Spanish, he has made his home by completely embracing Latino culture and putting down roots in South Florida.
Ana Navarro, his former aide, tells a little story that shows just how much he's adopted the culture: One day, she suggested something to Bush that he rejected because it was too expensive. Then, she said, he touched his elbow with his hand.
"That's a very Hispanic gesture for meaning: 'Because I'm cheap, because I'm frugal,' " Navarro said. "It means 'I walk with my elbows so as not to wear out my shoes.' In Spanish, it would say, Yo camino con los codos. And it's that kind of nuance that he fully understands."
To understand why Bush only half-jokingly adopted the Twitter hashtag #honorarylatino, you have to understand the path he took to his current home in South Florida. Bush grew up in Midland, Texas, he summered in Maine and went to prep school in Andover, Mass. And it was in high school that his path home really began. He met his wife, Columba, on a high school exchange trip to Mexico. In college, he majored in Latin American Studies. He converted to Catholicism, and he worked briefly in Venezuala. But the place he chose to put down roots was Miami.
"It certainly did shape him," said Tom Fiedler, the former political editor of the Miami Herald. "The story of Miami since the Cuban exiles began coming has been one of being the new immigrant city."
Former President George H.W. Bush embraces his son, Jeb, as Barbara Bush applauds during a rally in downtown Orlando, Fla., in 1994.Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/MCT/Landov
Bush first came to Florida to organize his father's campaign in the state for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination. Then he and Columba decided to stay. Jeb went into business — real estate — and the family business, party politics. At the same time, the Mariel boatlift brought thousands of new Cuban immigrants to Florida. As Fiedler remembers, the leaders of the Cuban community in Miami decided they needed to become active in U.S. politics — and the Republican party was their natural home "because of the passion for President Reagan," he said. "They flocked to the Republican party, and Jeb was there to take advantage of that."
By then, Bush had three children — whom his father, George H.W. Bush, once referred to as "little brown ones." The young family settled into their new home near Miami, and in 1983 he became the chairman of the Dade County Republican Party. At that time, registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans in Dade County 3 to 2. Bush set out to change that, and he started with the Cubans.
Local Cuban radio host Ninoska Perez watched as Bush became deeply connected to the Cuban community. Perez is a host at Radio Mambi in Coral Gables, where the Bushes now live. She met Bush early on and has interviewed him many times on her show.
"The problems of the Cuban community were like part of his own problems," Perez says. "If we were protesting for something, he was there."
By the mid-1980s, newspaper profiles in Miami referred to Bush as one of the most prominent members of the Hispanic community. So Perez isn't surprised that Bush once mistakenly listed his ethnicity as Hispanic on a Florida voter registration form.
iRadio Mambi in Coral Gables, Fla., where the Bush family now lives.Mara Liasson/NPR
"Probably in his mind he's thinking, 'Yes, I am,' " she says, "because that's how he was perceived. A lot of people were calling him 'Jebcito,' like someone that was dear to them."
And it wasn't just Cubans. Miami in the '80s was also receiving waves of Nicaraguans fleeing upheaval in Central America. Navarro said that's another way the melting pot of South Florida shaped Bush. It made him understand pan-Hispanic culture.
"Jeb knows what chilaquiles is the same way he knows what Cuban picadillo is and can move effortlessly through the different Hispanic nationalities because of living in Miami," Navarro said.
Just a mile away from Radio Mambi's offices in Coral Gables is Talavera, an upscale Mexican restaurant where Bush and his family like to eat. That's where I meet Marina de la Milera. She was on the executive committee of the Dade County Republican Party when Jeb was the chairman.
Marina de la Milera outside Talavera, an upscale Mexican restaurant where Bush and his family like to eat.Mara Liasson/NPR
"He had a plan for the party, and he carried it," she said.
Back when de la Milera met him, Jeb Bush was Republican royalty — the son of the man who rode on Air Force Two. but what impressed her most about Bush was his drive and work ethic. Bush has said that his father saw politics as public service, but he sees it as a mission, like a religion. Milera remembers that Bush's goal as the Dade County GOP chairman was to register every newly naturalized Hispanic as a Republican.
"We did in one year 54,000 applications. We filled out 54,000 applications for citizens," she said.
As Bush and his family found their place in South Florida — with its vibrant mix of Latin American immigrants — Bush was building the vehicle for his own political ambitions. It paid off. Bush won the Hispanic vote twice in his races for governor. He once called himself the first "Latino governor of the state of Florida."
Al Cardenas, who was the state GOP chairman in the '80s, says that Bush's connection to the Hispanic community is now his biggest asset as a presidential candidate.
"In our party, no one else seems to give the community the time share in their schedule that Democrats do," he said. "And so here comes Jeb Bush — his schedule is representative of the Hispanic community's role in our country. That should be the rule, except that our party's been slow to learn it."
Bush's schedule has put him before Hispanic audiences in Puerto Rico and Texas, neither of which play much of a role in the GOP primary. But Bush has his sights firmly fixed on the general election, which he knows Republicans must do much better with Hispanics to win.
"I live in Miami. Trust me, I know the power of the immigrant experience, because I live it each and every day," Bush said earlier this year on a trip to Puerto Rico. "I know the immigrant experience, because I married a beautiful girl from Mexico. My children are bicultural and bilingual."
Bush even manages to slip in a reference to his hometown in South Florida when he campaigned in New Hampshire recently and answered a question about country of origin labeling for food imports.
"When I go to Publix in Coral Gables," he said, "after church to go prepare for Sunday Funday in my house ... and I'll probably make a really good guacamole and I want to know where that avocado is from and I want to know where the onions are from and the cilantro and all the secret stuff I put in it."
John Ellis Bush — son and brother of U.S. presidents, grandson of Connecticut Sen. Prescott Bush — can make a mean guacamole, if he does say so himself.
Source
.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Jeb Bush: Pope Francis should steer clear of climate issue
© Joe Skipper / Reuters
BY STEVE HOLLAND AND
AMANDA BECKER,Reuters
BY STEVE HOLLAND AND
AMANDA BECKER,Reuters
June 16, 2015
DERRY, N.H./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In his first official day on the presidential campaign trail on Tuesday, Republican Jeb Bush, a Catholic, had sharp words on Pope Francis’ decision to leap into the climate change debate, saying the pontiff should steer clear of political issues.
Bush, at a town hall event in New Hampshire a day after formally announcing his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, said he was eager to read an encyclical the Vatican is set to release Thursday on climate change, but will take it with a grain of salt, even as he called Francis an extraordinary leader.
"I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home,” Bush said. “But I don’t get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope."
Bush, a former Florida governor who converted to Catholicism 25 years ago, said religion "ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm."
Francis, according to a leaked draft version of his encyclical, or a letter to bishops, says the world could see destruction of entire ecosystems this century without urgent action on climate change.
In the Italian version of the 192-page document, posted on Monday by the weekly magazine l'Espresso, the pope again backs scientists who say global warming is mostly man-made and says that developed countries have a particular responsibility to stem a trend that will hurt the poor the most.
In an appearance in New Hampshire last month, Bush said it was arrogant for people to insist that science on climate change is clear.
In Derry on Tuesday, Bush said he did not think the science on climate change was "complete."
But Vice President Joseph Biden, a practicing Catholic, invoked the pope's encyclical at clean energy conference at the White House on Tuesday. "Usually encyclicals are only issued on what the church thinks are incredibly important initiatives," Biden said.
He cited a growing consensus about the need to fight climate change, adding, "This doesn't only have a moral component to it, it has a security component to it, as well as it has an economic component to it."
Bush is not the only Republican presidential candidate to differ publicly with Pope Francis.
In January, after the pope said there was no need to procreate "like rabbits" in order to be a faithful Catholic, Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator and also a Catholic who announced his bid for the Republican nomination in May, said that it was "sometimes very difficult to listen to the pope and some of the things he says off the cuff."
More than 70 percent of U.S. Catholics believe the planet is getting warmer, though only 47 percent attribute that warming to human causes, according to the Pew Research Center. The views of Catholics on the issue are similar to those of Americans overall.
(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by Leslie Adler)
.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Jeb Bush Confronted By College Student: 'Your Brother Created ISIS'
College student confronts Jeb Bush
Published on May 14, 2015
A college student confronted the former Florida governor and potential Republican presidential candidate, asserting, "your brother created ISIS."
.
.
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Sheila Jackson Lee falsely claims Dems never tried to impeach George Bush
.
.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, falsely claims Democrats never tried to impeach George W. Bush.Jeff Dunetz
Getty Images
July 31, 2014
While speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the Texas Democrat once dubbed the "Congressional boss from Hell," falsely claimed Democrats never tried to impeach George W. Bush. There's only one problem, as Jeff Dunetz noted at Yid with Lid. Not only did Democrats try to impeach Bush, Jackson Lee sponsored the measure.
"I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job," she said, speaking against a GOP resolution authorizing a lawsuit against President Obama. "A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war it had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority."
But, Dunetz noted, former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced H.Res.1258, a measure intended to impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors in June 2008. The 167-page measure was sponsored by 11 Democrats -- Barbara Lee of California, Robert Wexler of Florida, Lynn Woolsey of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Maurice Hinchey of New York, Sam Farr of California, Ed Towns of New York, Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Bob Filner of California, the disgraced former mayor of San Diego. Listed last, but certainly not least, is Sheila Jackson Lee.
Dunetz wondered if Jackson Lee was either "lying or too stupid to remember" that she had sponsored the bill. After all, she once claimed the Constitution is 400 years old.
"Granted it was over six years ago and she is of feeble mind, but it is all in Govtrack (it's in Thomas.gov as well)," he noted. The bill, according to Govtrack, was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, but died.
It's not the only impeachment measure Kucinich filed against Bush, however. In July 2008, he introduced a shorter measure, H. Res 1345, alleging Bush "deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq weapons of mass destruction to fraudulently obtain support for the authorization of use of force against Iraq and to commit troops to combat in Iraq."
That measure attracted four sponsors, including Lee, Wexler, Filner and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. That measure also died. Jackson Lee did not sign on as a co-sponsor, however, she or her staff could easily have found the measure had they done their homework.
"So I ask you dear readers was Ms. Jackson Lee be succumbing to her low metal capacity when she said the Democrats never tried to impeach Bush 43? You know--something like the time she stood on the floor of the house discussing how North and South Vietnam are living peacefully side by side, even though there hasn't been both a North and South Vietnam since Gerald Ford was President," Dunetz asked. Or, he added, was she simply lying?
Source
.
.
.
.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, falsely claims Democrats never tried to impeach George W. Bush.Jeff Dunetz
Getty Images
July 31, 2014
While speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives Wednesday, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the Texas Democrat once dubbed the "Congressional boss from Hell," falsely claimed Democrats never tried to impeach George W. Bush. There's only one problem, as Jeff Dunetz noted at Yid with Lid. Not only did Democrats try to impeach Bush, Jackson Lee sponsored the measure.
"I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job," she said, speaking against a GOP resolution authorizing a lawsuit against President Obama. "A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war it had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority."
But, Dunetz noted, former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, introduced H.Res.1258, a measure intended to impeach Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors in June 2008. The 167-page measure was sponsored by 11 Democrats -- Barbara Lee of California, Robert Wexler of Florida, Lynn Woolsey of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Maurice Hinchey of New York, Sam Farr of California, Ed Towns of New York, Jim McDermott of Washington, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Bob Filner of California, the disgraced former mayor of San Diego. Listed last, but certainly not least, is Sheila Jackson Lee.
Dunetz wondered if Jackson Lee was either "lying or too stupid to remember" that she had sponsored the bill. After all, she once claimed the Constitution is 400 years old.
"Granted it was over six years ago and she is of feeble mind, but it is all in Govtrack (it's in Thomas.gov as well)," he noted. The bill, according to Govtrack, was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, but died.
It's not the only impeachment measure Kucinich filed against Bush, however. In July 2008, he introduced a shorter measure, H. Res 1345, alleging Bush "deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq weapons of mass destruction to fraudulently obtain support for the authorization of use of force against Iraq and to commit troops to combat in Iraq."
That measure attracted four sponsors, including Lee, Wexler, Filner and Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. That measure also died. Jackson Lee did not sign on as a co-sponsor, however, she or her staff could easily have found the measure had they done their homework.
"So I ask you dear readers was Ms. Jackson Lee be succumbing to her low metal capacity when she said the Democrats never tried to impeach Bush 43? You know--something like the time she stood on the floor of the house discussing how North and South Vietnam are living peacefully side by side, even though there hasn't been both a North and South Vietnam since Gerald Ford was President," Dunetz asked. Or, he added, was she simply lying?
Source
.
.
.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
President Bush's national address on the Economic Crisis of 2008
President Bush Addresses Nation on Economic Crisis
tpmtv·
Uploaded on Sep 25, 2008
President Bush national address, September 24, 2008
.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Obama’s Vacation Comes With a Twist
AUGUST 18, 2011, 7:09 PM ET
By Carol E. Lee
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. – The president left for vacation in August, and the opposition pounced. Critics accused him of evading the problems in Washington, and taking cover with a family getaway during “the dog days of summer.”
That was 2005, not 2011. The president was George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. And the spokesman for the Democratic National Committee who criticized Mr. Bush’s Crawford, Texas, retreat at the time was Josh Earnest, now the top White House spokesman on President Obama’s nine-day vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, which began Thursday.
In a twist that shows how partisan criticism of a president’s vacation is an annual Washington ritual, Mr. Earnest is the president’s lead defender against Republican critics who say Mr. Obama should not be vacationing on this elite island during tough economic times.
“The president understands that he has important responsibilities to fill, and it’s his job to fill those responsibilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” Mr. Earnest said when asked about the criticism by reporters flying with the president Thursday to Martha’s Vineyard.
“At the same, he’s also a husband and a father,” Mr. Earnest said. “And I don’t think the American people begrudge the president spending a little time with his wife and daughters, at the end of the summer, before his daughters head back to school.”
For Mr. Bush, the summer of 2005 was plagued with a CIA-leak scandal that enveloped his chief adviser, Karl Rove. Those were the “legitimate questions dogging the president” that Mr. Earnest referenced in a DNC comment to the Washington Post.
For Mr. Obama, it’s the economy – and a presidential election that’s beginning to heat up. The Republican National Committee issued a statement Thursday saying Mr. Obama’s ”high-class vacation during difficult economic times is a perfect example of an out of touch president.”
Mr. Earnest stressed that the president will remain engaged on economic issues. He’ll be preparing his post-Labor Day speech on jobs and the deficit. Next week, Brian Deese, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, will travel to Martha’s Vineyard “to provide regular updates and briefings for the president,” Mr. Earnest said.
“Over the course of his time in Martha’s Vineyard, he will be getting updates from his economic team,” Mr. Earnest said, adding that John Brennan, the chief counterterrorism adviser, will be on the island for the entire vacation.
But the president’s time on the island is mostly about getting some down time.
“This is an opportunity for the president to spend a little time away from the spotlight with his wife and two daughters, an opportunity for him to play golf, a hobby that he enjoys,” Mr. Earnest said. “It is also an opportunity for him to do some of the other things you have seen him do, go out and get ice cream and ride bicycles.”
One thing Mr. Obama will not do, Mr. Earnest said, is attend a DNC fund-raiser taking place on Martha’s Vineyard Thursday night.
Related
By Carol E. Lee
VINEYARD HAVEN, Mass. – The president left for vacation in August, and the opposition pounced. Critics accused him of evading the problems in Washington, and taking cover with a family getaway during “the dog days of summer.”
President Barack Obama is greeted at the Cape Cod Coast Guard Station in Bourne, Mass., Thursday. (AP Photo/Stew Milne)
In a twist that shows how partisan criticism of a president’s vacation is an annual Washington ritual, Mr. Earnest is the president’s lead defender against Republican critics who say Mr. Obama should not be vacationing on this elite island during tough economic times.
“The president understands that he has important responsibilities to fill, and it’s his job to fill those responsibilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” Mr. Earnest said when asked about the criticism by reporters flying with the president Thursday to Martha’s Vineyard.
“At the same, he’s also a husband and a father,” Mr. Earnest said. “And I don’t think the American people begrudge the president spending a little time with his wife and daughters, at the end of the summer, before his daughters head back to school.”
For Mr. Bush, the summer of 2005 was plagued with a CIA-leak scandal that enveloped his chief adviser, Karl Rove. Those were the “legitimate questions dogging the president” that Mr. Earnest referenced in a DNC comment to the Washington Post.
For Mr. Obama, it’s the economy – and a presidential election that’s beginning to heat up. The Republican National Committee issued a statement Thursday saying Mr. Obama’s ”high-class vacation during difficult economic times is a perfect example of an out of touch president.”
Mr. Earnest stressed that the president will remain engaged on economic issues. He’ll be preparing his post-Labor Day speech on jobs and the deficit. Next week, Brian Deese, the deputy director of the National Economic Council, will travel to Martha’s Vineyard “to provide regular updates and briefings for the president,” Mr. Earnest said.
“Over the course of his time in Martha’s Vineyard, he will be getting updates from his economic team,” Mr. Earnest said, adding that John Brennan, the chief counterterrorism adviser, will be on the island for the entire vacation.
But the president’s time on the island is mostly about getting some down time.
“This is an opportunity for the president to spend a little time away from the spotlight with his wife and two daughters, an opportunity for him to play golf, a hobby that he enjoys,” Mr. Earnest said. “It is also an opportunity for him to do some of the other things you have seen him do, go out and get ice cream and ride bicycles.”
One thing Mr. Obama will not do, Mr. Earnest said, is attend a DNC fund-raiser taking place on Martha’s Vineyard Thursday night.
Related
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
What is the "W" for?
I believe it stands for: Why now?
Recently, ex-President Bush has made the headlines, out of the blue.
Where has he been for the last 22 months?
Well, Mr. Bush is making the rounds while President Obama is busy visiting Asia and his hometown (his other, other, other hometown) Indonesia .
What a time to release his memoirs?
What peculiar timing?
Is this the time to have the neo-cons heading for Borders? Following the rip roaring midterm elections?
While Obama's on tour, the Bishop of Rome - Ratzinger is in Barcelona dedicating la Santa Familia Cathedral, and the Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas Pachon SJ, is busy working rallying the troops behind the scenes in the home of liberation theology - neo-socialist (fascist) Latin America? Is this the time for such a feat or what?
Recently, ex-President Bush has made the headlines, out of the blue.
Where has he been for the last 22 months?
Well, Mr. Bush is making the rounds while President Obama is busy visiting Asia and his hometown (his other, other, other hometown) Indonesia .
What a time to release his memoirs?
What peculiar timing?
Is this the time to have the neo-cons heading for Borders? Following the rip roaring midterm elections?
While Obama's on tour, the Bishop of Rome - Ratzinger is in Barcelona dedicating la Santa Familia Cathedral, and the Black Pope Adolfo Nicolas Pachon SJ, is busy working rallying the troops behind the scenes in the home of liberation theology - neo-socialist (fascist) Latin America? Is this the time for such a feat or what?
Could this be considered an Attention Coup?
During his resurrection from anonymity G. W. Bush reveals among many other salty secrets, that he had an alcohol problem. Nah, really? I wasn't surprised about his affinity for alcohol. I noticed that in every step he took as president he acted as if he were drunk with the wine of Babylon. You know, the wine that flows from the Church of Rome.
Bush claims to be a Methodist or whatever he calls himself. Yet, he swore allegiance to carry out the example of JP II early during his presidency; In March 2001 Bush stated:
The best way to honor Pope John Paul II, truly one of the great men, is to take his teachings seriously, to listen to his words and put his words and his teachings into action here in America! http://www.ncregister.com/info/email-a-friend/bush_hails_pope_for_culture_of_life
In April 2005 at John Paul II's funeral George W.Bush said:
"Pope John Paul II was, himself, an inspiration to millions of Americans, and to so many more throughout the world. We will always remember the humble, wise and fearless priest who became one of history's great moral leaders. We're grateful to God for sending such a man, a son of Poland, who became the Bishop of Rome, and a hero for the ages."
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32964.asp
In contrast to America's only acknowledged Catholic president ever:
"In 1960, John Kennedy went from Washington to Texas to assure Protestant preachers he would not obey the pope. In 2001, George Bush came from Texas up to Washington to assure a group of Catholic Bishops he would obey the pope." Washington Times, April 16, 2001.
http://www.rense.com/general66/midfin.htm
Yes, our Methodist ex-president is making the rounds again, this time peddling his-story, like Michael Jackson once did (speaking of MJ. his children are making a debut, again), a.k.a. re-writing history; But, you can't fool all of the people all of the times, as a popular Protestant (who was assassinated by the Jesuits) used to say.
Keep your eyes open for the news behind the noose, the fine print between the lines.
Arsenio,
Maranatha.
P.S. President George W. Bush will join Matt Lauer for a live sit-down interview on TODAY on Wednesday, Nov. 10.
.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
President Bush Sees GOD in Pope's eyes
ZENIT - Bush Says He Sees God in Eyes of Pope
Apr 13, 2008 ... The president says he plans to do this "because [the Pope] is a really important ... famously, when you looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes you saw his soul. [...] When you look into Benedict XVI's eyes what do you see?" ...
tam3939 April 19, 2008
Interview with President Bush
.
Apr 13, 2008 ... The president says he plans to do this "because [the Pope] is a really important ... famously, when you looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes you saw his soul. [...] When you look into Benedict XVI's eyes what do you see?" ...
tam3939 April 19, 2008
Interview with President Bush
.
Monday, February 01, 2010
DEPOPULATION BY GOVERNMENT EDICT
PART 1 of 2
Deanna Spingola
February 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
In 1922, Margaret Sanger wrote The Pivot of Civilization with an introduction by eugenicist H. G. Wells. The Rockefeller Foundation “enthusiastically supported the concept of ‘eugenics,’ which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have ‘good’ genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.”[1] John D. Rockefeller Jr., per the advice of Raymond B. Fosdick, provided financial backing for Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood movement.[2] Sanger, a feminist and birth control activist established the first family planning clinics in New York City. Several U.S. foundations financed eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport’s eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research at the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York.[3]
Advocates for population control and the study of eugenics include Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Wilson, president of Harvard and Irving Fisher, president of Yale and president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s plus a host of other very public vocal figures.[4] President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court where he served from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was an advocate for selective breeding and issued the sterilization verdict in the case of Carrie Buck in 1927. He said, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”[5] Sir Frederick Pollock, a Pilgrims Society member and law professor at Oxford, was the editor of Law Quarterly Review from 1885 to 1919. He was in close communication with Harvard-educated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during a sixty-year period of time. Researcher Charles Savoie maintains that the Pilgrims Society was closely connected to America’s Supreme Court for more than a century.[6]
The Rockefeller Foundation financed what is known as Psychiatric Genetics, a new specialty. The Foundation restructured medical training in Germany including managing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity under the direction of Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, supported by his trusty protégés, Otmar Verschuer and Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British eugenics’ movement appointed Dr. Rudin as president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement promoted the killing or sterilization of burdensome people, individuals that Henry Kissinger referred to as “useless eaters.”[7] Rockefeller funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Eugenics Institute in Germany, founded in 1927.
The Bush family joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was later found guilty of trading with the Nazis during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during the war. In fact, one judge declared Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race,” which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite like the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families.[8]
Hitler, who had been financed by international bankers, became Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933. Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior, introduced the early sterilization law which was enacted within six months after Hitler was appointed chancellor. Sterilization was used for “life unworthy of life.” Certain individuals who reportedly warranted serialization included those with: “congenital feeblemindedness (now called mental deficiency), an estimated 200,000; manic depressive insanity, 20,000; schizophrenia, 80,000; epilepsy, 60,000; Huntington’s chorea (a hereditary brain disorder), 600; hereditary blindness, 4,000; hereditary deafness, 16,000; grave bodily malformation, 20,000; and hereditary alcoholism, 10,000. The projected total of 410,000 was considered only preliminary, drawn mostly from people already in institutions; it was assumed that much greater numbers of people would eventually be identified and sterilized.”[9]
After the Nazis took power, I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil merged into a single entity which contained beneficial provisions for each company. I.G. Farben was, until 1937, controlled by the Warburg family who had collaborated with Rockefeller in crafting Nazi eugenics. Standard Oil maintained their alliance with I.G. Farben even after the U.S. entered the war. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben constructed a large industrial complex in Poland adjacent the Auschwitz concentration camp where they planned to use slave labor to make gasoline from coal. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich admitted that Standard Oil financed part of the operations at Auschwitz.[10]
In the fall of 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson contacted Dr. Frank B. Jewett, president of the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss the further development of biological warfare. This was prior to America’s entry into World War II, but according to his diary Secretary Stimson was well aware of imminent events. Shortly afterwards, President Roosevelt authorized Stimson to create a civilian agency to supervise biological warfare under the jurisdiction of the Federal Security Agency. George Merck, owner of Merck Pharmaceutical and close adviser to Roosevelt, was appointed director of the new War Research Service.[11]
Frank McDougall participated in the area of public health within the old League of Nations. He made the connection between community health, nutrition, and agricultural development and economic policy. The U.N., in a conference in Hot Springs between October 16 and November 1, 1945, formulated the U.N. Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture. Officials drafted the constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). McDougall was a chief architect and promoter of the organization.[12]
The Bureau of Human Heredity relocated from London to Copenhagen in 1947 where they moved into a newly constructed building paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. The initial International Congress in Human Genetics after World War II was convened in Copenhagen in 1956. Verschuer, Rudin’s protégé, was by then a member of the American Eugenics Society, synonymous with Rockefeller’s Population Council. Dr. Kallmann, a director, also organized the American Society of Human Genetics which directed the Human Genome Project. Later, the Rockefellers relocated the U.S. eugenics movement to their family offices where they also controlled future population control and abortion advocacy groups. The Eugenics Society later became the Society for the Study of Social Biology.[13]
U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948, headed by George F. Kennan, concluded, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”[14]
John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded after observations acquired on a number of tours abroad that there was a “need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations.” In 1952, Frederick Osborn, an officer of the American Eugenics Society, assisted John D. Rockefeller III in organizing the Population Council and served as its first administrator. In 1958, Eisenhower selected William H. Draper to head a committee to evaluate appropriate military actions in other countries. Draper suggested that a better focus should be the threat of population explosion and a study on depopulation procedures for poorer non-white countries that pose a national security threat to the U.S.[15] Apparently, a burgeoning non-white population might reduce available resources that would be put to better use by white populations. Additionally, growing populations produce resentful individuals who aggressively oppose elitist policies.
Deanna Spingola
February 1, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
In 1922, Margaret Sanger wrote The Pivot of Civilization with an introduction by eugenicist H. G. Wells. The Rockefeller Foundation “enthusiastically supported the concept of ‘eugenics,’ which encourages the reproductive efforts of those deemed to have ‘good’ genes, while discouraging or stopping procreation by undesirables. But Rockefeller and others were anxious to go even further to mold America’s breeding patterns along evolutionary lines.”[1] John D. Rockefeller Jr., per the advice of Raymond B. Fosdick, provided financial backing for Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood movement.[2] Sanger, a feminist and birth control activist established the first family planning clinics in New York City. Several U.S. foundations financed eugenic research, including the Carnegie Institution, which funded Davenport’s eugenic studies at Cold Spring Harbor, and the Rockefeller Foundation, which gave grants in the 1930s for eugenic research at the Galton Laboratory at University College in London and to the Cornell Medical School in New York.[3]
Advocates for population control and the study of eugenics include Theodore Roosevelt, Charles Wilson, president of Harvard and Irving Fisher, president of Yale and president of the Eugenics Research Association in the 1920s plus a host of other very public vocal figures.[4] President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court where he served from 1902 to 1932. Holmes was an advocate for selective breeding and issued the sterilization verdict in the case of Carrie Buck in 1927. He said, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”[5] Sir Frederick Pollock, a Pilgrims Society member and law professor at Oxford, was the editor of Law Quarterly Review from 1885 to 1919. He was in close communication with Harvard-educated Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. during a sixty-year period of time. Researcher Charles Savoie maintains that the Pilgrims Society was closely connected to America’s Supreme Court for more than a century.[6]
The Rockefeller Foundation financed what is known as Psychiatric Genetics, a new specialty. The Foundation restructured medical training in Germany including managing the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity under the direction of Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, supported by his trusty protégés, Otmar Verschuer and Dr. Franz J. Kallmann. In 1932, the British eugenics’ movement appointed Dr. Rudin as president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The eugenics movement promoted the killing or sterilization of burdensome people, individuals that Henry Kissinger referred to as “useless eaters.”[7] Rockefeller funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Eugenics Institute in Germany, founded in 1927.
The Bush family joined John D. Rockefeller and the British Royal Family in sponsoring the eugenics initiatives that gave rise to Hitler’s racial hygiene programs. Prescott Bush was later found guilty of trading with the Nazis during WWII. According to court records, the Rockefeller family and their Standard Oil Company supported Hitler more than they did the allies during the war. In fact, one judge declared Rockefeller guilty of treason. Dr. Gary Glum documented the insidious eugenics programs to create a “superior race,” which were initially sponsored not by Adolph Hitler, but by the American elite like the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Morgan, DuPont, Kellogg and Bush families.[8]
Hitler, who had been financed by international bankers, became Chancellor of the Third Reich on January 30, 1933. Wilhelm Frick, the minister of the interior, introduced the early sterilization law which was enacted within six months after Hitler was appointed chancellor. Sterilization was used for “life unworthy of life.” Certain individuals who reportedly warranted serialization included those with: “congenital feeblemindedness (now called mental deficiency), an estimated 200,000; manic depressive insanity, 20,000; schizophrenia, 80,000; epilepsy, 60,000; Huntington’s chorea (a hereditary brain disorder), 600; hereditary blindness, 4,000; hereditary deafness, 16,000; grave bodily malformation, 20,000; and hereditary alcoholism, 10,000. The projected total of 410,000 was considered only preliminary, drawn mostly from people already in institutions; it was assumed that much greater numbers of people would eventually be identified and sterilized.”[9]
After the Nazis took power, I.G. Farben and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil merged into a single entity which contained beneficial provisions for each company. I.G. Farben was, until 1937, controlled by the Warburg family who had collaborated with Rockefeller in crafting Nazi eugenics. Standard Oil maintained their alliance with I.G. Farben even after the U.S. entered the war. In 1940-41, I.G. Farben constructed a large industrial complex in Poland adjacent the Auschwitz concentration camp where they planned to use slave labor to make gasoline from coal. Standard-Germany president Emil Helfferich admitted that Standard Oil financed part of the operations at Auschwitz.[10]
In the fall of 1941, Secretary of War Henry Stimson contacted Dr. Frank B. Jewett, president of the National Academy of Sciences, to discuss the further development of biological warfare. This was prior to America’s entry into World War II, but according to his diary Secretary Stimson was well aware of imminent events. Shortly afterwards, President Roosevelt authorized Stimson to create a civilian agency to supervise biological warfare under the jurisdiction of the Federal Security Agency. George Merck, owner of Merck Pharmaceutical and close adviser to Roosevelt, was appointed director of the new War Research Service.[11]
Frank McDougall participated in the area of public health within the old League of Nations. He made the connection between community health, nutrition, and agricultural development and economic policy. The U.N., in a conference in Hot Springs between October 16 and November 1, 1945, formulated the U.N. Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture. Officials drafted the constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). McDougall was a chief architect and promoter of the organization.[12]
The Bureau of Human Heredity relocated from London to Copenhagen in 1947 where they moved into a newly constructed building paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation. The initial International Congress in Human Genetics after World War II was convened in Copenhagen in 1956. Verschuer, Rudin’s protégé, was by then a member of the American Eugenics Society, synonymous with Rockefeller’s Population Council. Dr. Kallmann, a director, also organized the American Society of Human Genetics which directed the Human Genome Project. Later, the Rockefellers relocated the U.S. eugenics movement to their family offices where they also controlled future population control and abortion advocacy groups. The Eugenics Society later became the Society for the Study of Social Biology.[13]
U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23, 1948, headed by George F. Kennan, concluded, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”[14]
John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded after observations acquired on a number of tours abroad that there was a “need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations.” In 1952, Frederick Osborn, an officer of the American Eugenics Society, assisted John D. Rockefeller III in organizing the Population Council and served as its first administrator. In 1958, Eisenhower selected William H. Draper to head a committee to evaluate appropriate military actions in other countries. Draper suggested that a better focus should be the threat of population explosion and a study on depopulation procedures for poorer non-white countries that pose a national security threat to the U.S.[15] Apparently, a burgeoning non-white population might reduce available resources that would be put to better use by white populations. Additionally, growing populations produce resentful individuals who aggressively oppose elitist policies.
In 1965, the Population Action International (originally known as the Population Crisis Committee), was founded by Hugh Moore, Lammot du Pont Copeland and William H. Draper Jr. The worldwide organization is headquartered in Washington, DC. Since 2001, in conjunction with the Population Action International, and with the encouragement of Congress, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) distributes information in foreign countries in an effort to initiate family planning and cover other reproductive health programs.
In 1961, John D. Rockefeller III presented the Second McDougall Lecture to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. This predated by a decade Rockefeller’s population protocols that would become part of Kissinger’s NSSM 200. Rockefeller, in his address, said, “To my mind, population growth is second only to control of atomic weapons as the paramount problem of the day.”[16]
The Rockefeller Foundation funded England’s eugenics movement. The Rockefeller family had early ties to the House of Rothschild to which the gigantic Standard oil trust owed its beginnings. Presumably, the Rothschilds, a Talmudic family with early Masonic and Illuminati connections, actively promoted and financed eugenics and depopulation behind the scenes. By the 1960s, the Eugenics Society of England embraced Crypto-eugenics, under which they would participate in eugenics without actually calling it eugenics. The Rockefellers lent their support to England’s Eugenics Society by establishing the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in conjunction with the Eugenics Society. This formed a private, global system in which the elite could choreograph an international holocaust, within the context of offering humanitarian services, all under the jurisdiction of the U.N. flag, another Rockefeller front organization.[17]
George H. W. Bush of Texas, who served in Congress from January 3, 1967 to January 3, 1971, originated a legislative investigation of world overpopulation. [18] Dr. D. M. MacArthur, Deputy Director of Research & Technology for the Pentagon, Department of Defense, requested $10 million from the Congressional House Subcommittee on Appropriations to develop a biological weapon through House Bill 15090. On June 9, 1969, the House Republican research task committee, chaired by George H. W. Bush, heard testimony from General William H. Draper, of the Population Crisis Committee and Dr. William Moran of the Population Reference Bureau. Draper reported that there were three issues relevant to population control – the census of 1970 in the U.S. and of 1971 in Britain should be worldwide and not limited to two countries, accelerating contraception, and the World Health Organization should implement their international programs such as inoculations, etc.[19] Leading World Health Organization scientists, as noted in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, had requested that viruses be created in order to study their affects on humans.
The Department of Defense, now funded with $10 million, intended to conduct studies on immune-system-destroying agents for biological warfare. In 1983 Dr. Robert Strecker, an internist and gastro-enterologist who is also a trained pathologist with a Ph.D. in pharmacology, produced The Strecker Memorandum wherein he claims that the AIDS virus is man-made. Working in conjunction with his brother, attorney Ted Strecker, they discovered thousands of documents verifying the man-made origin of AIDS. Strecker maintains that it was virologically impossible for HIV to have emanated from monkeys; the disease was unknown in Africa before 1975. Strecker claims that the World Health Organization (WHO), funded by the Department of Defense, initiated testing on a lymphotrophic virus, a bovine virus that could also infect humans. In 1977, the WHO instigated a massive campaign in Africa to eradicate smallpox among the urban population. Over 100 million Africans were deliberately inoculated with AIDS-contaminated smallpox vaccine. In 1978, over 2,000 white male homosexuals were inoculated against hepatitis B by the Centers for Disease Control and the New York Blood Center, also with AIDS-contaminated vaccine.[20] Merck, Sharp and Dohme (MSD) funded the hepatitis B vaccine research that Dr. Strecker claimed spread HIV to homosexuals in the U.S.[21] These kinds of weapons were apparently a viable concern immediately after 9/11 as John Bolton gave an address at the Biological Weapons Convention on November 19, 2001 in Geneva, Switzerland, stating our concerns about “terrorists” using biological and chemical weapons.[22] We have trained many foreigners in the use of biological and chemical weapons at Fort McClellan, Alabama.
Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize after he directed the dispersion of tons of Monsanto’s toxic Agent Orange in Vietnam. This chemical, containing dioxin, continues to negatively affect Vietnamese citizens and former U.S. military personnel and their children with horrendous birth defects and neurological disorders. Conversely, Ali Hassan al-Majid, who dispersed chemicals in Halabja, was recently executed for the same activities. Kissinger orchestrated the precedent-setting secret bombing of neutral Cambodia over a four-year period, allegedly to protect Americans in Vietnam.
From 1970 onward, Congress had prohibited bombing in Cambodia in every military appropriations bill except for that open-ended purpose – protecting U.S. citizens – but apparently not from Agent Orange.[23] According to Time magazine of April 19, 1976, “Since the Communist victory last year, an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 people, one-tenth of Cambodia’s population, have died from political reprisals, disease or starvation . . . To escape the bloodbath; at least 25,000 Cambodians have fled across the border into Thailand. They tell tales of people being clubbed to death to save ammunition. Others have been bound together and buried alive by bulldozers, or suffocated by having plastic bags tied over their heads.”[24] For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
Footnotes:
1, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences , the Red Queen and the Grand Scheme by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., Institute for Media Education, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1998, p. 202
2, The Proud Internationalist, the Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller, also available in Nexus Magazine: Vol. 10, No. 5 (August-September 2003); Vol. 20 No.6 (October-November 2003); & Vol. 11 No.1 (December 2003-January
2004); 2006, p. 38
3, Eugenics: A Reassessment by Richard Lynn, edited by Seymour W. Itzkoff, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, 2001, p. 27
4, Ibid
5, War Against the Weak, Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black, Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 2003, pp. 120-122
6, Pilgrims by Charles Savoie, Silver Investor, May 2005,
7, Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin
8, American Bar Association
9, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton, Basic Books, New York, 2000, p. 25
10, Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin
11, Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? by Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron, Inc. Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, pp. 38, 40-41
12, FAO Conference 31st session: Twenty-second McDougall Memorial Lecture, Rome, November 2-13, 2001
13, Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin
14, U.S. State Department Policy Planning Study #23
15, Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes
16, Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 71
17, Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin
18, Emerging Viruses, Aids & Ebola, Nature, Accident or Intentional? By Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing, Inc., Rockport, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 521
19, Ibid, pp. 156, 159
20, Ibid, pp. 3-5
21, Ibid, p. 12
22, Biological Weapons Convention
23, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 277
24, Kissinger, the Secret Side of the Secretary of State by Gary Allen, Shambhala Publications, 1979, p. 14
25, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979, p. 229
26, Ibid, pp. 357-358
27, National Security Study Memorandum NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM 200) – December 10, 1974, pp. 57-58
28, National Security Study Memorandum, NSSM 200, Implications of Worldwide Population Growth, For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests, (The Kissinger Report), December 10, 1974, p. 31
29, Bush UN Choice Faces a Fight By Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster, Los Angeles Times, March 26, 2001
30, John Negroponte & The Death-Squad Connection, Bush Nominates Terrorist for National Intelligence Director by Frank Morales, World War 4 Report
31, Bush, Eugenics and Population Control by Alf Mendes
32, Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Montreal, Canada, 2007, p. 127
33, Who is Maurice Strong? by Ronald Bailey, National Review, Sept 1, 1997
34, Seeds of Destruction, the Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2007, p. 43
35, Ibid, p. 4
36, Ibid, p. 13
37, Ibid, p. 261
38, A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present by Ward Churchill, City Lights Books, San Francisco, p. 249
39, The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonization, and Resistance edited by M. Annette Jaimes, South End Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 1992, p. 7 Jaimes Notes: Jacobs, Wilbur R., "British Indian Policies to 1783," in Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 4: History of Indian-White Relations, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1988, p. 10). As regards inculcation of smallpox among the Mandans in 1837, see Connell, Evan S., Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Big Horn, North Point Press, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 15-6.
40, Catlin and His Contemporaries: The Politics of Patronage by Brian W. Dippie, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1990, p. 331
41, Death Stalks the Yakama: Epidemiological Transitions and Mortality on the Yakama Indian Reservation, 1888-1964 by Clifford E. Trafzer, Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1997, p. 151
42, Rotting face : smallpox and the American Indian by R. G. Robertson, Caxton Press, 2001, Introduction, pp. 107-113
43, Rogue State, a Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 2005, pp. 120-121
44, "We Think the Price Is Worth It" By Rahul Mahajan
45, Howard Zinn in his lecture: Howard Zinn: The Myth of American Exceptionalism
Source:http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna109.htm
..
Friday, January 29, 2010
America's Shadow Government: Part One
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1S2CzgjRm4
RutherfordInstitute
October 06, 2008
On Target with John Whitehead
.
RutherfordInstitute
October 06, 2008
On Target with John Whitehead
.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Oil and Sovereignty - In Whose Interests?
The following is an excerpt from a paper by Craig B Hulet titled:
Oil and Sovereignty
In Whose Interests?
KC & Associates Investigations research Associates
P.O. Box 710, Amanda Park, WA 98526 360-288-2652
Oil and Sovereignty
In Whose Interests?
KC & Associates Investigations research Associates
P.O. Box 710, Amanda Park, WA 98526 360-288-2652
Americans are even less interested in the truth of these findings than they were over a decade ago regarding the findings of this author about similar meetings and policy formulations already decided upon long before the past President Bush Senior’s Administration sought to bomb Iraq into the stone age. In fact it was planned to do just that had Saddam Hussein not gone along with the deal offered him at the time. Boring as it might seem to draw this analogy here I shall reprint the policy formulations below. It all began with the Palestinian peace process. To quote the White House April, 1990 meeting:
The Trilateral countries could assist a possible peace process, as well as helping to reduce the dangers to their own interests deriving from a renewal of inter-State conflict in the Middle East, by pursuing issues of non-proliferation of chemical, biological and atomic weapons and of conventional disarmament in the region, as well as of limitation of arms sales to the areas. The extent to which peace in the region is currently endangered by past sales, both legal and illegal, of armaments and of technology cannot be exaggerated. (Task Force Report: the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, The Washington, D.C., Plenary Meeting of the Trilateral Commission, April 1990, p.74. See also the Triangle Paper report itself number 38, p. 32, issued May 1990)
This meeting of the infamous Trilateral Commission (much argued among conspiracy theorists still) did take place; it was hosted by then President George Bush Senior at the White House. Admitting that “The arms producing countries in the industrial world as well as the Soviet Union, some of its former satellites, and China share responsibility for this,” they hypocritically failed mentioning the presence for decades of American arms sales to many countries in the region by the United States itself, especially to Iraq; this is explainable, as Iraq is singled out in the same text.
In particular, the development both of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in the region would scarcely have been possible without access to Western materials and technology, and there has been a notable failure to face up to the fact of, and the implications of, these leakages both the Israel and to Arab States such as Iraq. Peace and stability in the Middle East will be difficult to ensure without a major international initiative designed to undo this damage--an initiative which may now be more readily achieved by agreement between East and West as a result of greatly improved climate of international relations. (Ibid.)0
This was the argument to intervene in the region and set up a permanent military presence to ensure stability in the Persian Gulf in the State of Saudi Arabia; the Soviet Union has collapsed and its presence was no longer a threat to the region. It was no longer a threat to Western and particularly American hegemony in the region then either. America under Mr. Bush Senior decided American hegemony was the future for the Middle East. Of course, it is common knowledge now that it was precisely this permanent military presence in the two Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia that set Ussamah bin Laden into motion after America had trained him and his followers along with the Taliban to stop Soviet expansion in the Central region of Afghanistan. The report goes on to say this:
Accordingly, urgent action should be taken to initiate linked nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament, control and verification measures in the Middle East. This is a matter which might appropriately be considered by the U.N. security Council in view of the serious threat to peace now posed by the proliferation of these weapons. (Ibid.)
Urgent action by the U.N. Security Council and the seemingly (at the time that is) ability of then President George Bush Sr. to simply pick up the phone and form an instantaneous coalition of western powers to attack Iraq after August, 2nd, 1990, is now easily explained, as I did during the period in question. Bush already had all the respective western powers lined up after Senator Robert Dole’s April 1990 mission to Iraq failed to get resolution on the question of Iraqi disarmament. Saddam Hussein simply said no, he would not disarm unless Israel did so as well. Of course Israel was not asked to disarm. The western powers that made up Bush’s immediate coalition are specifically those European nation-states which make up the Trilateral Commission itself: i.e., all of Western Europe, North America and Japan (Which is what the word “Trilateral” means in the organization’ name)
It is only in the context of those meetings during April and after Robert Dole’s failed mission to Iraq, that Ambassador to Iraq, Ms April Glaspie, and her remarks to Saddam Hussein during June and July of 1990 make sense. Saddam Hussien asked Ms Glaspie what America’s position was on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait? It was a long-standing dispute over who owned the strip of land between the two States and the separate very real dispute that Kuwait was “slant drilling” into Iraqi territory using newly developed technology of the wholey-owned Al Sabah family’s Kuwaiti firm of Santa Fe International. Glaspie’s response to Hussein was “that America would not get involved in Middle Eastern border disputes.” Saddam assumed wrongly that this left him free to resolve the situation with his own means. Many analysts saw these developments as Saddam Hussein having been clearly hoodwinked (“The Green Light” to it was called) into invading Kuwait and was duly shocked when President George Bush Sr. declared Hussein a “Hitler.”
I would be failing to do my job by not pointing out, as an aside, that the company Sante Fe International, owned 100 percent by the Al Sabah family of Kuwait had on its Board of Directors former President Gerald Ford (the President that appointed George Bush Senior to Director of the CIA), General Brent Scowcroft (at the time Bush Senior’s National Security Advisor) and Roderich Hills (husband of Carla Hills, Bush Senior’s Trade Representative).
One does not need to see conspiracy where policy formulations stated earlier in the same year, even just weeks or months before-hand laid out the political objectives. That the political objectives laid out earlier are fulfilled using war or conflict as the means is simply a von Clausewitzian understanding of the way the real world works, i.e., war is politics by other means.
Source: http://rosebusch.net/jeff/politics/hulet/Kuwait.htm
The Trilateral countries could assist a possible peace process, as well as helping to reduce the dangers to their own interests deriving from a renewal of inter-State conflict in the Middle East, by pursuing issues of non-proliferation of chemical, biological and atomic weapons and of conventional disarmament in the region, as well as of limitation of arms sales to the areas. The extent to which peace in the region is currently endangered by past sales, both legal and illegal, of armaments and of technology cannot be exaggerated. (Task Force Report: the Israeli-Palestinian Issue, The Washington, D.C., Plenary Meeting of the Trilateral Commission, April 1990, p.74. See also the Triangle Paper report itself number 38, p. 32, issued May 1990)
This meeting of the infamous Trilateral Commission (much argued among conspiracy theorists still) did take place; it was hosted by then President George Bush Senior at the White House. Admitting that “The arms producing countries in the industrial world as well as the Soviet Union, some of its former satellites, and China share responsibility for this,” they hypocritically failed mentioning the presence for decades of American arms sales to many countries in the region by the United States itself, especially to Iraq; this is explainable, as Iraq is singled out in the same text.
In particular, the development both of nuclear weapons and chemical weapons in the region would scarcely have been possible without access to Western materials and technology, and there has been a notable failure to face up to the fact of, and the implications of, these leakages both the Israel and to Arab States such as Iraq. Peace and stability in the Middle East will be difficult to ensure without a major international initiative designed to undo this damage--an initiative which may now be more readily achieved by agreement between East and West as a result of greatly improved climate of international relations. (Ibid.)0
This was the argument to intervene in the region and set up a permanent military presence to ensure stability in the Persian Gulf in the State of Saudi Arabia; the Soviet Union has collapsed and its presence was no longer a threat to the region. It was no longer a threat to Western and particularly American hegemony in the region then either. America under Mr. Bush Senior decided American hegemony was the future for the Middle East. Of course, it is common knowledge now that it was precisely this permanent military presence in the two Holy Lands of Saudi Arabia that set Ussamah bin Laden into motion after America had trained him and his followers along with the Taliban to stop Soviet expansion in the Central region of Afghanistan. The report goes on to say this:
Accordingly, urgent action should be taken to initiate linked nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament, control and verification measures in the Middle East. This is a matter which might appropriately be considered by the U.N. security Council in view of the serious threat to peace now posed by the proliferation of these weapons. (Ibid.)
Urgent action by the U.N. Security Council and the seemingly (at the time that is) ability of then President George Bush Sr. to simply pick up the phone and form an instantaneous coalition of western powers to attack Iraq after August, 2nd, 1990, is now easily explained, as I did during the period in question. Bush already had all the respective western powers lined up after Senator Robert Dole’s April 1990 mission to Iraq failed to get resolution on the question of Iraqi disarmament. Saddam Hussein simply said no, he would not disarm unless Israel did so as well. Of course Israel was not asked to disarm. The western powers that made up Bush’s immediate coalition are specifically those European nation-states which make up the Trilateral Commission itself: i.e., all of Western Europe, North America and Japan (Which is what the word “Trilateral” means in the organization’ name)
It is only in the context of those meetings during April and after Robert Dole’s failed mission to Iraq, that Ambassador to Iraq, Ms April Glaspie, and her remarks to Saddam Hussein during June and July of 1990 make sense. Saddam Hussien asked Ms Glaspie what America’s position was on the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait? It was a long-standing dispute over who owned the strip of land between the two States and the separate very real dispute that Kuwait was “slant drilling” into Iraqi territory using newly developed technology of the wholey-owned Al Sabah family’s Kuwaiti firm of Santa Fe International. Glaspie’s response to Hussein was “that America would not get involved in Middle Eastern border disputes.” Saddam assumed wrongly that this left him free to resolve the situation with his own means. Many analysts saw these developments as Saddam Hussein having been clearly hoodwinked (“The Green Light” to it was called) into invading Kuwait and was duly shocked when President George Bush Sr. declared Hussein a “Hitler.”
I would be failing to do my job by not pointing out, as an aside, that the company Sante Fe International, owned 100 percent by the Al Sabah family of Kuwait had on its Board of Directors former President Gerald Ford (the President that appointed George Bush Senior to Director of the CIA), General Brent Scowcroft (at the time Bush Senior’s National Security Advisor) and Roderich Hills (husband of Carla Hills, Bush Senior’s Trade Representative).
One does not need to see conspiracy where policy formulations stated earlier in the same year, even just weeks or months before-hand laid out the political objectives. That the political objectives laid out earlier are fulfilled using war or conflict as the means is simply a von Clausewitzian understanding of the way the real world works, i.e., war is politics by other means.
Source: http://rosebusch.net/jeff/politics/hulet/Kuwait.htm
.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
CFR: Bush, Obama Foreign Policy Only Differ in Rhetoric
James CorbettThe Corbett Report
17 September, 2009
In the latest podcast from Foreign Affairs—the public face of the Council on Foreign Relations—Gideon Rose and Robert McMahon discuss the differences in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama, concluding "there's a lot of rhetoric, but it's usually more about America and its ideals and what we want to be seen to be doing (whether in Gitmo or via interrogations or so forth) rather than the actual impact of our operations." Download the mp3 here.
17 September, 2009
In the latest podcast from Foreign Affairs—the public face of the Council on Foreign Relations—Gideon Rose and Robert McMahon discuss the differences in the foreign policy of Bush and Obama, concluding "there's a lot of rhetoric, but it's usually more about America and its ideals and what we want to be seen to be doing (whether in Gitmo or via interrogations or so forth) rather than the actual impact of our operations." Download the mp3 here.
As an example of the underlying similarity of Bush and Obama's foreign policies, they point out that Obama's "man in Afghanistan" Stan McChrystal was the former head of the Joint Special Operations Command...although they unsurprisingly leave out the fact that the JSOC was the special wing of the special ops community fingered by Seymour Hersh as Cheney's private assassination squad. Of course they could also have mentioned Defense Secretary Robert Gates as another obvious example of continuity between Bush and Obama in the defense sector. Or they could have pointed out that the Obama administration has merely replaced Bagram for Gitmo, a point made in an eloquent and powerful article from Andy Worthington released today. Or they could have pointed out that the Obama administration is going even further than Bush in invoking "state secrets" privileges in the ongoing rendition program (which has has also carried over from Bush).
Indeed, the CFR could have listed any of hundreds of other identical policies under Bush and Obama like those pointed out in the alternative media again and again and again. But perhaps they didn't need to point this out, after all, as anyone with political acumen has already come to the conclusion that Bush and Obama are like competing brands of cola; both were packaged and sold by elitist corporate interests and both are equally bad for you.
This is a message not lost on the Foreign Affairs audience. After all, as the mouthpiece of the Council on Foreign Relations, one would expect the audience of this podcast to be well aware of the political game. The CFR has, of course, been playing both sides of the political fence for decades, moving forward with their agenda of undermining American sovereignty ever since its founding in 1921 at the hands of Colonel Edward House (who also managed to puppeteer the Wilson administration and help found the Federal Reserve). The CFR was also identified by Carroll Quigley as the American version of a roundtable group created in England known as the Royal Institute for International Affairs and having as its aim "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and he economy of the world as a whole." If Carroll Quigley is to be dismissed as a mere "crazy conspiracy theorist" then so, too is Bill Clinton, who namedropped Quigley as his mentor in his 1992 presidential nomination speech.
Those wishing to find out more about Quigley, the roundtable groups, and their use of both sides of the fake left/right political paradigm to advance their agenda, they are directed to Episode 058 of The Corbett Report. Those who are already well aware of this can merely file away this CFR podcast for future reference when confronted by a skeptic who refuses to believe that Bush and Obama are the same unless they are told it by a big, powerful, elitist "thinktank."
.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Commentary: Prosecuting CIA a foolish move
Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back
He says polls show most Americans don't want investigation of CIA interrogations
He says Justice Department probe will demoralize agents who fight terror
August 28, 2009 -- Updated 1043 GMT
updated 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com, is the author of "A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano." Read his column here.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. says the administration's probe of CIA interrogations will demoralize agents who fight terror.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The Obama administration actually has me feeling sorry for the Central Intelligence Agency. This week, the administration hit the CIA with both barrels.
First, it announced that the intelligence agency would no longer be responsible for interrogating suspects in terrorism cases. This task will now be conducted by a new group of interrogators overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
There's hope and change for you. Those who applaud the change probably hope it means no more headlines like the one this week about how CIA interrogators threatened al Qaeda prisoner Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri with a gun and an electric drill to get information.
Al-Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead. Details of his alleged treatment came to light after a federal judge in New York ordered a redacted version of a CIA inspector-general's report released as part of a lawsuit.
The second blast came when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder named a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of CIA prisoner abuse cases after the Justice Department's Office of Personal Responsibility -- the department's watchdog -- recommended considering prosecution of CIA employees or contractors for rough interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan that allegedly went beyond approved limits. Career federal prosecutor John Durham will lead the investigation.
Don't Miss
Borger: CIA flap a huge headache for Obama
In Depth: Commentaries
It's not every day that you see an administration devour itself. But that's pretty much what happens when you have the Justice Department investigating the CIA. This will poison the relationship between the entities, which still have to work together to keep America safe in the war on terror.
And we're expected to believe that Holder is acting on his own, without approval from the president. Obama has said he wants to "look forward, not back" and called this "a time for reflection, not retribution." Yet, this week, the White House said that decisions "about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general."
This is not a good look -- not for Holder, not for Obama and not for the administration.
Just ask the American people. In May, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 57 percent of those questioned didn't want Congress to investigate Bush officials who authorized harsh interrogation procedures. Forty-two percent supported an inquiry. Fifty-five percent of people also didn't want an investigation by an independent panel. At the time, no one asked how respondents would feel about a special prosecutor conducting his own investigation, but it's a good bet that this will also be unpopular.
What do Americans know that the Obama Justice Department doesn't? Maybe this: If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith, oftentimes after consulting with lawyers about the legality of their methods.
By the way, where did those lawyers work? This is the poetic part. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo -- the authors of the so-called "torture memos" that were the subject of so much reporting a few months ago -- they worked in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
That would be the same Justice Department that is now investigating CIA officers for, in some cases, doing what the department's lawyers told them was legally permissible to do.
Just how far down the rabbit hole does this administration intend to go? The White House would have more credibility on the interrogation issue if it had not decided to continue the Bush administration's practice of rendition, which is basically the exporting of terrorism suspects to third-party countries for detention and interrogation.
The administration promises that the State Department will closely monitor the program to ensure that prisoners are not tortured. And, administration officials insist, the host countries have offered "diplomatic assurances" that they'll be on their best behavior.
This policy is a farce. The whole reason an administration uses rendition is because foreign countries have more latitude in questioning suspects and they can push boundaries to get information. If we try to take that away, then why continue the program? Why not just question suspects in the United States?
It points to the disingenuousness of this whole exercise. We want the intelligence, and we know that the lives of countless Americans might hinge on whether or not we get it. So we're not picky about what these host countries have to do to get terror suspects to spill the beans. We just like to play dumb about how the foreign authorities went about extracting it.
It's no wonder that human rights groups condemned the administration's decision, insisting that the rendition policy allows the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They also pointed out that the Bush administration also got "diplomatic assurances" and that they were meaningless.
Those assurances are meaningless -- and pointless. Just like using the criminal justice system to settle scores and portray one administration as morally superior to another.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/28/navarrette.cia/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
.
Ruben Navarrette: Obama said he wanted to look forward, not back
He says polls show most Americans don't want investigation of CIA interrogations
He says Justice Department probe will demoralize agents who fight terror
August 28, 2009 -- Updated 1043 GMT
updated 2 hours, 57 minutes ago
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr., a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com, is the author of "A Darker Shade of Crimson: Odyssey of a Harvard Chicano." Read his column here.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. says the administration's probe of CIA interrogations will demoralize agents who fight terror.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The Obama administration actually has me feeling sorry for the Central Intelligence Agency. This week, the administration hit the CIA with both barrels.
First, it announced that the intelligence agency would no longer be responsible for interrogating suspects in terrorism cases. This task will now be conducted by a new group of interrogators overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
There's hope and change for you. Those who applaud the change probably hope it means no more headlines like the one this week about how CIA interrogators threatened al Qaeda prisoner Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri with a gun and an electric drill to get information.
Al-Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead. Details of his alleged treatment came to light after a federal judge in New York ordered a redacted version of a CIA inspector-general's report released as part of a lawsuit.
The second blast came when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder named a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of CIA prisoner abuse cases after the Justice Department's Office of Personal Responsibility -- the department's watchdog -- recommended considering prosecution of CIA employees or contractors for rough interrogations in Iraq and Afghanistan that allegedly went beyond approved limits. Career federal prosecutor John Durham will lead the investigation.
Don't Miss
Borger: CIA flap a huge headache for Obama
In Depth: Commentaries
It's not every day that you see an administration devour itself. But that's pretty much what happens when you have the Justice Department investigating the CIA. This will poison the relationship between the entities, which still have to work together to keep America safe in the war on terror.
And we're expected to believe that Holder is acting on his own, without approval from the president. Obama has said he wants to "look forward, not back" and called this "a time for reflection, not retribution." Yet, this week, the White House said that decisions "about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general."
This is not a good look -- not for Holder, not for Obama and not for the administration.
Just ask the American people. In May, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found that 57 percent of those questioned didn't want Congress to investigate Bush officials who authorized harsh interrogation procedures. Forty-two percent supported an inquiry. Fifty-five percent of people also didn't want an investigation by an independent panel. At the time, no one asked how respondents would feel about a special prosecutor conducting his own investigation, but it's a good bet that this will also be unpopular.
What do Americans know that the Obama Justice Department doesn't? Maybe this: If you wanted to demoralize and destroy the country's intelligence agencies, and thus put its people at risk, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more effective way of doing it than by prosecuting CIA agents who did the nation's dirty work and acted in good faith, oftentimes after consulting with lawyers about the legality of their methods.
By the way, where did those lawyers work? This is the poetic part. In the case of Steven Bradbury, Jay Bybee, and John Yoo -- the authors of the so-called "torture memos" that were the subject of so much reporting a few months ago -- they worked in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
That would be the same Justice Department that is now investigating CIA officers for, in some cases, doing what the department's lawyers told them was legally permissible to do.
Just how far down the rabbit hole does this administration intend to go? The White House would have more credibility on the interrogation issue if it had not decided to continue the Bush administration's practice of rendition, which is basically the exporting of terrorism suspects to third-party countries for detention and interrogation.
The administration promises that the State Department will closely monitor the program to ensure that prisoners are not tortured. And, administration officials insist, the host countries have offered "diplomatic assurances" that they'll be on their best behavior.
This policy is a farce. The whole reason an administration uses rendition is because foreign countries have more latitude in questioning suspects and they can push boundaries to get information. If we try to take that away, then why continue the program? Why not just question suspects in the United States?
It points to the disingenuousness of this whole exercise. We want the intelligence, and we know that the lives of countless Americans might hinge on whether or not we get it. So we're not picky about what these host countries have to do to get terror suspects to spill the beans. We just like to play dumb about how the foreign authorities went about extracting it.
It's no wonder that human rights groups condemned the administration's decision, insisting that the rendition policy allows the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They also pointed out that the Bush administration also got "diplomatic assurances" and that they were meaningless.
Those assurances are meaningless -- and pointless. Just like using the criminal justice system to settle scores and portray one administration as morally superior to another.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/28/navarrette.cia/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn
.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Behind all the rhetoric there is no change
Just more of the same...
Less than a month into his tenure in office, President Obama signed another astronomical stop-gap $787 Billion Stimulus Package to revive the languishing U.S. economy.* Remember that his predecessor George Bush had also demanded (or there would be riots in the streets) a similar Billion Dollar Bail-Out in September of 2008. Just, More of the Same!
Well, folks if you haven't noticed the Hard-Sell is back. 'W' is gone, but, the pushy, overbearing, "I know what's right for the country" rationale is alive and well in the new Obama Administration. It reminds me of the proverb: "The more things change, the more they remain the same". It's like Deja Vu, all over again!
Health Care, wait, no! Health Insurance Reform.
Public Option, wait, no! Government Option.
Town Hall meetings, shouts, brown-shirts, nazis, un-Americans, etc.
Where and when will it end?
The Hard-Sell never ends, it only demands more concessions when you give in to its ruthless and relentless assaults or manipulation.
The government now owns banks, car companies, insurance companies, etc.
Now, it wants to control your health? A state controlled health monopoly? Hold the Pickle!
If you thought it was difficult dealing with AT&T, way back then? Wait until they establish the AH&P (American Health and Pharmaceuticals)?
Yes, I want to change my doctor! Please hold, I will transfer you to that department......Please press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish, ....Now if you live in Alabama press 1, in Alaska press 2,...
And to think that we have almost 4 more years of change to go? Heaven help us!
MORE BOONDOGGLES, MORE $800 TOILET SEATS, MORE $300 SCREW DRIVERS....
How about 8 new Corporate jets for Congress to ferry back and forth from their nation building, sightseeing, fund raising and campaigns?**
The rhetoric continues, and frankly I don't have the time or the interest in listening to more of the same: Hard Sell!
Arsenio.
*http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/02/17/Signed-sealed-delivered-ARRA/
**http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26000.html
.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Agenda-Driven Response: HAARP and the Army's Land-Grab in Colorado
- by Deanna Spingola ©, 22 June 2008
At the president's discretion, along with those covert councils who supervise him, and without congressional or constitutional oversight, fifteen Executive Branch Secretaries control all federal bureaucracies which exert dictatorial power over every aspect of our lives. These agencies and their many sub-agencies facilitate U.N. programs including Agenda 21, developed during the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992. These regulatory, metastasized Departments are: Agriculture (1889), Commerce (1903), Defense (1947), Education (1979), Energy (1977), Health and Human Services (1953), Homeland Security (November 25, 2002, absorbed FEMA in 2003 which was created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979), Housing and Urban Development (1965), Interior (1849), Labor (1913), State (1789), Transportation (1967), Treasury (1789), and Veterans Affairs (1988), and the Attorney General (1789).1
Significantly, under the Bilderberg-approved George W. Bush, cabinet-level status was granted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, created December 2, 1970) and to the U.S. Trade Representative (1962).2 In addition to power over our children through education, price of gas through manipulation of energy, etc., this allows a sitting president to bypass Congress regarding anything and everything that has to do with the environment - a veritable Pandora's Box. With cabinet-level status for the Trade Representative, the president may sign treaties without congressional approval. A declaration of war, once required, was quietly disbanded with the current, unconstitutional king's cabinet structure.
The elevation of the EPA was first attempted in March 1990 under G. H. W. Bush. He wanted it in time to celebrate Earth Day on April 22, 1990.3 Clinton also attempted to empower the EPA which, like FEMA and Nixon's 1972 Regional Councils, is divided into ten regions (for better control) - see maps. The EPA declares its Agenda 21 commitment, as noted on the web site.
The Army makes it perfectly clear that it intends to seize private property in southeastern Colorado. They don't "need" the land for training purposes - that is a pretext. They have sufficient mega military training bases in Iraq (along with the world's biggest and most expensive embassy), also on plundered land. The power of eminent domain is an oft-used seizure tactic; there are others. On February 4, 2008, Not 1 More Acre!, advocates for the beleaguered citizens of southeastern Colorado, said: "The Pentagon and its military contractors are continuing to push plans to more than triple the size of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern Colorado - in contravention of a law passed by Congress which forbids them to do so."
Remember, the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, since 1947, are under the jurisdiction of the king's cabinet. Congressional leaders, frequently indebted to campaign contributors and deep-pocketed lobbyists, go through the legislative motions and pass laws they can't or won't enforce. Many sincere officials are out-numbered by the compliant power-loving majority, who long ago abdicated their sworn responsibilities - just like those who handed America's financial resources to the Federal Reserve private bankers - the internationalist bankers who currently manage the president, his cabinet, elections and the monopoly media's talking heads.
Despite sounding conspiratorial, it is a fact that the U.S. has the capability of manipulating "the climate for military use." They have applied those "modification techniques" for "more than half a century" covertly maneuvering "weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the U.S. to disrupt and dominate entire regions" - against "enemy countries, friendly nations" or even, dare I say, the U.S. to "destabilize economies, ecosystems and agriculture."4
According to a top-secret congressional hearing held March 20, 1974, the military used weather modification in Vietnam and by 1977 was spending $2.8 million a year on weather-modification research; the same year that the United Nations banned the "hostile use of all environmental modification techniques." Allegedly, the U.S. discontinued all weather-modification research in 1979.5
HAARP, initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO) "was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation "which owns the HAARP patents, and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defense giants. APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994."6
"BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research. The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its U.S. subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. and their Electronic Warfare division. In September 2007, BAE Systems Inc. received the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) top award for "outstanding leadership and engineering innovation in designing, constructing, and activating the Defense Department's High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) instrument." "HAARP, the world's largest and most capable ionospheric research facility, will serve the U.S. scientific and defense communities for the next 30 to 50 years." HAARP was dedicated June 27, 2007 and is "jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and DARPA.78
The Department of Defense and the CIA, the president's enforcement agencies, has contracts with E-Systems, founded in 1964. The CIA is "the intelligence-gathering and covert-action arm of the president." It is not "some sort of independently run mythical loose cannon."9 E-Systems, owned by war-profiteer Raytheon since 1994, "manufactures and distributes electronic systems and communications networks, including electronic warfare equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, and highly sophisticated spying devices."10 In the early 1970s, E-Systems installed communications equipment on the President's Air Force One.11 This created an airborne command post for the Pentagon and the White House. This "Doomsday Plane" enables the president to manage a nuclear war.12
Although, there is no hard evidence that HAARP has or will be used for military purposes, the involvement of the Department of Defense would decidedly suggest such use. After all, they are not recognized for life and health improvement studies. Advanced technology and weaponry would provide ample opportunities to achieve their ultimate "full spectrum dominance," including the "globalization of the world's economy."13
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "has a mandate 'to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change.' This mandate includes environmental warfare. 'Geo-engineering' is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists."14 How convenient - just ignore the horrific possibilities and implications.
HAARP was unable to detect the "precise location of tunnels and underground shelters which was defined as a "serious weakness in the Department of Defense plans for precision attacks on hardened targets and for counter proliferation." Therefore, increased funding of $75 million a year was allotted, in May 1994, for further research.15
Residents of southeastern Colorado had already suffered through seven years of drought, accompanied by major financial losses due to the skyrocketing cost of hay, for which there was no assistance.16 Benefits, financial or otherwise, are typically and repeatedly extended to well-connected corporations - rarely to independent, struggling producers.
Then in December 2006, two back to back blizzards delivered record snow volume of 3 to 4 feet, with snow drifts as high as 10 to 18 feet causing financial losses of at least $500 million, economically devastating the people.17 During the storms, between 10,000 and 15,000 cattle perished from starvation and exposure. The numbers increased as the snow melted and more carcasses were revealed. The area affected was home to "345,000 head of cattle and calves, 23,500 head of producing sows and 112,000 head of sheep and lambs."18 Livestock contributes 70% to Colorado's agricultural gross product."19
The record storms forced "the closures of Interstate Highways 25, 76 and 70, as well as U.S. Routes 350, 36 and 85." Following Holiday Blizzards I and II, as they were named, more than a foot of additional snow fell on January 4-5, bringing the total snowfall for 16 days to more than 80 inches in some areas.20
On January 16, 2007, newly elected Governor Bill Ritter wrote to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns asking for federal "financial assistance to offset livestock and agricultural losses and to help prevent additional cattle deaths." Additionally, he sought funds to "help cover" the costs of "snow removal and emergency rescue operations." Ritter wanted the USDA to "declare the following counties disaster areas: Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Lincoln, Otero and Prowers counties,"21 some of the same land that the Army had targeted for seizure.
The federal government offered emergency "loans" to the ranchers and farmers, people who already had burdensome bank loans.22 The state also offered funds for "the rescue and recovery of livestock." But, the most immediate help came from other ranchers - neighbors helping neighbors. Legislation was approved for those who suffered livestock losses based on a presidential disaster declaration. Ranchers then counted on federal help.23
Unfortunately, there were restrictions. According to their disaster declarations, "thousands of dead cattle" apparently were not "enough of a disaster" for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who "denied disaster relief and the attendant low-interest loans" to the ten Army-targeted counties devastated by the blizzards in southeast Colorado.24 Lack of assistance might force some discouraged ranchers to sell their land. Although ranchers were not "holding their breath" for state or federal relief, such relief was desired and somewhat expected, given other disaster declarations programs instigated by FEMA and the USDA.25
Governor Ritter expressed disappointment over assistance conditions that were impossible to meet. It was an additional setback to ranchers and farmers who watched their livelihoods dissolve after "prolonged drought followed by devastating storms." Ritter, along with a state delegation appealed the USDA decision against granting low-interest loans. However, the ranchers had "sustained such terrific losses that more bank loans" would not have kept "them from going under."26
The Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2007, in the works for several years, would have provided payments to ranchers for livestock losses due to floods, wildfires, hurricanes and blizzards. However, USDA denial was based on its assessment that the counties had not suffered 30 percent production losses - not economic losses."27 "One factor leading to the limited assistance was that livestock do not fall under USDA crop disaster designations, since livestock are not a crop."28
Additionally, freezing rain during those December 2006 storms resulted in "significant ice accumulation" causing "tens of thousands of people" in the five affected states to lose electrical power, "paralyzing much of the Great Plains. Ice accumulation also downed trees and communication towers."29
"The worst victims of the December storms, particularly in Colorado's High Plains, were cattle; thousands were trapped by heavy snow and strong winds, which created drifts up to 20 feet in some areas. Strong north winds caused unbelievable blizzard conditions, with drifts as tall as two-story buildings."30
That blizzard may affect cattle reproduction for years to come. Bulls experienced reproductive problems "due to frozen testicles." Cows whose embryos died in early pregnancy due to the cold were vulnerable to deadly infections. Large numbers of "stillborn or aborted calves" resulted in a decreased "number of replacement females. Such reproductive problems resulting from the blizzard may have an economic impact for the next three to five years."31
Some hay deliveries arrived weeks later, too late for the deceased cows. "Some ranchers felt the distribution could have been timelier in execution. Ranchers and farmers have not received federal disaster relief and emergency aid, such as money for livestock rescue and recovery."32 Too little, too late - just like New Orleans and currently, Iowa. FEMA immediately responded on 9/11. Debris, which may have provided evidence, was hurriedly cleared away, an anomaly in such circumstances. The EPA, also very quickly, declared that the toxic air was harmless. People, trusting authority, accepted the falsehood. Many individuals developed serious health problems and have since died.
Colorado applicants for assistance had to leap through numerous hoops despite very public, appeasing, sympathetic rhetoric and philanthropic performances associated with the Presidential Snow Emergency Declarations. One may view the After Action Report. Yes, folks, we can trust the government - NOT!
HAARP: Part 1HAARP: Part 2Who's Controlling the Weather?HAARP - Nature Modification WeaponChemtrails and Fort CarsonJust why/how did healthy, 51-year old Brig. Gen. Bruce Barlow (scroll down) die? He was stationed at Fort Carson.
About the Author
Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution. Deanna's Web Site
Unfortunately, despite the government's responsibility to protect citizen's rights, it is blatantly obvious that the government is following an alternative, deliberately destructive agenda including: rural cleansing of the resource-producing population, economic destabilization, runaway inflation, unrestrained immigration, illegal surveillance, the NAU, deteriorating infrastructure, ethnic disparity, de-population through war, disease, toxicity, and chemtrails; selective response to "natural" disasters, destruction of the middle class, seizure of private property and obliteration of God-given liberties - all at the hands of an elite ruling class - crony monopoly capitalists and war profiteers, intent on stealing and controlling the earth's resources, a contrived diminishing food supply and the surviving useless eaters, still obedient and moderately productive. What happened to that illusive balance of power?
At the president's discretion, along with those covert councils who supervise him, and without congressional or constitutional oversight, fifteen Executive Branch Secretaries control all federal bureaucracies which exert dictatorial power over every aspect of our lives. These agencies and their many sub-agencies facilitate U.N. programs including Agenda 21, developed during the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992. These regulatory, metastasized Departments are: Agriculture (1889), Commerce (1903), Defense (1947), Education (1979), Energy (1977), Health and Human Services (1953), Homeland Security (November 25, 2002, absorbed FEMA in 2003 which was created by Presidential Order on April 1, 1979), Housing and Urban Development (1965), Interior (1849), Labor (1913), State (1789), Transportation (1967), Treasury (1789), and Veterans Affairs (1988), and the Attorney General (1789).1
Significantly, under the Bilderberg-approved George W. Bush, cabinet-level status was granted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, created December 2, 1970) and to the U.S. Trade Representative (1962).2 In addition to power over our children through education, price of gas through manipulation of energy, etc., this allows a sitting president to bypass Congress regarding anything and everything that has to do with the environment - a veritable Pandora's Box. With cabinet-level status for the Trade Representative, the president may sign treaties without congressional approval. A declaration of war, once required, was quietly disbanded with the current, unconstitutional king's cabinet structure.
The elevation of the EPA was first attempted in March 1990 under G. H. W. Bush. He wanted it in time to celebrate Earth Day on April 22, 1990.3 Clinton also attempted to empower the EPA which, like FEMA and Nixon's 1972 Regional Councils, is divided into ten regions (for better control) - see maps. The EPA declares its Agenda 21 commitment, as noted on the web site.
The Army makes it perfectly clear that it intends to seize private property in southeastern Colorado. They don't "need" the land for training purposes - that is a pretext. They have sufficient mega military training bases in Iraq (along with the world's biggest and most expensive embassy), also on plundered land. The power of eminent domain is an oft-used seizure tactic; there are others. On February 4, 2008, Not 1 More Acre!, advocates for the beleaguered citizens of southeastern Colorado, said: "The Pentagon and its military contractors are continuing to push plans to more than triple the size of the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site in southeastern Colorado - in contravention of a law passed by Congress which forbids them to do so."
Remember, the Pentagon and the Department of Defense, since 1947, are under the jurisdiction of the king's cabinet. Congressional leaders, frequently indebted to campaign contributors and deep-pocketed lobbyists, go through the legislative motions and pass laws they can't or won't enforce. Many sincere officials are out-numbered by the compliant power-loving majority, who long ago abdicated their sworn responsibilities - just like those who handed America's financial resources to the Federal Reserve private bankers - the internationalist bankers who currently manage the president, his cabinet, elections and the monopoly media's talking heads.
Despite sounding conspiratorial, it is a fact that the U.S. has the capability of manipulating "the climate for military use." They have applied those "modification techniques" for "more than half a century" covertly maneuvering "weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the U.S. to disrupt and dominate entire regions" - against "enemy countries, friendly nations" or even, dare I say, the U.S. to "destabilize economies, ecosystems and agriculture."4
According to a top-secret congressional hearing held March 20, 1974, the military used weather modification in Vietnam and by 1977 was spending $2.8 million a year on weather-modification research; the same year that the United Nations banned the "hostile use of all environmental modification techniques." Allegedly, the U.S. discontinued all weather-modification research in 1979.5
HAARP, initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO) "was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation "which owns the HAARP patents, and British Aerospace Systems (BAES). The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defense giants. APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994."6
"BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research. The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its U.S. subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. and their Electronic Warfare division. In September 2007, BAE Systems Inc. received the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) top award for "outstanding leadership and engineering innovation in designing, constructing, and activating the Defense Department's High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) instrument." "HAARP, the world's largest and most capable ionospheric research facility, will serve the U.S. scientific and defense communities for the next 30 to 50 years." HAARP was dedicated June 27, 2007 and is "jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and DARPA.78
The Department of Defense and the CIA, the president's enforcement agencies, has contracts with E-Systems, founded in 1964. The CIA is "the intelligence-gathering and covert-action arm of the president." It is not "some sort of independently run mythical loose cannon."9 E-Systems, owned by war-profiteer Raytheon since 1994, "manufactures and distributes electronic systems and communications networks, including electronic warfare equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, and highly sophisticated spying devices."10 In the early 1970s, E-Systems installed communications equipment on the President's Air Force One.11 This created an airborne command post for the Pentagon and the White House. This "Doomsday Plane" enables the president to manage a nuclear war.12
Although, there is no hard evidence that HAARP has or will be used for military purposes, the involvement of the Department of Defense would decidedly suggest such use. After all, they are not recognized for life and health improvement studies. Advanced technology and weaponry would provide ample opportunities to achieve their ultimate "full spectrum dominance," including the "globalization of the world's economy."13
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "has a mandate 'to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change.' This mandate includes environmental warfare. 'Geo-engineering' is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists."14 How convenient - just ignore the horrific possibilities and implications.
HAARP was unable to detect the "precise location of tunnels and underground shelters which was defined as a "serious weakness in the Department of Defense plans for precision attacks on hardened targets and for counter proliferation." Therefore, increased funding of $75 million a year was allotted, in May 1994, for further research.15
Residents of southeastern Colorado had already suffered through seven years of drought, accompanied by major financial losses due to the skyrocketing cost of hay, for which there was no assistance.16 Benefits, financial or otherwise, are typically and repeatedly extended to well-connected corporations - rarely to independent, struggling producers.
Then in December 2006, two back to back blizzards delivered record snow volume of 3 to 4 feet, with snow drifts as high as 10 to 18 feet causing financial losses of at least $500 million, economically devastating the people.17 During the storms, between 10,000 and 15,000 cattle perished from starvation and exposure. The numbers increased as the snow melted and more carcasses were revealed. The area affected was home to "345,000 head of cattle and calves, 23,500 head of producing sows and 112,000 head of sheep and lambs."18 Livestock contributes 70% to Colorado's agricultural gross product."19
The record storms forced "the closures of Interstate Highways 25, 76 and 70, as well as U.S. Routes 350, 36 and 85." Following Holiday Blizzards I and II, as they were named, more than a foot of additional snow fell on January 4-5, bringing the total snowfall for 16 days to more than 80 inches in some areas.20
On January 16, 2007, newly elected Governor Bill Ritter wrote to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns asking for federal "financial assistance to offset livestock and agricultural losses and to help prevent additional cattle deaths." Additionally, he sought funds to "help cover" the costs of "snow removal and emergency rescue operations." Ritter wanted the USDA to "declare the following counties disaster areas: Baca, Bent, Cheyenne, Crowley, Huerfano, Kiowa, Las Animas, Lincoln, Otero and Prowers counties,"21 some of the same land that the Army had targeted for seizure.
The federal government offered emergency "loans" to the ranchers and farmers, people who already had burdensome bank loans.22 The state also offered funds for "the rescue and recovery of livestock." But, the most immediate help came from other ranchers - neighbors helping neighbors. Legislation was approved for those who suffered livestock losses based on a presidential disaster declaration. Ranchers then counted on federal help.23
Unfortunately, there were restrictions. According to their disaster declarations, "thousands of dead cattle" apparently were not "enough of a disaster" for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who "denied disaster relief and the attendant low-interest loans" to the ten Army-targeted counties devastated by the blizzards in southeast Colorado.24 Lack of assistance might force some discouraged ranchers to sell their land. Although ranchers were not "holding their breath" for state or federal relief, such relief was desired and somewhat expected, given other disaster declarations programs instigated by FEMA and the USDA.25
Governor Ritter expressed disappointment over assistance conditions that were impossible to meet. It was an additional setback to ranchers and farmers who watched their livelihoods dissolve after "prolonged drought followed by devastating storms." Ritter, along with a state delegation appealed the USDA decision against granting low-interest loans. However, the ranchers had "sustained such terrific losses that more bank loans" would not have kept "them from going under."26
The Emergency Farm Relief Act of 2007, in the works for several years, would have provided payments to ranchers for livestock losses due to floods, wildfires, hurricanes and blizzards. However, USDA denial was based on its assessment that the counties had not suffered 30 percent production losses - not economic losses."27 "One factor leading to the limited assistance was that livestock do not fall under USDA crop disaster designations, since livestock are not a crop."28
Additionally, freezing rain during those December 2006 storms resulted in "significant ice accumulation" causing "tens of thousands of people" in the five affected states to lose electrical power, "paralyzing much of the Great Plains. Ice accumulation also downed trees and communication towers."29
"The worst victims of the December storms, particularly in Colorado's High Plains, were cattle; thousands were trapped by heavy snow and strong winds, which created drifts up to 20 feet in some areas. Strong north winds caused unbelievable blizzard conditions, with drifts as tall as two-story buildings."30
That blizzard may affect cattle reproduction for years to come. Bulls experienced reproductive problems "due to frozen testicles." Cows whose embryos died in early pregnancy due to the cold were vulnerable to deadly infections. Large numbers of "stillborn or aborted calves" resulted in a decreased "number of replacement females. Such reproductive problems resulting from the blizzard may have an economic impact for the next three to five years."31
Some hay deliveries arrived weeks later, too late for the deceased cows. "Some ranchers felt the distribution could have been timelier in execution. Ranchers and farmers have not received federal disaster relief and emergency aid, such as money for livestock rescue and recovery."32 Too little, too late - just like New Orleans and currently, Iowa. FEMA immediately responded on 9/11. Debris, which may have provided evidence, was hurriedly cleared away, an anomaly in such circumstances. The EPA, also very quickly, declared that the toxic air was harmless. People, trusting authority, accepted the falsehood. Many individuals developed serious health problems and have since died.
Colorado applicants for assistance had to leap through numerous hoops despite very public, appeasing, sympathetic rhetoric and philanthropic performances associated with the Presidential Snow Emergency Declarations. One may view the After Action Report. Yes, folks, we can trust the government - NOT!
HAARP: Part 1HAARP: Part 2Who's Controlling the Weather?HAARP - Nature Modification WeaponChemtrails and Fort CarsonJust why/how did healthy, 51-year old Brig. Gen. Bruce Barlow (scroll down) die? He was stationed at Fort Carson.
Endnotes
1^ President Bush's Cabinet
2^ Ibid
3^ "House Panel Votes to Elevate The E.P.A. to Cabinet Status," New York Times March 14, 1990
4^ Michel Chossudovsky, "Weather warfare, Beware the US military's experiments with climatic warfare," December 7, 2007
5^ Drake Bennett, "Don't like the weather? Change it," July 3, 2005
6^ Ibid
7^ Ibid
8^ USA. BAE Systems space weather research facility wins top award
9^ Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA & George Bush, the Untold Story of America's Greatest Financial Debacle, 1992, Introduction
10^ The Princeton Review, Internship: E-SYSTEMS
11^ Brazil: Amazon Contractor Raytheon has CIA Ties by Pratap Chatterjee, Inter Press Service, December 3, 1995
12^ Chossudovsky, op. cit.
13^ Ibid.
14^ Ibid
15^ HAARP: Detection and Imaging of Underground Structures Using ELF/VLF Radio Waves
16^ State, ranchers fear record loss of cattle, Toll from snowstorms expected to rattle beef industry in Colorado by Deborah Frazier and David Montero, Rocky Mountain News, January 3, 2007
17^ Amy Gillentine, Colorado's ranchers face 7-figure losses because of last month's Snowfall
18^ Gov. Ritter Seeks Federal Aid For Livestock Losses, January 16, 2007
19^ USDA Press Release: USDA Approves Blizzard-Relief Loans To Ranchers In 10 Southeast Colorado Counties, January 26, 2007
20^ December 20-21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard
21^ Gov. Ritter Seeks ... op. cit.
22^ USDA Press Release, op. cit
23^ Amy Gillentine, op. cit.
24^ Editorial, Ranchers deserve federal aid, February 13, 2007
25^ Emergency Responses for High Plains Cattle Affected by the December 28-31, 2006, Blizzard by Bimal Kanti Paul, Deborah Che, and Vicki L. Tinnon, Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas Quick Response Research Report 191. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center
26^ Editorial, Ranchers deserve federal aid, February 13, 2007
27^ Ibid
28^ Bimal Kanti Paul et al, op. cit.
1^ President Bush's Cabinet
2^ Ibid
3^ "House Panel Votes to Elevate The E.P.A. to Cabinet Status," New York Times March 14, 1990
4^ Michel Chossudovsky, "Weather warfare, Beware the US military's experiments with climatic warfare," December 7, 2007
5^ Drake Bennett, "Don't like the weather? Change it," July 3, 2005
6^ Ibid
7^ Ibid
8^ USA. BAE Systems space weather research facility wins top award
9^ Pete Brewton, The Mafia, CIA & George Bush, the Untold Story of America's Greatest Financial Debacle, 1992, Introduction
10^ The Princeton Review, Internship: E-SYSTEMS
11^ Brazil: Amazon Contractor Raytheon has CIA Ties by Pratap Chatterjee, Inter Press Service, December 3, 1995
12^ Chossudovsky, op. cit.
13^ Ibid.
14^ Ibid
15^ HAARP: Detection and Imaging of Underground Structures Using ELF/VLF Radio Waves
16^ State, ranchers fear record loss of cattle, Toll from snowstorms expected to rattle beef industry in Colorado by Deborah Frazier and David Montero, Rocky Mountain News, January 3, 2007
17^ Amy Gillentine, Colorado's ranchers face 7-figure losses because of last month's Snowfall
18^ Gov. Ritter Seeks Federal Aid For Livestock Losses, January 16, 2007
19^ USDA Press Release: USDA Approves Blizzard-Relief Loans To Ranchers In 10 Southeast Colorado Counties, January 26, 2007
20^ December 20-21, 2006 Colorado Blizzard
21^ Gov. Ritter Seeks ... op. cit.
22^ USDA Press Release, op. cit
23^ Amy Gillentine, op. cit.
24^ Editorial, Ranchers deserve federal aid, February 13, 2007
25^ Emergency Responses for High Plains Cattle Affected by the December 28-31, 2006, Blizzard by Bimal Kanti Paul, Deborah Che, and Vicki L. Tinnon, Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas Quick Response Research Report 191. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Natural Hazards Center
26^ Editorial, Ranchers deserve federal aid, February 13, 2007
27^ Ibid
28^ Bimal Kanti Paul et al, op. cit.
About the Author
Deanna Spingola has been a quilt designer and is the author of two books. She has traveled extensively teaching and lecturing on her unique methods. She has always been an avid reader of non-fiction works designed to educate rather than entertain. She is active in family history research and lectures on that topic. Currently she is the director of the local Family History Center. She has a great interest in politics and the direction of current government policies, particularly as they relate to the Constitution. Deanna's Web Site
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)